Election day, Thought it would be fun to see
|
Alocalypse Posted Nov 4, 2008, 3:15 pm |
Ralph Nader!
(Actually Obama based mostly on him having a better education) |
||||
|
*Longo* Posted Nov 4, 2008, 3:19 pm |
I will bet that it will be largely Obama, unfortunately. Europe and the rest of the world all love the anti-christ, for whatever reason. I saw this first hand when I went to Spain and met people for about 5 different countries. | ||||
|
*sam* Posted Nov 4, 2008, 3:56 pm |
I saw an interesting documentary on the views of the 'ordinary people' in Florida the other evening.. one of the big factors seems to be having Palin as vice president while McCain is so old, which leaves a realistic chance of a vote for him actually being a vote for her as top dog. Something which scares a lot of people. | ||||
|
*jimmylogan* Posted Nov 4, 2008, 4:12 pm |
Sam - from the Christian Conservative viewpoint, until she was announced as the running mate, the vote was to be *against* Obama, but now we have something to vote *for*.
JL |
||||
|
*Longo* Posted Nov 4, 2008, 4:48 pm |
If she becomes the new VP and is utilized correctly, she could do wonders. Her knowledge of energy issues is second to none. Everyone is worried McCain will die in office. If he survived a POW camp for 6 years, I think he still has it in him to survive the Whitehouse for 4.  I think the US male mortality rat eis around 76 now, that would put him at the end of his term.
|
||||
|
*Grograt* gary.r.horder@gmail.com Posted Nov 4, 2008, 5:03 pm |
There all just puppets of a higher order | ||||
|
*Lugal* Posted Nov 4, 2008, 5:23 pm |
Darthspanky. I KNEW it! |
||||
|
*Chase Bansi* JohnBMan033@aol.com Posted Nov 4, 2008, 6:06 pm |
I think a better poll would be 'Did you vote?' Although there are problems with the system it certainly doesn't work if people don't participate. Regardless of who wins we'll have plenty to complain about for the next 4 years. | ||||
|
Valiance Posted Nov 4, 2008, 6:14 pm |
Does it really take that long to vote? In the world's most vociferous democracy?
It has never taken me more than twenty minutes to vote (8 minutes walk each way, 4 minutes to show my voting papers, get my name crossed off, vote and put the slip in the ballot box) I have seen that Americans may have to wait 8 hours to vote? Why? Surely a nation that believes in democracy could invest a tiny bit of money in the infrastructure of democracy? Or are these reports just British papers not getting the point? |
||||
|
*jimmylogan* Posted Nov 4, 2008, 6:16 pm |
In my opinion, Val, at least around here (rural) there are more people voting this year than any other. The polls are setup to accommodate what they've always accommodated, which is a small percentage of eligible voters. When you get "a crowd," it's not that it's impossible, just not ordinary.
This is a polarizing election, I think... JL |
||||
|
Alocalypse Posted Nov 4, 2008, 6:51 pm |
http://www.weeklyworldnews.com/election-08/october-surprise-alien-endorses-mccain/ Yeah I read about it earlier this morning too... |
||||
|
*Ninesticks* Posted Nov 4, 2008, 6:51 pm |
Val, I worked as a polling station presiding officer at our last general and local elections and whilst well paid, money is certainly not thrown at it (unless team biscuits count).
Many of our polling stations operate either at single or double capacity based upon local population density (as in numbers of people - not the other way!) and/or the type of election - and with a turnout of about 45% we ticked over during the day. An uplift of 50% on that turnout say would have caused considerable delays. |
||||
|
*sam* Posted Nov 4, 2008, 8:24 pm |
Yeah, sure JL. The point is that her role (whether for or against) is so important because of McCain's age. |
||||
|
*jimmylogan* Posted Nov 4, 2008, 8:30 pm |
I disagree, to a degree... Among my local (non-virtual) social group, the age is not a key factor. Yes, he's older, but Reagan was older as well, so age is not necessarily "bad."
JL |
||||
|
Hula Posted Nov 5, 2008, 6:07 pm |
not me mate, I had a pretty strong dislike for Bush. 
|
||||
|
*Lugal* Posted Nov 5, 2008, 6:20 pm |
I had absolutely no delay at all. Walk up, sign in, vote, and out. Took me all of five minutes.
