Tonights debate

[Cat slave]

Did anyone watch ABCs 4 hour debate featuring both "sides"??

I thought Thompson was steady, focused and right on. Huckabee sorta
redeemed himself in my eyes. Of course I watched all of the Pubs debate
but could only stomach occasional surfings over the Dems. God, that was
scary!:disbelief:

[Moby]

Do you know Fred's background? He's kind of like Bush. Everyone that knew his background didn't want him to be President (accept those that were going to profit).

From what you say on this board I can't imagine that having a professional lobbyist in the White House is really what you want. Although he does play the part of a kind hearted and wise leader well enough for people to pay him for acting.

[disrupter]

I is amazing how differently people view it.

Republicans:

I watched both sides [missed the 1st 15min of Repubs].
Giuliani actually scored a point with his very specific reasons for not reporting illegals, 1)children in school, 2)people at the hospital & 3)reporting crime.
Of course his whole caustic tired warrior on terrorism & 911 is DOA with me.

Fred was pleasant but about as clueless as the rest of the Republicans.

McCain scored several points with his talk about the environment, global warming. q: if securing the border is such a given why is he not dealing with it right now? what the hell is he waiting for?

Ron Paul makes some very relevant points i do agree with. But i see them as independent elements.
Sometimes his drawing some single connection through everything begs my credibility.

Only Ron Paul might get my choice,
& perhaps McCain in an emergency.

Democrats:

I liked Hillary's vulnerability,
when she gets it that her insider connections are going to cover it with voters & she works for credibility she has very valid, good points about being president.
Her joke about not caring if she is liked bothers me. Being so cold, calculating & potentially phony creeps in there. A big problem.
I would have less problem voting for her if she doesn't assume she already OWNs the presidency. Earn it or you can't even hope for my vote.

Obama is very spare on substance.
I liked that he recognizes that a single payer system is inherently more efficient.
I liked that he recognizes he is somewhat rhetorical, but he makes an important point that words/rhetoric does matter. It engages people to get back involved in their government.

John Edwards, calling it personal worked really well for me. He caring for the disenfranchised is rooted deeply inside him. It is not something based on any kind of opinion poll.

Richardson has foreign policy & executive experience, but he is a bit of a bumbler. Which is part of his warm humorous charm, but i am not sure that is what i see as president.

I would have little to no problem voting for anyone of the 3 frontrunners of the Democrats.
I like Edwards best for his strong anti-corporatism,
Obama may create spare elegant, academic government, but i worry about big money influence.
Hillary has lots of working experience, but again & more than Obama i worry about all her insider connections & her lack of focus on American people, other than as someone to pander to.
Like we are all a bunch of children that the [somewhat callous] adult mother Hillary is going to take care of our ignorant little asses.

[Little Red Dog]

Hillary... Her joke about not caring if she is liked bothers me. Being so cold, calculating & potentially phony creeps in there. A big problem.
I would have less problem voting for her if she doesn't assume she already OWNs the presidency. Earn it or you can't even hope for my vote.

What I don't get is why so many people feel they have to LIKE a candidate as a person. To me, it makes no difference. I'm never gonna shoot the shit with Hillary over a frappachino or a beer. So I really don't care whether I LIKE her. I care whether she can get the job done.

I believe either she or Edwards are the best lead choice for the Dems. At this point, I prefer Hillary, because these are complicated times, and I think they are best addressed by someone who can think more than one step ahead.

So when people call her "cold" and "calculating" - I think those are positives in the search for the next President. Our enemies are "cold" and "calculating". Why should we face them with a President who doesn't understand how to meet - and beat - them at their own game?

The resident WH idiot is anything BUT "cold and calculating". On the contrary, he is emotional and overly reactive. And look at the mess THAT'S gotten us into.

So when people complain about Hillary's demeanor, I say, "So what?" It's not like she's coming over to your house for backyard bbq next weekend.

I don't agree with everything Hillary offers. But I really think she is our best opportunity for not making a bad situation worse.

