Mccain..

[buckman]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Seconded, the president should be a LEADER, which I believe Obama to be.
I also think Obama is smart enough to realize that given his age and experience, he needs to surround himself with the best cabinet he can, and given the state of things, I think he'll have his pick of the D's and I's (and hell, maybe some centerist R's) for his cabinet...

Sounds like one big happy Cabinet. Only he is the most left leaning Dem we have seen in a long time. He is a smooth talking con man. He stands for all the same retoric that every Dem runs on. Sounds like he has all the experience of Duval. Hmm, how does Secretary of The Interior sound Patrick my friend.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Yeah.
because GWB's cabinet wasn't the gold old boys club of his fathers administration + Condi.
Rummsfeld, Cheney? Surprised Quayle didn't get an invite to the party.

ANYTHING would be an improvement then now. Hell, McCain would probably be a small step up over GWB, at least he believes in climate change......

[buckman]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Yeah.
because GWB's cabinet wasn't the gold old boys club of his fathers administration + Condi.
Rummsfeld, Cheney? Surprised Quayle didn't get an invite to the party.

ANYTHING would be an improvement then now. Hell, McCain would probably be a small step up over GWB, at least he believes in climate change......

I would not say anything would be an improvement. Obama would be a huge threat to our country. With the dems in charge of everything and the justice appointments they would make, We would make the french look like conservatives.

I think Bush believes that man is having a impact on global climate he is just not willing to sell out America, to appease a bunch of anti-American tree huggers. Give up your own car, boat and heating system. Some 3rd world nation trying to become us, can use your carbon credits.

[buckman]

My son just called and he caught (2) 44#'s while I'm typing crap.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by buckman

I think Bush believes that man is having a impact on global climate he is just not willing to sell out America, to appease a bunch of anti-American tree huggers. Give up your own car, boat and heating system. Some 3rd world nation trying to become us, can use your carbon credits.

Bush and his administration has done more to censor science and have federal agencies toe the line more than any administration in history... And it has nothing to do with selling out America. biggest misconception in the 'green' movement.... Since when is becoming more energy efficient, less reliant on foreign oil and more environmentally sound anti-American? Look at the American companies stubbornly cranking out SUV's. They are closing plants while fuel efficient cars/trucks are selling better (i.e. Yota's). Expand that to a national scale, and we're doing the same frigging thing.

I'm not giving up those things, but you can be damn sure I use fuel a lot more carefully then I used to...

[buckman]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

I'm not giving up those things, but you can be damn sure I use fuel a lot more carefully then I used to...

I am more aware and carefull also. We try to do our part. I do not want other countries dictating to us how and when we can use energy. I do not want this country to sign any agreement that will do just that. The market will correct the size if vehicles just like it did in the seventies. By the way. we had a 69 Camaro, that had no pollution controlls and got 21 MPG. We hooked it up to the inspection machine and it ran cleaner then new cars. Go figure. Mandates and change can do more harm then good.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by buckman

I do not want other countries dictating to us how and when we can use energy.

I'd argue the Saudi's et al. indirectly already do that..

[buckman]

I freaking hate the way we kiss their ass. That would be the only good to come out of leaving the middle east. Seeing them go down.

[JohnR]

Pheewwww - took a while to catch up.

I haven't made up my mind yet but I am leaning McCain - he's more where I am in the middle than Obama is. Obama simply does not have enough time in grade to be the competent leader that we need (McCain maybe too much time). Maybe in 8 years?

In all, we've been brutally short of leadership in this country for the last 8 (arguably 16) years.

but the problem with capatilism is the rich get richer as they reap the profits from growth, and the poor get poorer as they have to pay more to fuel those profits. I think Obabma is concerned with that aspect. I really dont know to be honest, but it is an issue that needs attending and I dont see McCain looking out for the little guy.

Eben, and the problem with too much Democratic Party leadership is that the guy in the middle class, me, pays more and more in the Fuel costs, and more and more to support "services" that are given to people milking the system and people that aren't here legally in the first place.

Example one in Democratic Party politics - look at the upgefucht situation the state of Rhode Island is in. Too much coin going out, not enough coming in. Want to crew things up royally? Apply the charisma of the RI Democratic Party on the national level...

Nope - I haven't made up my mind yet but I think mcCain is closer to where I want to be than Obama.

But the key item may now be that I'll vote whatever it takes so one party does not control both the executive AND legislative branches so the far right and the far left can't screw up this country anymore.

[buckman]

All valid points and I agree.

[buckman]

They don't make men like Ronald Reagan anymore.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by Nebe

you prove good points and i am not disagreeing with you, but the problem with capatilism is the rich get richer as they reap the profits from growth, and the poor get poorer as they have to pay more to fuel those profits. I think Obabma is concerned with that aspect. I really dont know to be honest, but it is an issue that needs attending and I dont see McCain looking out for the little guy.

Should he? Not trying to be a jerk, but we have
- free education
- free libraries
- many programs to help fund college tuition

I think the "little guy" has all the opportunity to make it on his own, it just takes hard work. Some people need help and I believe we should help them. But in my opinion most of today's rich got there by working hard, taking risks, and sacrificing. I think we all have equal opportunity, black white, gay, straight, you name it.

For thousands of years there were political systems that took care of the "little guy" - tyrany, feudal system, etc. The fundamentals that founded this county were ideals that man can govern himself.

[RIROCKHOUND]

[QUOTE=RIJIMMY;594824]Should he? Not trying to be a jerk, but we have
- free education; yes but it needs work, there is another thread all about this....

- free libraries; great resource, under utilized by most...

- many programs to help fund college tuition; Going down the crapper if they are state funded right now, and maybe federal funding is next. URI is trying to get the same $$$ for instate/out of state. WTF is the benefit if you pay taxes in a state, but one of the decent perks like that goes bye bye... Plus overall funding for the state U's is down something like 60% from 30 years ago....

- I'm still a fan of some support on health care, especially for minors (but not a full fledged universal Hillary/Edwards type plan)

Maybe McCain would work on these, maybe not, but I know where he stands on a lot of key issues, and it is far right from where I stand!

[RIJIMMY]

from cnn - Then there are the policy differences between the two presumptive major-party nominees for president. John McCain (R) is one of the Senate's most outspoken supporters of the Iraq war, while Barack Obama (D) has opposed it from the start. Senator McCain wants big tax cuts and less government spending; Senator Obama wants tax breaks targeted at the middle class and greater government involvement in job creation. On healthcare, McCain emphasizes consumer choice and market forces, while Obama favors government action that puts the nation on track toward universal coverage.


Iraq war aside, you can basically sum it up by, one practices democracy and one practices socialism

[buckman]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

from cnn - Then there are the policy differences between the two presumptive major-party nominees for president. John McCain (R) is one of the Senate's most outspoken supporters of the Iraq war, while Barack Obama (D) has opposed it from the start. Senator McCain wants big tax cuts and less government spending; Senator Obama wants tax breaks targeted at the middle class and greater government involvement in job creation. On healthcare, McCain emphasizes consumer choice and market forces, while Obama favors government action that puts the nation on track toward universal coverage.


Iraq war aside, you can basically sum it up by, one practices democracy and one practices socialism

Nothing new here! They could use the same reporting for every election, state or federal for the last 16 years. I think I heard" the lower the taxes for the middle class" from Duval too.

[Nebe]

universal coverage is socialism?

lets see. We have health insurance, homeowners insurance, car insurance..If you ask me no mater who pays for it- you or tax money, it makes no difference.


to get away from the pooling of money to pay for others expenses, you might as well start a savings account and not have any insurance at all. I dont care where the money comes from, just as long as the system can be improved... and any time you privatize, you open up the costs for profit. Based on what ever profit levels private insurance company's operate at, why not have the goverment take it all over and create a price cap??

what am I missing here? what is the difference if the goverment provides insurance over private insurance?

[buckman]

Originally Posted by Nebe

universal coverage is socialism?

lets see. We have health insurance, homeowners insurance, car insurance..If you ask me no mater who pays for it- you or tax money, it makes no difference.


to get away from the pooling of money to pay for others expenses, you might as well start a savings account and not have any insurance at all. I dont care where the money comes from, just as long as the system can be improved... and any time you privatize, you open up the costs for profit. Based on what ever profit levels private insurance company's operate at, why not have the goverment take it all over and create a price cap??

what am I missing here? what is the difference if the goverment provides insurance over private insurance?

They are doing such a great job with Social Security and Medicare I think they should run everything. Hell give them your whole paycheck and they can tell you what to buy and when. And when your kid has to wait for a kidney transplant because of all the paperwork and more needy ( as determined by the goverment) people ahead of him/her I'm sure you will understand.

[Nebe]

right... but UCLA just preformed 3 liver transplants for 3 japanese mafia bosses, who paid a %$%$%$%$ load of money so they would get speedy treatment..while there are hundreds of us citizens waiting for one.. including my mother.. which is worse? A slow goverment controled system, or a corrupt profit based private system?

[buckman]

Sorry about your mother. I hope it works out well. Most big Universities are more corrupt the the goverment. They will sell out the whole country for a big donation. How would you feel if the Bush administration was in charge of kidney transplants?

[spence]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

Iraq war aside, you can basically sum it up by, one practices democracy and one practices socialism

Yes, you could sum it up that way...assuming you didn't know what socialism or democracy really were.

-spence

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by buckman

How would you feel if the Bush administration was in charge of kidney transplants?

terrified.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by Nebe

terrified.

Then we agree. See we can reach across the aisles, why can't they?

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by Nebe

universal coverage is socialism?

lets see. We have health insurance, homeowners insurance, car insurance..If you ask me no mater who pays for it- you or tax money, it makes no difference.


to get away from the pooling of money to pay for others expenses, you might as well start a savings account and not have any insurance at all. I dont care where the money comes from, just as long as the system can be improved... and any time you privatize, you open up the costs for profit. Based on what ever profit levels private insurance company's operate at, why not have the goverment take it all over and create a price cap??

what am I missing here? what is the difference if the goverment provides insurance over private insurance?

name one, just one thing the government does well?
What system is run effectively? The beauracracy would cripple routine medical issues. Have you heard Canada's story?

[EarnedStripes44]

Amtrak

[likwid]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

name one, just one thing the government does well?

Spend money.

WHAT DID I WIN?

Originally Posted by EarnedStripes44

Amtrak

Amtrack is run horribly. They're so overbudget its painful, half the time they're LUCKY if they're on time.
Lets not forget the Northeast Corridor. Doing 30 through CT? When Acela could be doing damn near 100 and cutting over an hour off the ride time?
Not that commuting via airline is any better.

Netjets is the only way to commute.

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

name one, just one thing the government does well?

Kill people. Maybe they can redeem themselves and save some lives

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Kill people. Maybe they can redeem themselves and save some lives

they dont even do that well.

[stripersnipr]

Originally Posted by Nebe

where is happymatt? surely one can not be mad about everything?

did you guys know it requires twice as much energy to be mad as opposed to happy.

group hug guys.. group hug.

Group hugs would go nicely with the group reach arounds happening in this thread.

[spence]

Wait, that we want perm bases in Iraq is a "secret plan"

Hasn't this been the MO from day one?

If you don't believe me, go read the neocon manifesto from the PNAC that's to blame for Bush's entire foreign policy. I'd link to their website but it's been suspended

-spence

[spence]

And just to be sure, after you've read the wacky PNAC position on how American might is "good" for the rest of the world, here's what happened to it's sponsors after Bush took office!

-spence