I was expecting a line because of higher-than-normal turn out, and because I was getting there during the evening 'rush.' The long lines were making the news, but I don't know how representative they really were. |
||||
|
Whiskey Posted Nov 5, 2008, 7:06 pm |
My wife and I were in and out in under 15-minutes. I wonder about these news reports of hours long lines to vote. Considering that the typical US citizen is pretty apathetic when it comes to voting, I strongly suspect that most polling locations are staffed based on "typical" voter turn out. When they get an election like this one that brings out many times the "typical" number of voters, the system breaks down. | ||||
|
Hula Posted Nov 5, 2008, 7:41 pm |
whatever you think of the result - its a good sign to get such alot of citizens voting... that is after all democracy.
& for that I applaud the USA today. |
||||
|
Whiskey Posted Nov 5, 2008, 8:01 pm |
Thanks Hula. Sometimes, just when I begin to despair, something comes along that restores my faith in my fellow citizens. I just wish we could get the typical citizen this energized about every election. | ||||
|
BWGunner Posted Nov 5, 2008, 9:15 pm |
I'm sorry, who was the anti-christ in this equation?
I am an independent...and an agnostic to the point of believing that gravity is the best description of God I know. But all that aside, I think the Jewish belief in prophets is a real thing. Every generation, every culture, there's a prophet. Jesus was one. John Lennon was one. For all I know, Putin is one. But I know for sure that Obama is one. What I hope, is that he can do what he's been promising. FDR pulled it off, so sometimes I think we just may be on the right path. Welcome to the new world. Let's hope it's a good one. |
||||
|
Hula Posted Nov 5, 2008, 9:17 pm |
and F*ck em, if they can't take a joke! 
|
||||
|
BWGunner Posted Nov 6, 2008, 3:18 pm |
Hulalullia! | ||||
|
*Longo* Posted Nov 6, 2008, 3:31 pm |
It took me all of 5 minutes to vote.
I think our next 4 years will be interesting. Ill give Obama his first 100 days and then re-evaluate him. |
||||
|
darthspanky Posted Nov 9, 2008, 12:16 am |
im just holding out hope bush declares martial law seizes power and becomes emporor of the usa. id vote for that
|
||||
|
*Ayjona* Posted Nov 10, 2008, 6:54 pm |
|
||||
|
Mad Mike Posted Nov 11, 2008, 3:59 pm |
originally only land owners could vote to keep out the idiot factor. Unfortunately now everyone and their dog can vote (and yes acorn signed up quite a few pets as well as their owners) and we get a mass of people that vote according to looks and charm and that leads down a dangerous road....
ie castro, hitler, etc.... obama is not going to suddenly change us to communism or launch an attack to take over the world. but this opens the door for anyone to walk in smile, be liked, have little to no experience and run our country. who knows who will be next when you no longer need to be qualified to run the USA. the electoral college was designed to prevent this but could you imagine if the electoral college negated the vote saying obama isn't qualified to be president and declared mccain the winner? darthspanky's scenerio would quickly take place. I say ok listen to our other citizens regardless of why they voted for obama and give him a shot. the democrats have full control of congress and the white house. They have no excuses. I did not want obama in and there are millions who did not. but lets not be like most democrats and declare obama not our president like they did bush in 2004. If nothing changes in 2 years I will be the first to say I TOLD YOU SO. |
||||
|
Jety Posted Nov 11, 2008, 4:51 pm |
Mike, I disagree. Obama is much much more than a nice smile.
He is many things to many people, but a lot of what he is to me is _educated_. Unlike George "even C students can be president" Bush and John "class rank 894 of 899" McCain. Obama can put a string of words together in a coherent sentence, which is more than we can say of our president of the last eight years. Obama IS a very cool cat, and he has a tremendous amount of charisma, but he is also clearly very intelligent. He makes it cool to be smart, and that is what this country needs. No more anti-intellectualism from the right. We're falling way behind in the world, and I think Obama is the most qualified to carry us forward in the direction we need to go. Also, 66 million people agree with me 
|
||||
|
*Lugal* Posted Nov 11, 2008, 5:44 pm |
Well said Jety. | ||||
|
Jety Posted Nov 11, 2008, 6:23 pm |
Ok: Medicare. Medicare, a government run health insurance program, is in fact one of the most streamlined and efficient health insurance programs in the country, easily beating out HMOs and private insurers. In contrast to private insurers Medicare doesn’t have to spend millions on marketing, advertising, and Washington lobbyists. On top of that, private insurers must generate profits for their shareholders. The great Republican myth is that Democrats are for "big government". The truth of the matter is that even though Democrats push for larger social agendas, Republican presidents have spent far more money in the last 30 years than Democrat presidents. As I look at it, "I'd rather be a tax and spend Democrat than a borrow and spend Republican". For those keeping track of this sort of thing, we're now $10.64 TRILLION in debt as a country. Up from $5.73 when Bush took office. (not even including the 1 trillion we're in the process of giving away to banks) So you tell me, honestly, do you think your rightwing government has had the small footprint it promised in 2004, 2000, 1988, 1984, or 1980? 
|
||||
|
Mad Mike Posted Nov 11, 2008, 6:42 pm |
I said experience, not intelligence or education. I bet you could point out a few harvard graduates that have no common sense.