Obama is very spare on substance.
I liked that he recognizes that a single payer system is inherently more efficient.
I liked that he recognizes he is somewhat rhetorical, but he makes an important point that words/rhetoric does matter. It engages people to get back involved in their government.

Emotionally, I really like Obama. I love his message of hope and change. I love his belief in the innate goodness of man, etc. Seriouslly, I really LOVE the idea.

But from a considered perspective, I just am not sure he has the goods.

And, as I mentioned above, these are complicated and dangerous times. Do we REALLY want to roll the dice? Personally, I don't.

The lack of experience thing REALLY bothers me. I just don't believe that he truly has ANY idea of what he's geting into.

(He reminds me of late-night college dorm discussions. When we had all the answers, and we were going to solve all the world's problems. And it was all so simple. How could everybody else not see how simple it all was?? :D )

I think Obama would make an awesome veep. Kinda on-the-job-training, so to speak.

John Edwards, calling it personal worked really well for me. He caring for the disenfranchised is rooted deeply inside him. It is not something based on any kind of opinion poll.

Expensive haircuts not withstanding, I like Edwards too, and I believe he is sincere. His problem is that he just isn't connecting on a national level. It seems that when people actually meet him, face to face, they GET him. Now if he could just project that from the podium, he'd have it made.

Richardson has foreign policy & executive experience, but he is a bit of a bumbler. Which is part of his warm humorous charm, but i am not sure that is what i see as president.

Nothing wrong with Richardson as a person, etc. But his message lacks clarity. If he's going to make any kind of showing at this stage of the game, he needs to seriously tighten up his campaign.

Hillary has (a) lack of focus on American people, other than as someone to pander to.
Like we are all a bunch of children that the [somewhat callous] adult mother Hillary is going to take care of our ignorant little asses.

You contradict yourself here, disrupter.

First you say Hillary isn't focused enough on Americans, then you accuse her of treating us like a bunch of children.

Children need someone to focus on them. Grownups don't. Or shouldn't. Children need to have someone who looks out for them every step of the way. Grownups don't. Grownups take care of themselves.

If we're not a bunch of children, then we shouldn't need to like someone before choosing the best person for the job at hand.

[Cat slave]

With all due respect LRD, I think Hitlary thinks ahead only in how things will
work for her. She doesnt care about anyone but herself and will use us all
as pawns in her game. To hell with our rights and our money.

She talks about 35 years (see, I do listen) experience.....and what would that
be besides being a lawyer, a first lady and a absentee senator? She is not
taking of business by being campaigning all the time for a higher seat!
The woman (?) send chills down my spine.

[Little Red Dog]

With all due respect LRD, I think Hitlary thinks ahead only in how things will
work for her. She doesnt care about anyone but herself and will use us all
as pawns in her game. To hell with our rights and our money.

...

What's "her game"? That is an extremely vague term. And without specifics, it means nothing. Additionally, if she gets what she wants while we get what we want - why the hell should I care what "her game" is?

Since she was in college, her causes have been consistent. That's the "game" I'm looking at.

Does she want power? Of course! So does EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO THINKS THEY SHOULD BE PRESIDENT.

People throw out the "power hungry" card like THEIR candidate doesn't want power. What a crock.

Think about it: What kind of person decides that THEY - and only they - are the best person to stand as leader of the free world?

So when people talk about "power-hungry" they need to look at their own candidates. Because the fact is that, every single one of the candidates is "power hungry".

[Moby]

With all due respect LRD, I think Hitlary thinks ahead only in how things will
work for her. She doesnt care about anyone but herself and will use us all
as pawns in her game. To hell with our rights and our money.

Why is this only a fault with female candidates?

The entire Bush family have a resume that's very long with proof of this yet people vote for the men in that family.

Same with Fred and you like him.

Giuliani, ask the fire fighters and rescue workers about the above.

For some reason these things seem to be very acceptable characteristics in a man but a terrible thing in a woman. Why is that?

[Little Red Dog]

For some reason these things seem to be very acceptable characteristics in a man but a terrible thing in a woman. Why is that?

Word. I've noticed that.

I think a huge part of Hillary's "likeability problem" is that she exhibits some very "masculine" career qualities.

Like you, I could point to Geo the Lesser as a classic example of only thinking of how things will work for him and treating people like pawns in his game. I think that's an accusation you could lob at far too many politicians.

But it didn't stop them from getting elected.

[Cat slave]

Why is this only a fault with female candidates?

The entire Bush family have a resume that's very long with proof of this yet people vote for the men in that family.

Same with Fred and you like him.

Giuliani, ask the fire fighters and rescue workers about the above.

For some reason these things seem to be very acceptable characteristics in a man but a terrible thing in a woman. Why is that?

Its not just with women. I just happen to loathe Hitlary!

[Moby]

I just happen to loathe Hitlary!
I understand that. That's obvious and I've found plenty of people that have the same feelings. Just listen to Fox, Rush, Glenn or Tucker for 30 minutes and you'll hear plenty of hate and loathing.

However, I just haven't heard anyone justify the hate in a rational manner.

The two biggest issue attacks on her is implementing a Health Care plan similar to the one Romney is praised for and wanting to start public education a year earlier.

Other then that and her being a female, what is it?

Is it the fact that she was able to keep her marriage together when so many of the "Family Values" party could not?

[disrupter]

on Hillary not giving a fuck:
Because if i can't sense how someone feels deep on the inside then i have no notion of what motivates them,
people can be very neurotically screwed up, sometimes incomprehensibly.

Computers can do great things, but computers have no problem doing horrible things either.

She wants to be president, i must have some assurance that she has some very tiny heart inside her massive head that actually cares about living things, most specifically someone similar to me.

The heart is the director of the programming of the intellect.

Big problem with the Democrats:

They talked about firing missiles on foreign soil based on immediate intelligence.

UM REALITY CHECK!

HOW MANY TIMES DID WE 'KILL' SADDAM HUSSEIN BASED ON 'CERTAIN' INTELLIGENCE?

DIDN'T WE 'KNOW' IRAQ HAD WMDS?

With that kind of record when they come with 'Certain' intelligence, this is a bankrupt or confederate currency, nearly worthless.

AND THEN TO FIRE A MISSILE ON FOREIGN SOIL BASES ON THIS EXTREMELY DUBIOUS SOURCE?

Jesus Christ! WTF are they Charlie and everyone else THINKING????

Ultimately it would be far better to arrest & try Osama. We would learn more facts, & if they are suspect & they are, we could at least shine some light on all the questions.

Are we not going to at least make the attempt to act as a Civilized nation?

Sometimes we may have to behave as animals, but if we don't at least make the attempt to be civilized then we can never claim the mantle of nobility of moral or ethical standards.

If we don't choose to make ourselves noble by our own standards we are nothing more than the most treacherous of hypocrites.

But to fire on foreign soil without first getting approval from that nation, based on dubious intelligence. We have gone insane.
How about the intellectual prudence of 'keeping your powder dry'? Just pure logic says this intelligence is suspect based on past performance.
I don't give a fuck how much they are trying, they aren't producing credible product.
If we had a close up zoom on Osama & with the pre-approval of that nation, perhaps we might act.

This is as bad as the Hollywood scenario of thousands will die & you have to torture someone to get the 'keypin' information.

People need a melodrama extraction from their brains.

WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU THINKING PEOPLE?

PLEASE, STOP THE MELODRAMA MENTALITY!

FOR THE SAKE OF YOUR CHILDREN, YOUR PLANET, YOUR SPECIES, YOUR NATION.

[Cat slave]

Do you know Fred's background? He's kind of like Bush. Everyone that knew his background didn't want him to be President (accept those that were going to profit).

From what you say on this board I can't imagine that having a professional lobbyist in the White House is really what you want. Although he does play the part of a kind hearted and wise leader well enough for people to pay him for acting.


Wouldnt you take a job in a setting that you knew so well? It was a job
not a declaration against all things American. And that was some time ago
and things have changed greatly in just a few years. His being an actor
has squat to do with it as I dont even watch whatever he is in!

I think he has seen the dark side and knows what needs to be done.
I would feel safe in saying he probably would take that same job today
knowing what he does now.