Why compare Bush to obama? i must have missed george bush on the ballot cuz i dont remember seeing his name there. define anti-intellectualism not sure what you mean there. 50 million people do not agree with you. I am one of them. 95% of black voters voted for obama, you cannot possibly tell me that 95% of a group agree 100% |
||||
|
Jety Posted Nov 11, 2008, 6:44 pm |
The truth is I actually caucused Republican in my state.... for Ron Paul!
I'm more libertarian than anything else, but I think the government should take care of it's people when they need help. I don't have any problem having my tax money being spent on a homeless guy who needs to be in the hospital. I have a huge problem with my tax money being spent on smokers with lung cancer though..... so I don't know what the right answer is. I do think that unless I'm violating someone else's liberty or property, I should have the right to do whatever the hell I want to, including crack cocaine, gay marriage, burning flags, hoarding guns, or whatever. The whole premise of the American Experience is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I don't think any social agenda should be legislated at the federal level. And unless something infringes on someone's else's rights to the same, it shouldn't be legislated at any level. |
||||
|
Mad Mike Posted Nov 11, 2008, 7:01 pm |
most of what you wrote is infringing.
We have to agree on common ground. People will ALWAYS be divided no matter what but the problem is we get divided and instead of compromising and agreeing on common ground and forgetting our differences those that disagree are then hated and many times physically retaliated against. the national debt is projected. the reason debt gets projected upwards is republicans traditionally lower taxes and therefore the projected debt goes up. democrats raise taxes and the projection goes down. The effects of the raising or lowering taxes are not seen for at least a decade. The natural economic cycle of a capitolism has way ups and way downs. the problem is here that we never learned from the great depression. Alot of what happened over 80 years ago happened again. Why didnt we learn then??? Capitolism is like a poker game. Players come to the table with millions but at the end of the night if all players play till the end one ends up with it all. We have to stop the game in the middle when some players have ropughly the same, some have more and some less. We keep "playing" till someone has it all and ALOT have nothing. |
||||
|
*Grograt* gary.r.horder@gmail.com Posted Nov 11, 2008, 7:13 pm |
who one ? | ||||
|
Mad Mike Posted Nov 11, 2008, 7:37 pm |
I think the fact that 90% of americans who filed taxes made $50,000 or less per year says something.
the solution put forth was tax the rich and give back to the poor. even obama said that the civil rights movement stopped short. It should have involved wealth redistribution as well as legislation not just legislation. wealth redistribution is the TOTALLY wrong way to do it. The right way to do it has to be done by the people not the government. Those that have the money need to reinvest in americas business to create jobs through the founding and funding of business. They will not do it when they are required to pay high taxes. when more "poor" people are funded by the rich they then can become the rich. thats how we should play the capitolism game. |
||||
|
Jety Posted Nov 11, 2008, 7:49 pm |
Mike what you're describing is classic Reagan "trickle down" economics. The idea is that if the rich are rich enough then there will be prosperity for all because there will be more business, jobs, etc.
The only problem is that IT DOESN'T WORK. What we're experiencing now is the fallout of deregulation of financial markets. The rich have certainly gotten richer. Bankers, weapons contractors, executives, oil companies. They've all profited HUGELY in the last 8 years under Bush. But where is the prosperity for you and me? Nowhere to be found. In fact, as a result of letting the rich get as rich as possible they whole system is collapsing. We lost another quarter million jobs this week. Obama is not trying to take money from the rich and give it to the poor. He's trying to make the rich carry an tiny bit larger portion of the responsibility for the things that this country spends money on, like war. It seems only fair, since all the money we spend ends back up in their (the rich) pockets anyway. As for collecting money from everyone, and then mailing checks out to everyone... hmm that sounds familiar. Didn't Bush do that? Twice? [edit] Since 90% of the voters make $50k or less. Doesn't it make more sense to help them DIRECTLY rather than helping the 5% who make $250k plus in hopes that maybe someday somehow everyone else will see some benefit? |
||||
|
Hula Posted Nov 12, 2008, 6:53 am |
Is government for this?
|
||||
|
Mad Mike Posted Nov 12, 2008, 12:04 pm |
yes we have not prospered at all.
as I type on 1 of my many computers and drive to work in one of my two cars leavi ng the house my family owns outright to a job that I get paid $13.55 per hour I think how tough I have it. I was not born into a rich family. My father died before I was born and we grew up on the edge of welfare. We are such a poor society when we see almost everyone with a cell phone or ipod. times are really really tough. I do have to agree that the current system has its flaws but do those flaws outweigh the benefits? So we can agree the system needs change and tweaking, please explain how it should work Jety. I believe that we should see both sides of the issue and I am interested in how you believe we should do things. |
||||
|
Jety Posted Nov 12, 2008, 5:20 pm |
The single best thing we could do for our country is to eliminate corporate interests from Washington. No lobbyists. Period.
Laws should be passed to help and protect and govern the citizens of our country. How can that ever be done fairly when all of congress has a neverending gravy train of legalized bribes from these people we call "lobbyists" I don't think you can see how unfairly the playing field is tilted against us. The federal minimum wage is $7.25. That's $15k per year. And there are people, mostly Republicans, who want to remove the minimum wage altogether. Meanwhile the people at the tops of these big companies are making $100 million a year, are being rewarded for running their companies so badly that they are forced to declare bankruptcy. People like us go jobless and hungry. They just collect their 50 million dollar retirement package from their bankrupt company. What I am trying to say here is that when laws are passed by the rich and for the rich, the other 95% of the people in this country get screwed. Badly. And make no mistake, the Republican party is a marriage of two things: social conservatism and the very rich. I hate to say it, but whether you voted for him or not, Obama is going to make your life better, because he stands for the other 95%. If he doesn't, you and Latte can look me up in two years for the I Told You Sos |
||||
|
*Tinker* Posted Nov 12, 2008, 5:55 pm |
I saw a video on youtube that said to raise the economy, the way it's set up by the banks is based on debt..... a bad limited strategy, but it's been like that since banks started up business | ||||
|
Mad Mike Posted Nov 12, 2008, 11:43 pm |
absolutely correct tinker. The economy based on debt was started by gold smiths probably a good 2000 years ago. Our entire system is based on debt, when debt rises the economy rises. when the figures are made by tracking spending they dont differentiate whether that its an outright purchase or purchased with credit. More spending is by debt then outright purchases by a HUGE majority.
The collapse of the markets was due to the mortgage problem, it was slowly building but when people started taking mortgages that they could not possibly pay just to say they owned a house the idiot factor started to play. The lending market was deregulated and the minimum requirements for a mortgage were dropped to almost non existence. And before you blame republicans find out who did the deregulation and you'll find out it was Clinton. I agree that bush didnt change them back as he should have but you can call the collapse of the stock market a bi-partisan cause. The mortgages crisis is not a crisis, its a tragedy. A tragedy is when the hero of the story has a hand in his own demise and that is exactly what the american people did. They accepted mortgages that were way over priced. They refinanced a house 2 or 3 times riding the housing bubble. When it burst they could not refinance and pay for the ponzi scheme way of spending they were doing. People ran up credit cards thinking they could refinance to pay them back off. The economy was surging on unstable debt and when it burst it took it all down. How to turn the blame back to the banks? Call it predatory lending. ARE THEY SERIOUS? You mean to tell me that banks FORCED people to refinance? thats what predatory can be called. They say people that didnt know how to spend money were targeted and talked into these crazy mortgages. The banks were predators. ARE YOU KIDDING ME? You just said that poor people are complete idiots for signing these mortgages and its the lenders fault. HUH? All it proves to me that poor people are poor for a reason. 10% and less are because they are legitimately disabled or legitimately hurt and cannot legitimately work and the other 90% because of pure stupidity or the believe that the system owes them for some stupid and selfish reason. education is the key to the solution of all of this. If people are taught how to spend money wisely and that they do not need the latest and greatest this entire situation can be turned around. Parties must be abolished. The founding fathers told us parties would destroy our country and they have. With no parties the lobbyists would have little or no effect. they would have to lobby every single member of congress in order to get their agenda and its impossible that they could "buy" every single member of congress. lets not forget that the lobbyists "buy" democrats and republicans. they only need to target specific party members who have power over all the rest of their party. Don't forget that elections are bought as well. look at how much the democrats have spent for elections for the past 3 presidential elections. abolish the way elections are run. give each candidate equal time on every radio, television, and newspaper. and not just those that are considered to have the best possible chance to win. each is given the same questions and each are required to completely answer those questions and give us exactly what they plan to do. these solutions could be easily put in place but it would take a revolution to do it. And I dont mean an insurgence, the revolution can be every member of congress voted out every election for the next decade, then they would get the point. Vote for people based on what they want for the people. have the issues spelled out and the direct answer for each from each member of running. |
||||
|
Kime Dennory Posted Nov 13, 2008, 6:13 am |
Wow. Amazing to me how heavily tilted towards the conservative the US people here are. (And by that I mean how many people here seem to be US conservatives vs. US progressives. Since you can't say 'liberal' in the US any more.)
I don't argue politics in places where I want to stay friends with people, but I do have to say one thing: don't expect miracles. The vast, vast majority of the US agrees that Bush has been an unmitigated disaster -- he has the lowest approval ratings and the highest disapproval ratings in the history of presidential approval ratings. The economy of the country is in a shambles, we're still essentially at war, literally hundreds of thousands of people are being thrown out of their houses every month. Unemployment is already going up, and when the troops start coming back from Iraq and begin mustering out and looking for jobs, that's going to be a huge issue. And the Federal deficit has ballooned enormously in the last eight years, to such an extent that if we run up much more debt to try to get out of the current situation, we run the risk of having our credit downgraded. Which would pretty much screw the US right to the wall. Honestly, if the US hasn't gotten much worse in the next two years, I'll be delighted with Obama. I'll also be shocked. -KD |
||||
|
BWGunner Posted Nov 13, 2008, 2:27 pm |
Labels suck. They are divisive. The keys to the W regime were forged from divisive labels. Calling names is a game for bullies and cowards. (edit, I recognize and laugh at the irony in this sentence, just so you know)
Liberal in thought, conservative in fiscal issues. Those are adjectives that describe philosophy and behavior, and I think you could say most Americans fit this mold. Well, most educated and politically active Americans. So in reading this entire thread I can't help but be saddened by how many times people are drawing lines, insisting on affiliations that are pure artifice. Brilliant points are being made, conversations had, and we all learned a little here. That's awesome. I'm glad to see more Americans voting, whatever their reasoning. I'm glad to hear more of us talking...and sharing our ideas and hopes, and fears, with the rest of the world. I am especially happy about this last, the internationsl exchange that becomes a Humanist discussion, not a Nationalist one. This wonderful Internet we are all tapped into (funded by military projects, venture funded by banks...blah blah blah) is strong and amazing because of participation of people. We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. And we all hope it stays that way. Great to see us all so involved. |
||||
|
Mad Mike Posted Nov 13, 2008, 5:01 pm |
problem is we vote them out and just flip sides. we need to vote people in that have no ties that would steer them a particular way.
I have seen a steady fall in society especially where I live in florida. the type of people moving to florida are very scary. 15 years ago my neighborhood was quiet and everyone knew each other. there were no fences anywhere. now we have drug dealers getting raided. at least 10 times a day my house walls are shaking from the stereos of cars going down the street. kids walk around causing troublke and if you mention anything to them they flip you off. you try to talk to their parents and instantly they think no way their kid did whatever you said. there has been rape and murder only a few streets down. now just about every house has a fence around the backyard. this is just one neighborhood but im sure its happening just about everywhere. our schools stopped reporting certain incidents because the numbers were getting too high. Not only is the government getting corrupted the people of america are getting corrupted. the few that were the trouble makers that were just ignored cannot be ignored anymore. dont believe it? look at how many people get arrested and for what and you'll find we have more in jail then most countries. of course some countries cannot be counted because some of their prisoners are arrested and disappear and are forgotten about. america needs a rebuild from the ground up. |
||||
|
*Lugal* Posted Nov 13, 2008, 5:30 pm |
Although I disagree on some of what has been said, it seems several of us agree on some philisophical issues.
As an American, I abhor the two-party system. Sure we have thousands upon thousands of parties, but there are only two that have any substantial sway, and the ones that are actually elected could be counted on a single hand. Because of that, there is considerable energy invested in brand-loyalty and division. Most people vote based on party affiliation rather than on the merits of the individual candidate. Way too many people never even consider the person 'from the other party.' I'm registered as "Non-Partisan", which is different from "Independent". I try to stay educated and informed on 'the issues', which to me isn't simply whatever buzzwords are being juggled about at the moment. I study candiates, proposals, and measures, and make the best decisions I can based on that. And yes BW - I am so very glad to see so many of my fellow Americans getting up and voting. EDIT: More ramblings: We need to mitigate if not eliminate the power of lobbyists in goverment. We need to push for transparency - without it there's no real way to push accountability (the past eight years are an excellent example of the danger of zero government transparency and lobbyist collusion.) |
||||
|
Kime Dennory Posted Nov 13, 2008, 7:06 pm |
Oh, I want to take exception to something that was said here recently.
Someone said America has the best health care system in the world. There is now no conceivable measure by which this is true. According to WHO and the OECD health care surveys, we have very good (but not the best) care for our richest 1%, fairly good care for our top 10%, and the quality of care plummets rapidly as you move down the income scale. We have the highest rate of infant mortality of any first world country, we have a shorter life expectancy than most first world countries, we have more people dying for lack of care than any other developed country. (On the other hand, we have higher five-year breast cancer survival rates than any other country. Not sure what's up with that.) And for this, we pay literally 150% to 200% of what other nations do for our health care. Medical tourism to the US -- that is to say, when people travel to the US to receive medical care -- has been dropping off significantly in the past ten to twenty years, and rising in other countries. The weak dollar might lure some of these people back, but not most of them. And a lot of the better-off Americans are actually leaving the country for significant medical care. (I, being a Canadian/US dual citizen, would certainly go to Canada if I ended up with a serious health condition requiring hospitalization. And spare me any noise about the waits for elective surgery in Canada, because they are routinely exaggerated by an order of magnitude by people in the US. And anyway, I am a hell of a lot more worried about non-elective surgery than I am about elective.) This is a very sensitive subject for me, because my partner has epilepsy, chronic depression, and a couple of other health issues. My company has what is considered 'top-tier' health insurance... which is to say, better than 75% of the insured people in the country have, let alone the uninsured. I still pay $300/month for medications for the two of us, and I have two health conditions that I am basically ignoring right now, in the hopes that they'll get better on their own, because I can't afford to find out that I have to pay any more for them. Including the medications and the insurance and copays and tests and what-all-else, in a NORMAL quarter (no ER visits, no serious illnesses, no injuries) I pay between $2500 and $3000 for health care for her and me, and I'm still getting inadequate care. That's more than most people in the country pay for a mortgage. And there are several promising new treatments for her depression that we can't afford to use: they are less expensive than the drugs that she's on now (which are only marginally effective), but none of the three insurance plans I've had over the last two years would cover them because they're new. Which is to say, the FDA approved them a couple years ago but the insurance company still calls them 'experimental'. Which means if we wanted to try them we'd be paying for them 100% out-of-pocket. I have had this explained to me: if they don't cover the most effective treatments, even if they are cheaper than less effective treatments, then people who have the money to pay out of pocket for the effective ones will do so, and the insurance company doesn't have to pay anything at all. So, really, paying more for less effective treatments saves the insurance company money in the long run. I think it may be just a little too cynical to say that the other attractive thing about the anti-depression medications my girlfriend is on now to the insurance companies is that they sometimes cause suicide, and if someone kills themselves then the insurance company doesn't have to pay any more for them. But really, the fact that I even have to consider something like that before discarding it speaks volumes. The only way one can consider the US system to be the best in the world is if you assume that anything that is run by the free market is automatically better than anything that isn't, just because it is free market. But excuse me if I don't agree, because I'm one of the 'lucky ones' in this country and my care is still crappy. -KD |
||||
|
Alocalypse Posted Nov 14, 2008, 2:24 pm |
I really think it's pretty much impossible for Obama to live up to the expectations and hype that has been created around him by now (but honestly, how many politicans really do).
He does seem to inspire people and give them more hope which is more than I could say for McCain, but that alone does very little to fix things.
I totally agree on this and I'd really prefer to see some form of meritocracy instead of letting 'idiots' vote for the leaders based on selfish interests (screw the common good, I'll vote for whoever will promise to do whats best for me), who in turn end up voting on matters in which most of them usually have no expertiese in. But every system has it's flaws and I don't think this or any other significantly "better" system is exactly doable either currently. |
||||
|
Mad Mike Posted Nov 18, 2008, 10:51 pm |
alo always has the last word.. dang it |