Hes got a handle on every issue and a sound approach to everyone.
Thats why Im a Fred Head and I still love Alan Keyes though the establishment will see that he never has a chance but he will have
the comfort of knowing he did try to save the constitution.

[copycat42]

I fail to see how any American could support such a socialist policy as "universal health care". And this double talk about it being "democratic" is complete bunk. If money is taken from a person according to their ability to pay, and redistributed to another (in the form of services) according to their need, it is socialism, pure and simple. In a socialist system, their is no incentive to work harder, or earn more, because you then become the ones who pay and not the ones who get paid.

[Moby]

I fail to see how any American could support such a socialist policy as "universal health care". And this double talk about it being "democratic" is complete bunk. If money is taken from a person according to their ability to pay, and redistributed to another (in the form of services) according to their need, it is socialism, pure and simple. In a socialist system, their is no incentive to work harder, or earn more, because you then become the ones who pay and not the ones who get paid.

So what's the difference between Hilary's health care plan and the one Mitt Romney implimented in Mass? Other then one was created by a dem woman and the other a rep man.

You do know that in socialist Germany and France they have the same GDP per hour worked as we do in America? It doesn't seem be slowing them down.

[Moby]

I think he has seen the dark side and knows what needs to be done.
He has seen the dark side because he IS the dark side. He was one of the lobbyists for the S&L crisis. You know, the one where the Bush family made $100s of Millions by costing tax payers $100s of Billions.

His ability to act has everything to do with it because that's what you see unless you're looking at his past history.

No wonder we keep making the same mistakes. We don't learn from the mistakes of the past :(

[disrupter]

Don't mandate me to pay for this train wreck called the US 'health care system'.

Highway robbery with a pretense of warm fuzzy caring people.

If you are going to mandate everyone be involved then go all the way to an efficient single-payer system, not this greed soaked corrupt mess.

[copycat42]

So what's the difference between Hilary's health care plan and the one Mitt Romney implimented in Mass? Other then one was created by a dem woman and the other a rep man.

You do know that in socialist Germany and France they have the same GDP per hour worked as we do in America? It doesn't seem be slowing them down.


no difference, both socialist policies. I don't trust either of those candidates any farther than i could spit a wet rat.

[Moby]

Don't mandate me to pay for this train wreck called the US 'health care system'.
You're already paying for it. You just don't realize that.

When an uninsured person shows up at the emergency room in order to get some antibiotics that are over the counter in most other countries the cost of that visit goes from about $100 to about $350. The health care company that owns that hospital looses $350 on that visit so they pass that along to people like you and me that have health insurance.

You're paying for some one else's health care either way. Paying up front is cheaper but it's more obvious.

[Moby]

no difference, both socialist policies. I don't trust either of those candidates any farther than i could spit a wet rat.
Do you believe in the pledge of allegiance? That was written by a socialist :)

Public roads, utilities, education and taxes could all be considered part of a socialistic government. Are you against those too?

[Little Red Dog]

Plus the fact that our healthcare insurance system is based on crisis management rather than preventative care.

If more people got affordable preventative care, insurance companies wouldn't be paying for expensive disease management - cause they wouldn't develop many of those diseases to begin with. That alone would drive down the cost of your insurance premiums.

[Moby]

Plus the fact that our healthcare insurance system is based on crisis management rather than preventative care.

If more people got affordable preventative care, insurance companies wouldn't be paying for expensive disease management - cause they wouldn't develop many of those diseases to begin with. That alone would drive down the cost of your insurance premiums.
But then where would the drug companies be?

[copycat42]

Do you believe in the pledge of allegiance? That was written by a socialist :)

Public roads, utilities, education and taxes could all be considered part of a socialistic government. Are you against those too?

Actually, i do not. I refuse to even pretend (no hand over heart, respectful stance) to say the pledge of allegiance BECAUSE it was written by a socialist , to promote blind obedience to the government.


Public roads: should be the responsibility of the state governments, not the federal government.
utilities: state government, or private industry
education: make private schools compete for students, and the quality of education will go up.
taxes: on income, yes. at the federal level for transactions that take place within the country, yes

Respectfully,
-copycat42

[Little Red Dog]

But then where would the drug companies be?

In China :D

[Little Red Dog]

Actually, i do not. I refuse to even pretend (no hand over heart, respectful stance) to say the pledge of allegiance BECAUSE it was written by a socialist , to promote blind obedience to the government.
Respectfully,
-copycat42

So you don't believe in "the Republic for which it stands"?

[disrupter]

I am uninsured, just like reality.

You are paying for UnitedHealth's McGuire took $1.6 BILLION in stock options with your premiums.

You are paying for Martin Rash's 10 to 99 Million dollar buyout as CEO/owner of Providence Healthcare [hospitals?].

All these CEOs INCLUDING the CEOs of 'non-profits' are making at least a million a year & many/most make multi millions.

All this obscenity goes on, but the Insurance propaganda blames indigents.

Hospitals are dictated to by Insurance companies what they will charge their members & the hospitals jack the prices to the uninsured up to double or more.

It is all such a rotten rip-off.

then there are the crooked drug companies, bribing congress & causing some of the grossest inflation of healthcare costs,
not for reasearch, but for marketing, lobbying & using lawyers to game the patent system.

why do you sit by & put up with that?
you price shop at Walmart to save 3 bucks i bet.

Part of the reason is because they make scrutiny as opaque & difficult & completely unstandardized as possible.
And the only time you might look at it is when you are sick & hardly able & even more frightened of them dropping your coverage.

Just like a bunch of deceiving temple priests trying to keep you in the dark about what really goes on.

The layering between employer & employee makes even less 'ownership' of the system.
No one stands up and says this is MY money, where the fuck are you spending it on.

where they spend it, is on lawyers & medical experts calculating ways to deny your claims when they get expensive.

It is just sick.
It is like they are eating the sick & the dead for profit margins.
Lower than vultures because they eat their own kind,
so they can live in fabulous mansions, drive fine cars & have investments up the wazoo.

[copycat42]

So you don't believe in "the Republic for which it stands"?

I believe it is my responsibility to question any erosion of the ideals of the Republic for which it stands. That responsibility includes the rejection of ideas and propaganda which is contrary to those ideals. This includes reciting (or even giving lip service to) a verse written for the express purpose of promoting unquestioning obedience to the erosion of those ideals, by one whose ethos runs counter to those ideals.

Yes, I believe in that Republic, but not in blind loyalty to the leaders of that Republic. Right now, I love my country, but I hate what my government has become.


respectfully,

-copycat42

[Little Red Dog]

I can handle that.

[Cat slave]

I fail to see how any American could support such a socialist policy as "universal health care". And this double talk about it being "democratic" is complete bunk. If money is taken from a person according to their ability to pay, and redistributed to another (in the form of services) according to their need, it is socialism, pure and simple. In a socialist system, their is no incentive to work harder, or earn more, because you then become the ones who pay and not the ones who get paid.

Very true!:thumbsup:

[Cat slave]

He has seen the dark side because he IS the dark side. He was one of the lobbyists for the S&L crisis. You know, the one where the Bush family made $100s of Millions by costing tax payers $100s of Billions.

His ability to act has everything to do with it because that's what you see unless you're looking at his past history.

No wonder we keep making the same mistakes. We don't learn from the mistakes of the past :(

Apparently youre right.....ie Hitlary!:p

[disrupter]

absolute purity is for zealots.

cleanliness does matter.

[Cat slave]

Actually, i do not. I refuse to even pretend (no hand over heart, respectful stance) to say the pledge of allegiance BECAUSE it was written by a socialist , to promote blind obedience to the government.


Public roads: should be the responsibility of the state governments, not the federal government.
utilities: state government, or private industry
education: make private schools compete for students, and the quality of education will go up.
taxes: on income, yes. at the federal level for transactions that take place within the country, yes

Respectfully,
-copycat42


Ah but federal money is bribe insurance....do as they say or they yank the
funding for just about anything.

[Cat slave]

I can handle that.


Me too!:thumbsup: