Timewaster's Guide Archive
General => Rants and Stuff => Topic started by: Peter Ahlstrom on August 30, 2008, 12:08:06 AM
-
This seems discussionworthy. I had never heard of her before this morning, but now I am kind of excited. She's such a shocking choice.
-
I agree. Party line politics and gender aside, what are her qualifications for the job of VP? Just so there’s no misunderstanding, I don't care what party she's in, or that she's female; I have nothing against a woman in office, of any kind. But, being the Gov. of Alaska for two years? How does that help? How can we know she will do the right job? Moreover, in the event of the President dieing, we would then have Sarah Palin as President, with little or no experience.
-
I can't really tell what I think yet. It certainly is an interesting choice.
-
I'm really NOT excited about this year's election. I honestly cannot decide which buffoon would be worse for this country.
They both come with such low qualifications that I may have to vote on the quality of their running mates.....
As for this lady. It is an interesting pick. It's nice to see women getting more visibility in presidential elections, but I am not voting on which person should be in office based on their sex or race. If she is a qualified person of decent moral fibre, then its a good choice. If not, its a bad choice and feminists be hanged. :D
If anyone has any info on her I'd be interested to hear it.
-
I would most definitely have wanted Biden to be Pres. He is so much better than any of them.
-
In my opinion, she was a purely political pick by the McCain camp to attract a bulk of the extremely fanatical Hillary supporters who would vote for a woman just because she is a woman (please keep in mind that there ARE people like this out there and it is not something I personally relish bringing up, but it is the truth). I fully support a woman to be president if she wishes.
Personally, I don't think she is very bright. I mean, in one video I saw she pretty much came out and said she has no idea what the VP actually does...so yeah lol. Take into account that she's already under federal investigation for "abuse of power" while Governor of Alaska and certain other things about her that I dislike (she once asked her town library if they could live with censored books, something I am vehemently against).
She has been the Governor of a state with less that 600k people for less than two years, before that she was a small town mayor. She has little to no foreign policy experience, and if McCain's health should worsen (nothing against him, but he is extremely old and does have his bouts with lots of illness) I don't think she would make a very good president.
Her pick was either a brilliant ploy by the GOP or its fatal mistake.
-
I agree. Party line politics and gender aside, what are her qualifications for the job of VP?
There aren't any qualifications to be vice president. It's pretty much the least important job in existence. You sit in on Senate meetings, if you can make them, and cast a tie-breaking vote, which is astronomically unlikely. The office of the First Lady has more power than the office of the vice president.
The only reason it would be even remotely important is if
a) the president is likely to rely on the vice president for advice or to bureaucratically assign power, like the Bush administration has
or
b) the president dies, resigns or is impeached and removed from office. I guess McCain is seventy-two, and much more likely to die in office (especially if he were elected for two terms) than most American presidents. So his VP choice might warrant more importance than Obama's (of course, Obama would be much more likely to have attempts on his life due to his race. I hate to say it, but it's just the truth). But, in general, the vice president is completely unnecessary and pretty honestly unimportant.
It's really a shame somebody gets paid for that.
-
yeah i was gonna say something like that. I mean when Theodore Roosevelt was in politics but before he was actually president, his rivals actually wanted him to get the post of VP. They considered it a dead-end job which would go nowhere. Of course, they didn't foresee what would happen next but the fact remains the VP basically does nothing but look good on TV.
-
There are no DEFINED qualifications to be VP. . . but there are understood ones. Basically they need to be able to deal with politics and potentially be president. If they can't do that. . . then they shouldn't be VP.
-
Since we're talking qualifications here, how would anyone be more nervous about a vice presidential candidate (Palin) with two years experience as a Governer (which at least is an administrative position), but have no issue with a Presidential candidate with only three years experience in the Senate? Unless McCain dies his first year in office, Palin will gain experience as second in command, which is more than most people have. I also love how people take things out of context. When Palin said she didn't know what the VEEP's job was, she meant that she didn't want to just sit around and have lunch with Senators all day, she wanted to get some work done.
It's funny, everyone says they want a candidate who is different, but only if that different type of politician is in the correct party.
-
I like the concept of change no matter where it comes from, but Governing a state is no where near the experience needed on 'Capital Hill'. Senatorial jobs at least provides you with experience of what happens in Washington on a day to day basis.
-
Well in my research to find out just what A VP does, I’ve found out that they do… nothing. Well they only do what the President allows them to do. This historically is nothing of importance in the governing of the United States. That being said I have to agree with darxbane.
Since we're talking qualifications here, how would anyone be more nervous about a vice presidential candidate (Palin) with two years experience as a Governer (which at least is an administrative position), but have no issue with a Presidential candidate with only three years experience in the Senate? Unless McCain dies his first year in office, Palin will gain experience as second in command, which is more than most people have. I also love how people take things out of context. When Palin said she didn't know what the VEEP's job was, she meant that she didn't want to just sit around and have lunch with Senators all day, she wanted to get some work done.
It's funny, everyone says they want a candidate who is different, but only if that different type of politician is in the correct party.
I would rather have someone who has the executive experience vs. legislative to be in a position to take the helm.
-
In my opinion, she was a purely political pick by the McCain camp to attract a bulk of the extremely fanatical Hillary supporters who would vote for a woman just because she is a woman (please keep in mind that there ARE people like this out there and it is not something I personally relish bringing up, but it is the truth). I fully support a woman to be president if she wishes.
I think this is kind of a knee jerk reaction and not at all likely to sway a significant voters. And I'm dead certain the the high muckety mucks in the GOP know that. Thus I can't believe this is the case.
The die-hard Hillary voters were primarily feminist. And no feminist is going to vote for a pro-lifer, be it a woman or not. So no, I think this is not the case at all
My biggest problems with Pallin are this:
1) hypocrisy. Republicans have been making a *huge* deal about experience with Obama, yet they choose a newcomer for VP. Makes me ill. Makes me angry. Makes me stabbity.
Note this is not a problem with PALLIN being a hypocrite, just every Republican (most of them) who made a big deal about Obama's lack of experience and is now suddenly excited about the McCain ticket. Shows they were grasping at straws. Sticks in my craw a bit, y'know?
2) Her daughter. Look, I'm not pure. I've got nothing against Pallin because she had a daughter who had sex, or even got pregnant. I applaud her that she and her daughter decided to carry the baby to term. It's what I think should be done. However. The girl is 17. She's *marrying* the father?! doubleyoo tee eff. Really. Toooooo young. The baby should be given for adoption, not forced into a family with underage parents that will probably only last a couple years (statistically).
And yes, I admit the following is speculation: I really wonder how much of this the girl is doing by choice. Would she have made the choice for an abortion? Would she have never married the guy? would she prefer to give the child up for adoption? Or is all this happening because her mom was being vetted for VP? I try to think that people are trying to do the right thing, but I can't help but think that "the right thing" got confused here with "what will improve my chances for being selected and then elected?" Like I said, this paragraph is pure speculation, but I can't get myself past it.
I don't know that either of those issues would prevent me from voting for her, but there' still there and pretty big. Hard to get around.
Oh, and experience?
Abraham Lincoln, arguably the greatest president this nation has had (he always makes the top 5 list when a historian makes one), had only 8 years of experience, AS A STATE SENATOR, and only TWO as a U.S. Senator before he led this nation through the biggest crisis it ever had (yes, bigger than September 11, bigger than Katrina, bigger than everything in the last 8 years COMBINED). Let's listen to what the candidates will DO rather than worry about what their experience is. People who say things about "experience" are, imo, simply trying to find something to be wrong with candidates. I dismiss these criticisms as invalid and, at best, fuzzy muddying of the actual issues.
-
Experience may not be required to become president, but it certainly can't hurt. Moreover, it helps voters choose if they are able to look into the candidate's past and view actions. Words are meaningless; every politician talks about change and new this and we are gonna fix that (they of course leave out how most of the time). I want to see proof of change, and I certainly can't trust someone who avoided several key votes in the Senate so he could stay clean for his presidential campaign.
Besides, why are we even comparing Palin and Obama? Did everyone forget that Palin is the Vice-Presidential candidate? By this rationale, I guess Obama should drop back to VP and let Biden be the pres nominee. You can't compare the two because they are going for different jobs.
-
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122044753790594947.html?mod=rss_opinion_main
-
Very, very interesting article. Thanks for that
-
I scanned the article, and while it was interesting, perhaps it has changed since you posted? I didn't see it closely tied to the conversation, though it was relevant still. Maybe direct me to the parts I should read more carefully?
I think we can compare the two when Pallin takes to spending the day lambasting Obama for lack of experience. Now the hypocrisy has fallen into her lap. Sure, experience can help, but it's not a requirement, if that's all you got as ammo, you haven't got much.
-
The article was relevant to the thread in general and should not be seen as a reply to you specifically.
As for the experience discussion: I think a lot of assumptions that don't agree with each other are being held by the folks involved. One of the things I object to when people discuss politics is when one holds an entire spectrum of people responsible for the statements of individuals. If you want to say that the same people who were blasting Obama for inexperience are now happy with Palin I'd like to see quotes from those people, with bylines. I for one never got into too much of a huff over Obama's lack of experience, yet, as a Republican by voting preference, you have just accused me of hypocrisy. A little more precision would set my mind at ease.
As for experience in general, I honestly see quite a difference between executive experience (actually being responsible for people, money and infrastructure) and legislative experience where you are responsible for nothing but your own re-election or even 'community organizing' experience, whatever that means. So I don't really have a problem with the people who went on about Obama's lack of experience and yet are happy about Palin. Apples and oranges and all that.
Edit: Oh, and I just watched Mrs. Palin's speech at the Republican Convention. She's got a lot more ammo than Obama's inexperience. A lot more.
-
Her bringing up the bridge to nowhere twice, after she was called on it at her "Dayton" speech (which was in my hometown of Fairborn, in an arena whose roof can be seen from my parents' kitchen window, at least in the winter when there are no trees in the way), seems dumb to me. I believe the reports that she supported the bridge during her election campaign, saying it was essential to Ketchikan's economic future, and it seems like she decided against it only when it became politically prudent. I don't think calling it a "bridge to nowhere" was fair, since it was to be a bridge connecting Alaska's 5th largest city with its only airport (the airport is what matters, not the handful of people living on the island), but let's get some more perspective: The "city" has only 7,368 people, and an improved ferry system sounds to me like more than suitable enough to handle 200,000 airline travelers a year. The bridge would have cost $400,000,000, and that's an obscene amount.
Palin made the right choice by canceling it, but she shouldn't have supported it earlier, and she shouldn't be championing it now as if Alaska gave the money back or something (it didn't give it back, but by the time Alaska got it it was no longer an earmark for the bridge and was just for general Alaska transportation infrastructure).
Palin's desire to ban books at her local library while she was mayor, her spending policies (give money back to the people and instead use bonds to pay for projects), and some apparent abuses of power bother me.
However, I think it's extremely exciting that she's in the race, and most other choices McCain could have made would have been boring (except for maybe Lieberman). Maybe this will get McCain elected. I liked McCain's speech tonight. I was watching on PBS with Jim Lehrer, and a couple commentators were confused by his speech—they said he didn't sound like someone running from the party that's been in power the last 8 years, but that he gave a "kick the bums out" speech. They said McCain made it clear he was running as McCain. I agree. Even though McCain picked Palin rather than Lieberman, I think he really does want to be bipartisan and work to actually get things done instead of just push a party agenda.
Plus I'm socially conservative as far as abortion and protecting traditional marriage. Though having dealt with the real world issue of health care in the last couple months, I think the nation's health care system, and all insurance in the US for that matter, has serious problems. Health care (and all insurance) should be for the people, not for wall street investors who want their stock price to go up. To heck with capitalism where insurance is involved. Insurance companies should turn their excess profits (beyond a certain safety cushion) back over to the people who have to pay premiums. That's what my car insurance company does.
-
Skar, please re-read this quote from my post (emphasis added):
"just every Republican (most of them) who made a big deal about Obama's lack of experience and is now suddenly excited about the McCain ticket"
Note that I did not accuse *any* republican that did *not* make a big deal of experience of anything. Thank you.
I think specifically of my friend online whom I do work for, who in many ways represents to me what is wrong with conservative voters in general and seems to ignore my statements.
I too am irked by generalizing a large group by the actions of one. This is my biggest problem with political speeches in general, because speeches, by the nature of their format, don't go into details and (not by nature) tend to generalize groups. Which is why I went to bed in the middle of McCain's speech last night. I'm sure had I listened to Obama's, I would have done the same for him. I'm slightly irritated at my wife for making me turn off Six-Sting Samurai last night so she could listen to something that was just going to make me angry.
Again, i repeat that Lincoln, a model for the GOP, had zero executive experience and less federal experience than Obama when he was elected. I seriously can't see how experience is still an issue in this debate. It may be nice to see some to judge behavior, but it's hardly decisive.
I'm sure Pallin does have more ammo, which makes me wonder why she thinks she needs to bring up experience. Or why it's the first thing I hear out of the mouths of 90% of Obama critics. Why don't they talk about policy problems. His vagueness in his plans for carrying out his ideas is a much bigger problem for me than his lack of experience. It seems like a more substantial issue and a better demonstration of his not being qualified.
(also, i think that's an unfair description of legislative procedure, Skar, but that's a matter for another discussion, I think)
-
Yeah, I'm disgusted by this choice. I mean, honestly? She may be a woman, but she's a dumb one to in an interview say she's "Not really sure what a vice president does". Yes, not knowing exactly what a VP does? Not a crime. Being stupid enough to say that in AN INTERVIEW?
Not impressed. Plus she manages to completely go against what most women voters actually want - as I recall she's against universal healthcare, anti-abortion, and with 17 year old daughter pregnant and getting married? Great, way to convince me your party is pro-feminism and *doesn't* think women should be popping out as many babies as possible with little say in the matter, irregardless of what's best and right for their lives.
Wasn't voting Republican to begin with, but now after this I really feel like doing some good ol' propaganda art for the other side.
-
Who said she was trying to appeal to women who are pro-abortion? She's pretty obviously trying to appeal to women who are anti-abortion. You think she went about her political career while her husband decided when she should have kids? Not likely.
-
I love when people who already have an opinion take something out of context and then use it to support their view. Her comment about the VP's role was a jab at the fact that a VP has no real responsibility. Sure, he or she assists the president as a rep for the country in foreign affairs, but has no control over anything. The VP makes a tie-breaking vote in the Senate, but when was the last time that happened? Please make sure you understand the point before saying something that is incorrect. As for the book banning; from what I have read, she asked the people of her town whether it was something they wanted to do. I don't know the whole story, but isn't it possible, even likely, that it was brought up by some group in the town and she was attempting to quell the issue? My point is, you need to find out for yourself what the details of these situations are, because journalism nowadays is more biased than ever, and have proven repeatedly that checking your sources and being responsible are secondary to scooping the competition.
-
THSGHPMME:
I apologize for my misinterpretation. You were perfectly clear in your statement; I was hasty.
"...wonder why she thinks she needs to bring up experience."
From the context of the speech I got the impression that she was responding to the Obama camp having 'fired back' at her 'lack of experience'. Both parties have now made an issue out of it against the other side. I'm in agreement with you. Judging the candidates from past actions on a top level political level is nice, but not crucial to the debate.
-
I read that she called up the librarian and asked her the procedure for getting a list of books banned. But you're right about the source being dubious.
-
I am vehemently against banning books. I don't think there is an actual list of books she wanted banned (I think she didn't get that far), but the fact that she was trying to is a big no-no for me. I'm all for freedom of speech, as long as it isn't hate speech, and usually people who try to ban books want to do so for more of a personal bias against either the subject matter or the author themselves.
-
Here's a story about the book banning incident.
http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/stories/2008/09/05/palin_book_banning.html
The whole "loyalty test" thing bugs me. I don't get how asking people to resign is a loyalty test, or why loyalty should be tested anyway.
-
I think attempting to take away ANY right of freedom is wrong and can and WILL lead us down a patch of totalitarianism and oppression. Agamben spoke a lot about this in his book Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life. I can't seem to find my PDF version of the book I'm making reference too. I am however summarizing what is found within his book.
-I read a lot of philosophy and have many of my own opinions, however I strongly agree with Agamben on these point.-
What the following quote boils down to. - Taking one right away will give the person/group taking it away feel as if they are in control of the other goup.
- The group who has the right being taken away feels as if they aren't meant to have a say and that they NEED the other power to control them.
- All people involved in said situation form what Agamben calls a "homo sacer" relationship where one group autonomously controls the other and it is situations like this that allow things such as slavery, xenocide, and genocide to happen.
[/color]
NOTE: This is not a direct quote, more a summarization and simplification and a relation to our topic.
Claim: When someone/group of people creates the notion in their mind that they need to "help" someone because the other is "incapable" this creates the mindset that they are better than the other and that the other needs them. (This state of mind is called Sovereign Power.)
In the case of this discussion: She feels that some books are better left unread and that we are better off not reading them, but it is OK for her to have read them.
Support: If we look in history, whether it be slavery all over the world, most genocides that have happened, the subserviantism of women in many cultures, wars fought over someone bing "better", the making Native Americans "more white". We see that one group seems to think that there is something wrong with the other and that it is their responsibility to help them.
Claim: The group that is being "helped" will feel as if they are useless and less than the higher group. This will cause them to move about their daily lives feeling insignificant and as if they need someone else to dictate their lives. It isn't easy for people to come out of this state once the entire populous is within it. (This is called Bare Life because they feel as if they have no purpose but to do what has been defined for them to do.)
In the case of this discussion: Many people won't even know of the books existence and therefore will never read them. Those who do know of the book will think that it is best they don't read them because there must be a reason they are banned.
Support: The lesser groups in all of the afore mentioned issues have a general feeling that this is what they are meant to be and there is no way to change it. (Granted some action by a few can cause others to rally against the Sovereign Power.) In many cases though it is someone belonging to the Sovereign Power group that helps to cause the change.
Claim: Once this relationship is established both sides agree that one is better than the other. This, over time, escalates to the group with Sovereign Power believing they can choose everything, even life or death, of the group living a Bare Life. (This state of coexistence is called Homo Sacer.)
In our discussion: If the government is allowed to take one of our rights they will eventually start to take more and more until they have totalitarian control over the people.
Support: This relationship can be verified in most of the afore mentioned situations. Those that it hasn't been proven in it can be proven that they were headed in that direction before change occurred.
Now in my opinion the U.S. government already controls more things than they should. (i.e. the FCC) We are already headed down this road and we need some serious reform in our government to fix it. Now I personally see myself as Libertarian. But I also believe that our country could currently not move directly to the desired state of governing without many many years of slowly moving towards it.
In any case this is my argument about Palin not my what government should do shpiele.
BTW Does anyone know what books she was trying to get banned? I want to read them out of spite.
-
No one knows. There is a list that is circulating, but it's fake and is just a mishmash of books that have been banned at various times all over the country, even some that were written after Palin was mayor, like the later Harry Potter books.
-
Thanks for the article Ook. It was a good read. I wish there was a list. I want to know what she wanted to ban and why!
-
I'm guessing the only person who knows the answer to that is Sarah Palin. I think the list would be available, if she didn't get called out on her b.s. and had to step back.
Oh, and high five Miyabi, Libertarian to Libertarian. :)
-
I'm guessing the only person who knows the answer to that is Sarah Palin. I think the list would be available, if she didn't get called out on her b.s. and had to step back.
Oh, and high five Miyabi, Libertarian to Libertarian. :)
Are you going to try and be involved in the recreating of whichever state is was they decided upon once we have enough people?
-
I'm not sure I understand your question....then again I am extremely tired and should be in bed. :D
Are you asking if, in the event of some actual progress in this country towards a Libertarian state, would I be involved? I think the answer is a most definite yes. I am already semi-involved in various grassroots campaigns in my home town, and am actually pondering running on a Libertarian Ticket in my state. :)
-
There is actually a Libertarain group online that discusses the possibility of moving a whole bunch of libertarians to a single state then trying to completely reform the government within that state and if the national government tries to step in then they would emancipate themselves from the U.S.
-
I'm sorry I don't mean to be rude, but why?
-
I'm sorry I don't mean to be rude, but why?
Because Libertaians believe that government should have VERY minimal control over what happens. So the idea is to get people elected to office who will move towards the ideal government. SO the thought is, if the federal government tries to step in and stop it then they are stepping out of bounds and that they should separate themselves from that.
-
I'm sorry I don't mean to be rude, but why?
Because Libertaians believe that government should have VERY minimal control over what happens. So the idea is to get people elected to office who will move towards the ideal government. SO the thought is, if the federal government tries to step in and stop it then they are stepping out of bounds and that they should separate themselves from that.
I can agree with the concept, but the actual implementation of the idea is kind of worrying. We as a Country have already been through this once...
-
The funny thing being. Everyone is like "Damn Russia for getting mad about countries seceding, they should just live with it!" but when is talked about happening here people get rather testy.
-
Russia is hypocritical too. They don't want Chechnya to secede from them, but they're all for South Ossetia and Abkhazia and Transnistria seceding from Georgia and Moldova because doggone it, Russians live there!
-
Yeah. Basically everyone is hypocritical. ha ha.
-
THSGHPMME:
I apologize for my misinterpretation. You were perfectly clear in your statement; I was hasty.
"...wonder why she thinks she needs to bring up experience."
From the context of the speech I got the impression that she was responding to the Obama camp having 'fired back' at her 'lack of experience'. Both parties have now made an issue out of it against the other side. I'm in agreement with you. Judging the candidates from past actions on a top level political level is nice, but not crucial to the debate.
well, let's just shoot anyone, of any view, who wants to make this an issue. Really, "celebrity" status is also the same. McCain choose a figure very much like Obama in Pallin, in that she's a minority (technically, there are more women in the world, but they're still considered a group that is oppressed by the establishment in some circles. Politically, it's the same) she's attractive, and she has excellent public presence. And you know what? there's nothing wrong with that. In fact, I think it's a *good* thing for the leader (or second in commend) of the free world to have those traits. It is something that made Reagan such an effective president. People listen when you're like that. World wide. It's not a bad thing for the world to listen to us.
So it boils down to policies and plans to me. So, I know who I *think* I will vote for, but I could still be swayed. I'm not utterly disgusted by both candidates like I was 4 years ago. In fact, while I think neither is ideal, I think both tickets bring something to the table I could live with.
-
There is actually a Libertarain group online that discusses the possibility of moving a whole bunch of libertarians to a single state then trying to completely reform the government within that state and if the national government tries to step in then they would emancipate themselves from the U.S.
Isn't that called Montana? :)
-
Question, What happens in a place with no government? Right I remember now, nothing good. I don't understand this idea of everyone moving from all over This Country into one of Our states and saying "Well were going to do things the way we want and if you don't like it too bad". Ok I get it If you want a place with minimal government then move to the jungle somewhere. Don't take your ideals and then attempt to reform a government that is the only reason you would have the state to take over in the first place. Really if it wasn't for our government and our country then would there even be people who wanted to move to some state and decide to take it over. No they would go somewhere else and do it. Why don't you just go to Canada they would probably let you have free reign for a little while before they stopped you.
Forgive me that sounds like I don't Like Canada. Why don't you go to Iraq or Afghanistan and do it or better yet try North Korea or Iran. Go there and talk about your Libertarian movement, see how they like it.
-
There is actually a Libertarain group online that discusses the possibility of moving a whole bunch of libertarians to a single state then trying to completely reform the government within that state and if the national government tries to step in then they would emancipate themselves from the U.S.
Isn't that called Montana? :)
No it wasn't. ha ha. But Montana and Idaho were both on the list of possible states.
It was some state back east. I want to say Vermont but I'm not sure. I can't seem to find the site. maybe I'm just not looking close enough. ah ah.
-
Ignore and avoid miyabi
-
Ignore and avoid miyabi
???I did something wrong?
-
Ignore and avoid miyabi
???I did something wrong?
I was wondering that myself.
-
No, you didn't do anything wrong. You stated your political beliefs, considerably more gently than Skar and I generally do. Though they may be less conventional political beliefs, there was no hate speech or emotional outpouring. You did just fine.
Ignore the guy telling others to ignore you.
-
Isn't that called Montana? :)
No it wasn't. ha ha. But Montana and Idaho were both on the list of possible states.
It was some state back east. I want to say Vermont but I'm not sure. I can't seem to find the site. maybe I'm just not looking close enough. ah ah.
What I meant was, Montana (stereotypically) is already full of libertarians / anarchists. But yeah, Idaho and Vermont are pretty much that way too.
-
RE: the books Palin allegedly banned while Mayor: http://www.snopes.com/politics/palin/bannedbooks.asp
-
Status: False.
You said alleged already yes, but. . . ha ha. They even say that it is false. ROFL.
-
I love my country and want to see it move forward towards the kind of country that our Founding Fathers wanted. The last 8 years, complete with utter disregard to the Constitution, only add to the debate. If we our leaders cannot even follow the highest law in the land, and then when they are called out on it, claim "Executive Privilege", it makes me sick. But I'm getting off topic.
To lighten up the thread a bit, here's a funny and well done video of McCain getting "Barack-Rolled" at the RNC.
http://gawker.com/5046412/barack-roll-becomes-mccains-worst-nightmare
-
I wasnt trying to tell people to ignore miyabi and you didnt do anything wrong, I was attempting to get someone to bite and miyabi was the first to respond. Nothing personal
-
In more Palin related news, when she was Mayor of Wasilla, the town charged rape victims for their own Rape Kits. Am I the only one who sees a problem with this? ???
http://www.americablog.com/2008/09/wasilla-charged-rape-victims-for-their.html
-
In more Palin related news, when she was Mayor of Wasilla, the town charged rape victims for their own Rape Kits. Am I the only one who sees a problem with this?
That's a major problem, I think - although it may have been more a decision of the police department than the mayor's office.
At first I wondered if the blog claim was even true, so I went to the source of the article:
http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2000/05/23/news.txt
Turns out, it is true, although the blog conveniently left out a few important pieces of the article, such as these comments from Wasilla Police Chief Charlie Fannon:
"In the past weve charged the cost of exams to the victims insurance company when possible."
"Ultimately it is the criminal who should bear the burden of the added costs"
"The forensic exam is just one part of the equation. Id like to see the courts make these people pay restitution for these things"
I think this does add a little clarity to the argument; interpreted generously, it seems the police department charged the victim's insurance company if she had health insurance that would cover it. This made it possible to seek restitution for these costs from the rapist. I'm no lawyer, but it could be that under Alaskan statutes police departments cannot seek such restitution for their investigative costs. Thus, the motive could have been to make the criminal, not the taxpayers, pay for these exams.
As I said, though, I'm being generous, and cynically I believe that the main reason for the law was to cut costs, and I still think it's despicable to do so in this way. Even if the insurance company covers the charges, they will probably count toward the victim's total covered services for the year, and thus it still hurts her.
-
Looks like she's perfectly ready to be Vice President.
http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/09/9620_sarah_palin_secret_email.html
Seriously, didn't we go through this already with Bush/Cheney? How did they get off....oh yeah, "Executive Privilege." Give me a farking break. lol
-
In other news, while I don't like what that linked article describes, there's a media problem I'd like to rant about.
Look, I've gotten more liberal as I've gotten older. As a teen-early twenties, I voted Republican almost on instinct. As I've gotten older I look more at issues and try to look less at party (though this is very difficult, since any reference to any politician in the media includes their party), so in the recent past I've voted for Democrats because I thought they'd do a better job (though this is *not* a straight ticket issue, if I ever feel inclined to vote straight along party lines, I will take a good long look at what I'm doing before going through with it).
So though my inclinations have liberalized, there are things that really, really bother me about the Washington Post (a liberally inclined paper) in the last week.
1) I don't like W., but the Post has been running as their headline stories all this week are a series of articles derived from Woodward's new book. OK, Woodward is a professional reporter, to some this questions his impartiality, but to others this strengthens their perceptions of it. However, he has a reputation of breaking presidents' balls. And while his history with Whitewater means that people in the know would be inclined to leak to him I'd think, adding *potential* credibility to his book, he's also an EMPLOYEE of the Post. So spending an entire week reporting the info in the book as "news," at the headline of the front page smacks, at it's most innocent, as merchandising. Since it doesn't seem to me to be headline news, it smacks much more to me of politically motivated reporting.
2)Then there's the story yesterday about Pallin's spending habits while governor of Alaska. This was also front page, though it was subordinate to the one on Woodward's book. The problem is, it reports all this spending like it was scandalous and inappropriate... but as you turned the page you learn that, even as the article admits, this is acceptable practice, and is expected of governors of the largest geographical state in the US who have to travel so far. And it was to be with her family, and it was, as far as I can tell, all done while doing her job.
I'm not what you'd call in the Pallin camp. But this seems like very irresponsible reporting.
-
I agree.
Most mainstream media is horribly on wither one side or the other. There are very few who actually are impartial and non partisan.
I think one of the problems is that most news agencies often misquote people (recently with Obama) and runs it as a headline item. And there are people that will still buy into it just because one newspaper reported it.
I very rarely rely on mainstream media for news, only because it serves no purpose.
-
I very rarely rely on mainstream media for news, only because it serves no purpose.
OK, then where do you get your news? What source do you consider completely unbiased and how exactly do you know you can trust it?
-
Ah, I probably should have reworded that differently lol.
I meant to say I don't rely on one primary news source. If I find a headline that's intriguing to me, I'll look for it on at least three or four other news sites. After I get all the sides of the story, I'll go to other news site and read nothing but comments from people (admittedly all people have biases, but it just helps my thinking process) before I form my opinion.
-
OK, fair enough. That makes sense.
-
The thing that really irks me is that all these petty personal attacks between candidates are so dumb. Seriously, it seems like the average Joe/Jane Q. Taxpayer is the only person during an election cycle that actually cares about the ISSUES, and not about some paltry personal attacks between the candidates.
I wish mainstream media would just stop focusing on things that don't matter.
-
I'm with you there. I gotta say the petty resorting to feigned offence is really getting on my nerves. Latest offender? McCain's camp.
I don't care if the crowd at Obama's speech where he whipped out the 'lipstick on a pig' line was hooting, hollering, and chanting 'no more pitbulls' or whatever. (All of which is a good indication that they thought he was talking about Palin whether he was or not.) It's irrelevant.
Please. Why get offended over something stupid like that? Do you really want to be seen taking a schoolyard quality insult seriously? Gah! Just let it speak for itself.
-
Exactly.
I have to admit though, I did smirk a bit when I heard Obama's response to the horrible media treatment. The guy calls it like it is.
It's like the McCain campaign is just reaching for something to swift-boat Obama on. It's like a kindergarten class! lol
McCain campaign/media: "OMG, Obama used a quote that's been used for years (included being used by McCain, Cheney, etc, etc) but since Palin used something similar in her RNC speech, he MUST be referring to her!!"
Obama: Wow, you are all dumb. ;D
-
Oh? Did you also smirk when Obama began blasting the McCain campaign for painting him as a muslim even though they didn't? How about the guy who felt the need to coin the phrase "community organizer" as racist? I hear so many people complain about how the media operates, and how they want someone to vote for that isn't a "career politician", but then most of those same people spew out catch-phrases and allegations they here from who? The media! The fact is people have become so enamoured with their party affiliation that they are unable to vote for anyone else, and thus only look for evidence to support their beliefs instead of being objective. I may not agree with McCain and Palin on all of the issues, but at least they have shown that they will stand up to their own party and do what they feel is right, even if it is unpopular with their political base. I guarantee that you will never hear or see Obama or Biden go against their own party.
-
The fact is people have become so enamoured with their party affiliation that they are unable to vote for anyone else, and thus only look for evidence to support their beliefs instead of being objective.
This is why I despise both parties and refused to align myself with either side. I hate the false dichotomy that is created by our bi-partisan system....
For once, I wish people could just vote for people based on things like merit, truth, and honest political opinions.... *sigh*
(That and I wish that we weren't just given a bunch of rich, wanna-be-'everyman' type people who are only interested in power and not actually helping people (looking at you Senate, House, and almost every single presidential candidate EVERYWHERE))
-
Oh? Did you also smirk when Obama began blasting the McCain campaign for painting him as a muslim even though they didn't? How about the guy who felt the need to coin the phrase "community organizer" as racist? I hear so many people complain about how the media operates, and how they want someone to vote for that isn't a "career politician", but then most of those same people spew out catch-phrases and allegations they here from who? The media! The fact is people have become so enamoured with their party affiliation that they are unable to vote for anyone else, and thus only look for evidence to support their beliefs instead of being objective. I may not agree with McCain and Palin on all of the issues, but at least they have shown that they will stand up to their own party and do what they feel is right, even if it is unpopular with their political base. I guarantee that you will never hear or see Obama or Biden go against their own party.
Whoa....I only smirked because it was refreshing to see someone calling someone else out on their BS. And for the record, I'm not even voting for Obama/Biden.
Actions speak louder than words, but sometimes words play just as big a part as actions. Ever since John McCain began overusing the P.O.W. card, he's left a vile taste in my mouth. Don't get me wrong, I fully respect him for his service to this country and the hell he went through as a P.O.W., but he's trying to make it seem like that qualifies him to be President. It doesn't.
McCain was a maverick back in 2000, but ever since he's sided with George Bush 90% of the time. That's not a lot of "going against his own party."
I'm terribly disappointed my candidate of choice didn't get nominated. Mike Gravel is one of the only "honest politicians" to ever have lived.
-
I personally wish Biden was the one running for President. He is the best in my opinion. Well, the best for the country at this time. I hope I live to see the day we get a Libertarian elected to President.
-
To steer this conversation back towards Palin, here is an excerpt from her recent interview.
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/09/sarah_palin_on_bush_doctrine_h.php
I have a dream that one day, any political leader, when asked a simple "yes or no" question, will simply reply with a "yes or a no. :D"
EDIT
Found another part of that interview, and this one REALLY scares me. Like I've said before, I have NOTHING against religion, but zealots like this terrify me.
http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=5782873
-
may not agree with McCain and Palin on all of the issues, but at least they have shown that they will stand up to their own party and do what they feel is right, even if it is unpopular with their political base.
oh, you mean like last year, when he stood up to Bush because he felt shuffling people away to nameless prisons in unfindable locales and not telling anybody any of it was wrong?
Or do you mean three days later when he gave in after no compromise whatsoever and supported the same bill?
I'm not necessarily anti-McCain, but buying into this "maverick" bullhocky is foolish. The only person who considers McCain a maverick is McCain.
-
I do agree that the reversal on things like Guantanamo is troubling. But I think voting with your party 90% of the time is better than 98% of the time. If you don't agree on the core principles, why's it your party? Also, a large percentage of all votes is for normal, non-controversial stuff. 10% rebellion on things one feels one should stand up for seems better than only 2% bucking of the party line.
-
I totally agree with you, Ookla. Even more important is that at least McCain has a voting record. How can you trust a person who was so afraid of hurting his political career that he refused to even submit a vote on over 130 different pieces of legislation, and made no effort to introduce any himself? And we won't even talk about Biden. He is one of the main reasons Congress has a 17% approval rating. In a way, I find it hilarious when these senators and congressmen try to blast Bush for his failings when he is almost twice as popular as they are. Here's an idea; you really want change? Then the next time one of your state reps or senators is up for re-election, vote him out! I mean all of them! Since the elections are staggered, there will be enough of them left to prevent the chaos of a completely green house and senate, but you will most definitely get the attention of whoever remains.
-
I haven't looked at the details, but I believe it's wrong to say Obama didn't introduce any legislation. There's an Obama-Feingold act or something like that. Feingold is obviously someone McCain was willing to work with as well.
-
I stand corrected. He did co-sponsor 1 bill on ethics reform with Russ Feingold in 2006. An extraordinarily safe bill to be involved with but he did introduce it nonetheless.
-
EDIT
Found another part of that interview, and this one REALLY scares me. Like I've said before, I have NOTHING against religion, but zealots like this terrify me.
http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=5782873
what exactly scared you? She believes there is a God who has a plan for this world. That's about what I got from the interview...nothing frightening.
-
I agree. (Just watched the clip.) She didn't sound like any kind of zealot. The desire to grant citizens of every country the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness is a God-given desire? Even if I did not agree with that, I don't imagine it would scare me.
-
EDIT
Found another part of that interview, and this one REALLY scares me. Like I've said before, I have NOTHING against religion, but zealots like this terrify me.
http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=5782873
what exactly scared you? She believes there is a God who has a plan for this world. That's about what I got from the interview...nothing frightening.
She thinks that our people are fighting in Iraq on a mission from God. That's a pretty good definition of a holy war. THAT is what scares me. So basically, according to her, we're fighting against the Jihadist Holy War with our own Holy War. Good lord, it's like the battle of the "My God is the right God, yours is the heathen God" all over again.
And she scares me because religion should be separate from politics. If she thinks the Iraq War is a mission from God, what happens if McCain kicks it, she becomes president, then looks at another country to invade because she thinks it is a mission from God.
-
Did you listen to what she actually said in the interview?
-
I did listen to what she said, the part where Gibson asked her about a speech she gave at her church. She tried to weasel out and say she didn't say what she said, but anyone who watches the church video sees that she says exactly that. Bottom line, she thinks the Iraq war is some divine mandate, a mission from God.
All that stuff about granting all countries "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," I can see how in an idealistic world that could be a nice thing, but essentially it's saying "we're coming into your country to do things our way." I do not agree with that. The United States has no right to tell another country how to run, or invade it to dictate how it should run.
-
So you didn't link to the video that scared you, but to something else?
Okay. I watched her church speech. I think you've got it wrong. She says (while talking about her son in the army):
"Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right also for this country—that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending them out on a task that is from God. That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan. So, um, bless them with your prayers, your prayers of protection over our soldiers."
Charles Gibson took a dependent clause and turned it into a main clause! That's dishonest journalism. If she had said, "Pray that everyone in Iraq loves their neighbor and shuns war"—a perfectly reasonable statement—and he said, "You said 'Everyone in Iraq loves their neighbor and shuns war'; how could you be so blind?" that wouldn't be good journalism either.
She didn't say "this task is from God." She said to pray that our national leaders knew what they were doing, that they were wise enough to follow a plan that lined up with what God's will was. There's a biiiig difference there, and she explained the difference quite well in the interview. When I saw the interview the first time I thought it might be weasely, but now that I've seen the original speech I can see that it totally isn't.
But anyway, what do you think the United States should do about countries that are mass-killing their citizens and the United States believes they are helping out people who are mass-killing the United States' citizens?
On the face of it, the statement "The United States has no right to tell another country how to run, or invade it to dictate how it should run." sounds very reasonable, however I am not sure there are never exceptions. I think a lot of things were done poorly in the Iraq invasion, but I personally don't have better plans that should have been used, and I also think getting rid of Saddam was a good idea. The decision to do it was made using bad data; very few people would deny that now.
If you believe it's God's will for the people on the earth to make good decisions that will help other people, it's perfectly reasonable to pray that you make decisions in line with his will, and to pray that people responsible for your loved ones are making decisions in line with his will. She's not saying, "We're doing God's will, aren't we great?" She's saying she hopes they're doing God's will. That is not a scary thing to hope for.
-
Ok, I re watched the church video and the Gibson interview and admit that I misinterpreted her statement. Then again, when I watched them the first time I was quite tired, so I attribute my mistake to that. ;D
But anyway, what do you think the United States should do about countries that are mass-killing their citizens and the United States believes they are helping out people who are mass-killing the United States' citizens?
Don't get me wrong, Saddam was a murderous sociopath. I've been against the Iraq war from the beginning because Iraq had no connection with 9/11 or al-Qaeda.
Ok, so we invaded Iraq to dispose of Saddam. We did that. We're still there. Now we're there to stabilize the region. If we can stabilize the Middle East, then...just wow. Yes, Saddam's regime was horrible and did really bad things. But there are a lot of even worse regimes out there. Why haven't we invaded Darfur to help them out? Or tried to help out Tibet?
And why are we still allies with places like Pakistan? Hell, the majority of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia...oh wait, they're our allies too.
-
Darfur—at the moment, I think the U.S. wants to get out of the mess it's in and try to learn from its mistakes. There are a lot of similarities, though, with the ethnic thing. If the U.S. had done a good job in Iraq and turned it around already, maybe they should go intervene in Darfur. I don't think the U.S. is going to do much invading in the next decade, but if they do feel the situation somewhere warrants, I really hope they have a better plan from the start.
Tibet is not quite the same. There it's mostly cultural suppression rather than killing, though there is some of that. There are a lot worse places in the world right now to be a native of than Tibet. (And of course there's the whole China thing. Wanting to spread the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is one thing; outright stupidity is another.)
Pakistan just got a new president installed, the widower of a very respected democratic activist. If Musharraf hadn't had to do so much to stay in the U.S.'s good graces, I don't know if that would have been possible.
Saudi Arabia is a rich country and Osama Bin Ladin was a lazy rich guy with too much time on his hands. There are plenty of countries that can produce people like that. The mainstream Saudis are pretty worldly. (It's a bad place for women though. I'm not going to deny that.)
-
Very well put Ookla. While I may come off as a little harsh in my posts, it's not because of any hate towards anyone here. :)
It's true that WE may not invade another country in the next decade, but Israel has lately been doing a lot of saber-rattling and such towards Iran, and if they attack Iran, there will be a lot of calls for us to assist them. I don't want our soldier's dying for other peoples wars.
-
I admit I haven't been paying all that much attention to Israel's foreign policy. They have problems at home they should be taking care of. You know, making peace, not separating Palestinians who were there before they were into ghettos, that sort of thing. Before WWII, Jewish people and Islamic people got along just fine. There was a huge Jewish population in Baghdad, for instance. The animosity that developed between them is one of the great tragedies of the 2nd half of the 20th century.
Is Israel afraid Iran will nuke them? I think if the U.S. had credible intelligence that any country was about to nuke any other, the U.S. should take action. But helping Israel invade some other country just because they've got swelled heads would be a very bad idea.
-
I agree. The whole US/Israel thing could be seen as an outcome of when George Washington warned against "entangling alliances."
But I've kind of thread jacked this thread, so I'll try to reign it back towards Palin.
Um.....
;D
I dunno, like I've said before, one of my gripes is over the whole "book banning" thing.
-
It would be easier to make a judgment on that if she had ever actually gotten around to banning any books. :)
-
True, but just the fact that she tried is a black mark against her in my book. ;)
The way I understand the whole situation is that she called the librarian to ask if she was alright with censoring/banning book. The librarian said absolutely not (bless her), and a few months later she received a letter from Palin saying that she was going to be fired. However, there was no mention of the "censorship incident" being the reason for her firing.
Well this didn't sit well with everyone else, since the librarian was pretty much well liked and respected, and after a lot of pressure, Palin relented and didn't go through with the firing.
-
She seemed to be firing a lot of people for unclear reasons like loyalty tests and whatnot. I don't get it.
-
Kefka, you are really stretching to find reasons not to like this candidate. First you "misunderstand" her in her interview, then you convict her of attempting to ban books where there is little evidence to suggest that was her goal. If there was a real issue there, the Dems would be screaming it from the rooftops, and you know it. Like I said in an earlier post, for all we know Palin could have received word that this librarian wanted to ban a book, and was trying to find out if it was true or not. This is just as likely as the alternative, so it shouldn't sway you. Whether you realize it or not, you are looking for ways to dislike her because she is a Republican. The fact is, if you don't agree with her issues, you don't have to go any further in looking for ways to discredit her.
-
Woo! (http://www.youtube.com/v/9PxJfaNgDoE&hl=en&fs=1)
This makes me laugh. Tina Fey looks EXACTLY like Palin!
-
That was hilarious! Thanks for sharing.
-
N/P
I felt much inclined to share after I saw it.
-
I liked it too. The "I can see Russia from my house" line floored me.
-
On the face of it, the statement "The United States has no right to tell another country how to run, or invade it to dictate how it should run." sounds very reasonable, however I am not sure there are never exceptions.
I think it's better to say "Sometimes it might be okay to tell people what they can't do, rather than saying sometimes it might be okay to tell people what they have to do. But, yeah, the essence of what you meant (I think) sounds viable--sometimes evil people do evil things and other people have to say, "you have been bad, you cannot do this anymore." But I don't think it's ever okay for us to say, "you can't do this and you must do this," like invading a country and telling it that it must be a republic now.
Darxbane has a great point--trying to find a reason to dislike a candidate because you dislike a candidate is silly. If you disagree with her platform, then you disagree with her platform. It's probably best not to judge the candidate before you her him or her speak, though, otherwise it's easy to misinterpret what they say or infer intentions (for the better or the worse) to match your pre-existing thoughts. The fact is, that is what a majority of politics is (thanks to a party system)--pre-existing ideas on candidates before seeing, hearing or having any knowledge of them, sometimes followed by research to back the already made biases.
-
I totally agree with you, Ookla. Even more important is that at least McCain has a voting record. How can you trust a person who was so afraid of hurting his political career that he refused to even submit a vote on over 130 different pieces of legislation, and made no effort to introduce any himself? And we won't even talk about Biden. He is one of the main reasons Congress has a 17% approval rating. In a way, I find it hilarious when these senators and congressmen try to blast Bush for his failings when he is almost twice as popular as they are. Here's an idea; you really want change? Then the next time one of your state reps or senators is up for re-election, vote him out! I mean all of them! Since the elections are staggered, there will be enough of them left to prevent the chaos of a completely green house and senate, but you will most definitely get the attention of whoever remains.
I do agree that the reversal on things like Guantanamo is troubling. But I think voting with your party 90% of the time is better than 98% of the time. If you don't agree on the core principles, why's it your party? Also, a large percentage of all votes is for normal, non-controversial stuff. 10% rebellion on things one feels one should stand up for seems better than only 2% bucking of the party line.
I'm sorry, i have to remain in the camp that thinks that surrendering your *own* *core* principles (not party principles) about essential human rights is much worse than having a short voting record. It says to me that even what he thinks is right isn't worth standing for.
-
Someone over at the Huffington Post has a sense of humor. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-gutfeld/sarah-palins-murderous-we_b_126539.html)
-
A very strange sense of humor. It makes an interesting point, though I feel it is too subtle for most people to see. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if someone tries to rally around the "evidence" presented.
-
That's pretty funny, Skar.
-
That was seriously the BEST article I've ever read :D
-
I am waiting for Matt Damon to try to use the article against Palin. Actually, any Dope Celebrity Liberal will do.
-
That was seriously the BEST article I've ever read :D
ditto to that xD
-
Great stuff Skar.
-
Little new info, apparently someone hacked into her Yahoo email account. Story here.
http://gawker.com/5051193/sarah-palins-personal-email-account-hacked
-
It seems to be plain stupidity on her part. I don't understand why she wouldn't use an encrypted e-mail address if she had one unless she was doing things she wasn't supposed to.
-
Green, care to clarify? I would think the only reason she would use an encrypted email account is if she had something to hide. These seem to be unrelated to business, and therefore irrelevant. We can trust nothing that is not verified, and if the perpetrators are savvy enough to hack into the account, don't you think they could also change dates and create false emails to smear her? Will it ever be possible for us to ensure the information we receive is accurate before we just spew it everywhere? If she acted improperly she should be held accountable, but to believe everything you see on the internet is grossly irresponsible. There was a picture of Fred Durst on top of Tower 1 with a plane about to hit it 3 days after the 9/11 attacks, for crying out loud! Anyone believe that is true?
-
Well, if by stupidity you mean the sort of ignorance that typical non-geeks possess, perhaps you're right. Not all of us know what an encrypted email address is, let alone how or why to use one. I for one have a yahoo account that I use for personal emails, and until this week I had no idea that was grounds for ridicule. It wasn't so long ago that Palin was an ordinary private citizen, with no thought that people might have any desire to hack her personal information. It seems to me quite plausible that she used her business email for business and kept the personal one she already had for personal use.
And if she was doing things she wasn't supposed to, wouldn't that make her MORE careful and not less?
Of course I don't know whether she was hiding things or whatever; I just don't think we can immediately assume that because she had a yahoo address she must be a criminal.
EDIT: darxbane beat me to it.
-
It wasn't really hacking though, if you think about it. Someone just found a way to get her password. Not too difficult, what with the majority of her personal information floating around. Pet name, high school attended, mother's maiden name, etc. etc. Easy enough to figure it out and reset the password.
Not that I'm saying anyone was in the right for doing it, of course. I'm fully against the government spying on me, no doubt the government doesn't take too kindly to people spying on their people. ;)
-
Once again, I've shown my lack of geekiness. I didn't even know the definition of hacking excluded breaking into someone's account by figuring out their password!
-
Ok I guess she could use the account for things she didn't deem important enough to secure. I guess all personal files aren't that important. I was only saying that she had the resource to protect all of her files and she didn't use it. And yes she has been involved in the government long enough to have had an encrypted e-mail to protect her stuff. I use mine all the time, not out of fear someone will steal my password or hack the site but out of habit. I guess that's a habit she is gonna have to get used to.
-
So, I'm worried about Palin. She sounds dumb when she talks and that can't be good. (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0908/Biden_garbles_Depression_history.html)
-
So, I'm worried about Palin. She sounds dumb when she talks and that can't be good. (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0908/Biden_garbles_Depression_history.html)
Yeah, and at the debate tonight Sarah Palin said the Commander of the Ground Forces in Afghanistan is named McClellan. Well, he WAS a general....in the civil war. ;D
By the way, anyone else watch the debate?
-
I caught pieces--it was on during band practice. Hard to hear it over the ruckus. I did manage to catch the part where Palin says, "I haven't made that many promises. What have been at this, like five weeks?" That's a real confidence booster. Her approval rating from the focus group PLUMMETED at that point. Talk about a serious faux pas.
-
I caught most of it and read the transcript of the end. I thought Palin avoided quite a few questions tonight, and Biden refused to admit to many of his earlier comments when Palin challenged him to.
-
It's almost like you have to see who makes the most mistakes instead of who has the best ideas. One avoids questions while the other answers them with bad information. I can't believe the news stations don't put all of the mistakes out online for all to see. Some are spin or minor oversights, but a few things were flat out false.
-
I saw a pretty good three-page fact-check from Newsweek (I think) with debate quotes and earlier quotes with firm dates, but I still noticed a few things that were missing, like the things Palin said Biden had supported or complimented McCain on and Biden denied—those were left out.
-
I can't say I am surprised by that. After the debate, I had given Biden a slight edge. However, after hearing how innaccurate he was, and how he flat out lied at least 3 times, I switched and gave Palin the win. She didn't have things 100% correct, either, but she was George Washington truthful compared to Biden. Oh well, I'm just glad I work for a company that would have way too difficult a time moving our plant to another location. We will have to eat the Corporate tax increase if Obama gets elected. It's funny how few people realize that increasing taxes on corporations will just cause them to either A) relocate to a more tax-friendly country, or B) increase the cost of goods to make up the difference, or C) downsize because they can no longer compete with foreign companies. Increasing taxes on the richest 1% will decrease charitable donations and grants. The vast majority of these super wealthy people are that way because they are very good with money. This is why I still can't fathom why anyone would think it is wise to take money away from these people and give it to an entity that everyone agrees is terrible at managing money. Before any tax increases take place, I would demand that the Congress show some real fiscal responsibility. I bet we would all be surprised to see just how much money is wasted, all the way down to the city levels of Government.
-
Oh man. I finally actually watched part of the Katie Couric interview. It was so painful I can't stand to watch the rest. They hardly had to make anything up for the SNL spoof of it. I had read descriptions of it as painful, but I had no idea how truly bad it was.
I suspect that her note cards were a major reason why she was much better in the debate. Or I suppose it's possible she was just having a bad day on the day of that interview. Either way, it was truly terrible, and the less she talks to the press, the more weight each individual appearance will be given when people judge her competence.
-
I don't think it was a bad day--if it was, her party would have her doing a lot more interviews. It's pretty clear they consider her too incompetent to handle the media en masse, or too inexperienced. Either way, Biden screws up a fair amount with the facts and he's all over the media, which shows, I think, how much more faith the Democratic party has in their VP than the Republican party. For whatever the reason, I don't think you should ever pick a candidate you see as incapable of handling parts of the job--it looks like, because of how little they're putting her out there, that they just picked her because they wanted the demographics they thought she'd bring in.
And it's definitely true that if they put her out there more, her major screw ups would carry less weight.
-
Well, she is out there now giving a lot of speeches at campaign rallies, but it's not her ability to follow a script that anyone is worried about.
I'm getting less and less enthusiastic about both slates of candidates as we get closer to the election.
-
It's the big problem you get when two candidates are so similar on the vast majority of issues. There are so few differences in policy that most people would have trouble seeing it, so they distort each others record and bring out the fear talking points to ignite the bases and all that nonsense. With the cry for Palin's head that echoed throughout the Left, we were force-fed a preconceived notion. Once again, you have to look up prior interviews she had when before she was nominated. It is like two different people. When I think about it, it reminds me of Good Morning Vietnam, when Robin Williams gives an "Interview" with Richard Nixon. Katie Couric's ratings are horrible, and it would not at all surprise me that her crew would stoop to editing Palin to look like a fool to boost herself. What I don't understand is why they chose who they chose for her two interviews. It's almost like they wanted the left media people to make her look bad so they could further show the bias against her. It doesn't make sense. She should have been on O'Reilly by now.
-
You don't want your candidate to be on a show with somebody who has a reputation like OReilly. He would make her look good because he's so blatantly conservative, but any undecided voters (who are who they need to appeal to) could very easily see it as Palin being SUPER conservative being a show with a reputation for being conservative (whether or not it is). Undecided voters are usually very moderate, so you want to show yourself as moderate. If you're a conservative, you try to find a liberal source to put your message on, hope to grab some voters, then you can also take advantage of the victim card and say you were attacked by "liberal media", turning moderate voters against the liberal side.
The problem is, even without editing techniques making Palin look stupid, she often comes across as uninformed or as a question-dancer, refusing to answer questions she doesn't know the perfect "party" answer to.
-
You are out of your mind. Obama went on O'Reilly, as did Hilary. McCain, and Biden. They were all grilled pretty hard, and as usual, he had messages from both Reps and Dems criticizing him for being either too soft or too hard, depending on who was interviewed. It's funny how the PEW review found that more Independants watch FoxNews than any other network, and more people overall watch O'Reilly than any other Talk Show, yet liberals call FoxNews and Bill O'Reilly evil and ultra-conservative. Like I have said before, when everything else leans way left, the middle will appear way off to the right. The fact is, O'reilly's show is the most watched of any news talk show, so if you want your candidate to get exposure by the most viewers, you get them on that show.
Since we have brought up the media bias issue again, the link below is interesting. This is not the only one I found, but it had the most data. Even the most ethical person can't help but be influenced by his or her views, so if the majority of journalists are liberal leaning, their news will follow suit.
http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp#TV%20and%20Newspaper%20Journalists
-
You'll notice I said "whether or not it is." It doesn't matter if he is the most liberal person in the WORLD, if he has a reputation for being conservative, which he does. He is a registered Republican, or at least was in 2000, despite denials that he was. Since being ousted as a Republican, he re registered as an independent, probably because of the negative affect being associated with a party would have on his commentator career. It says in his wikipedia that he generally supports a conservative viewpoint. That doesn't mean it is true, it doesn't mean it isn't. But it is a pretty good indicator of his reputation.
My point didn't have anything to do with media bias as an attack on media, any of it. The point was, and I'm sure I conveyed this well if you weren't putting words in my mouth, that you want to go to media sources with the reputation of polar bias at this point in time in the election. That way you're more likely to pick up the moderate, undecided voters.
The fact that Obama and Biden went on his show support this view. The fact that Hilary and McCain went on the show support the fact that he is pretty widely watched. The fact that I'm biased for liberalism is partially true. However, you continuously misconstrue my remarks, especially about the media, and I'm starting to think it is on purpose. I wasn't attacking O'Reilly as conservative.
http://www.tv.com/shows/top-shows/talk-shows/13/today.html. You must be defining talk show pretty weird to not include that list of "News Talk Shows". He has the routinely highest rated show of the major cable news television networks. Big difference.
-
I don't deny he has a conservative viewpoint. You stated that he was ultra-conservative, and that is not true. I was going for Primetime news talk shows, although even the Today show has been steadily losing viewers. I would love to see how close Fox and Friends is to them now. Irrespective of that, there is still research that shows that more independents watch Fox News, and those voters are the ones you want. Therefore, wouldn't it make sense to go on the most watched program that is shown on a cable network that is shown to have a high number of independant voters? I am not putting words in your mouth, I am simply showing that you have some established beliefs that don't always have accurate facts to back them up. I may have been a little strong with the out of your mind thing, but I only said it because even John Kerry said, in an interview after he lost, that he regretted not going on O'reilly's show during the campaign because of the number of independant viewers who watch him. O'Reilly would not go easy on Palin. Sean Hannity is a different story. I debate with people to test my own beliefs as much as my opponents. I don't watch O'Reilly every day. In fact, I usually only read the transcripts of some of his interviews. You know what would be an even greater indicator of his reputation? Watching him yourself! Take a notebook, and write down the number of times he blames republicans for things, the number of times he smacks down a conservative person who comes on his show, etc. I did this with Olbermann's show, because he is supposed to be the Anti-O'Reilly. He was so blatant in his distortion of the truth that he didn't even bother to choose things that weren't on tape to distort! Every time he attacked a position, there was a transcript or tape of what was actually said and it was completely different from what he was trying to convey. To be honest, I am not sure exactly what constitutes a Conservative viewpoint anymore. If you're not 100% pro-choice? If you believe that people should take at least some responsibility for their situations, instead of blaming everyone else? If this is true, than I am guilty as well.
-
OReilly isn't a straight Republican, but he is very conservative. Usually when I see him belittle or disagree with a Republican, it is for not being conservative enough. For example, I haven't watched him in a while (I don't avoid it, but I'm never around when he's on), but I would be willing to bet that he's belittled a republican on his show about the 700 billion dollar fix for being too "big government", which is a conservative standpoint.
Conservatism comes down to the argument between Big Government and Small Government, generally. This gets muddled when the "conservative" party wants laws against abortion, for example. But, yeah, the more conservative you are, the less national government interaction you want running society. We really shouldn't use "conservative" for "republican", but we do because it is convenient.
Again, and I can't stress this enough, it wouldn't matter if OReilly went easy on Palin or not. He tends to not go easy on anybody, I'd agree with that. Because he tends to shut down anybody who remotely disagrees with him as stupid. The thing is, his reputation (my reputation, Iago, my reputation! I've lost my reputation!) is conservative, and THUS the PERCEIVED outcome of the interview is that he went easy on Palin, whether or not he did. Rather, if you can get yourself to the opposite end of the independents and grab a few with an interview with a liberal journalist, and then get bonus points for "being attacked by liberal media", it is a strong move. She probably should have gone on BOTH, but her party, at least up to this point, has been trying to keep her from being too exposed for whatever reason. If you can only pick one, I think the move they made had solid strategical reasoning behind it.
I did call OReilly ultra-conservative, in a much earlier statement. Knowing my opinion about somebody may make it easy to misconstrue what I say. But that is not what I was saying recently. It's all about reputation.
That being said, I'm ultra-liberal (by the same logic that OReilly is ultra-conservative), because I believe that government involvement in regulating capitalism is a good thing, and I like limiting capitalism and the idea of government help to those who need, under restrictions. That being said, I don't agree with all (or even most) democrats on a lot of issues, and I am not a democrat. The same, but opposite, ideas can be applied to OReilly. He could be harsh on Republicans because he's farther conservative than them, just as I am with democrats.
-
If he is harder on republicans, why to Democrats hate him so much? Obviously, there must be something they don't like about him. He was against the 700 Billion for the same reason most Americans were. It allows big companies to be more reckless because they know they will be bailed out. Also, since Congress both Nationally and locally have proven time and again that they absolutely suck with money, why would we want them to have their hands in anything? Everyone wants government to get out of their lives and let them have all their rights, but as soon as things get tough, they go crying out to "where were you government, why didn't you protect me?" There are evil people out there, and you have to protect yourself. This bailout of those who bought mortgages they couldn't afford is the equivalent of all the money the taxpayers have had to pay to continually rebuild houses on flood plains. Blah! I believe I am responsible for me. I guess that has become a "Conservative" viewpoint. So be it, then.
-
Let me explain where I stand (briefly), which may help you understand my viewpoint a little better.
I believe that the governments responsibility is to the people it represents. I believe all people have natural rights which should never be denied by the government, or other people. I do not believe corporations have these same rights, at which point I disagree with modern law. I believe corporations and organizations, as groups of people which often become run in the self-interest of an individual or, even worse, no individual--but the "soulless corporation" itself. I believe it is the government's job to regulate its corporations to keep them acting responsibly, because corporations have more power than individuals and are not naturally held to acting responsibly, as people will always have to hold them up.
I think there should be no laws except protecting the rights and safety of individuals (which includes corporate supervision). In this matter I disagree with many, as well. I don't think our laws should be dictated by cultural morality, and activities such as homosexuality, nudity, crudeness/manners, etc. should not be regulated because they do not trample the natural rights of others. These rights include a right to free speech (which should protect everything from lingual speech in its most disrespectful forms to artistic speech), the right to be free from physical assault, the right to life (for people, not fetuses...which is a sticky subject, and the definition of which I and many who agree with me would be happy to negotiate), the right to pursue happiness (when it does not inflict on others' rights).
In this sense, I think there are many laws that do not need to exists. I disagree with laws about marital customs, and I think if a man/woman wants more than one husband/wife of the same or opposite sex, it is not the government or anybody else's business.
The only exception to this that I can think of off the top of my head is laws protecting children from their own ignorance--for example, obviously children should not be be allowed to choose to smoke until they are old enough to make an informed decision, probably around fifteen or sixteen.
I think in this nature, I agree with you in the "I am responsible for me" statement. I am responsible for me, and you are responsible for you--and as long as you don't interfere with my ability to be responsible for me, and have no right to be responsible for any action you partake in, whether or not I find it distasteful or offensive.
I understand that explained briefly, there are logical gaps in this argument, but it is a discussion for a different thread entirely, as it is mostly unrelated to the topic of this thread.
Also, technically this is a mix between an extraordinarily conservative and an extraordinarily liberal viewpoint, as I am for small government when it comes to individuals, but big government when it comes to social work, social aid, social services and corporation maintenance.
-
Your are almost a Libertarian, but you lose the monniker when you say you want big government for anything. What you don't seem to get is that some of those things do in fact trample on someone's natural rights. If someone's behavior is making someone else uncomfortable, is that fair? There are some things that should either be done in private, or with others of similar belief. Whether you realize it or not, your beliefs lend themselves toward Less personal responsibility, because there are less behavioral guidelines. Do you feel it is right to cry FIRE in a crowded theatre? Insight a panic? Openly insult someone or intimidate them? Rouse a crowd into a riot? You don't know how people will react to things. Are they automatically wrong because they disagree with you? Who then decides where the line is drawn? I can find examples of every Right you have mentioned that, when left unchecked, have caused very bad things to happen. By what you say, special interest groups and other community organizations or clubs (like political parties), will get the same mentality as that "soulles corporation". People always want a little bit more than what they get, and tend to keep pushing until someone pushes back. When you put a group of people together who validate their beliefs, those beliefs can spiral into the extreme if gone unchecked (Nazis, anyone?).
As for corporations, since they are ultimately owned and controlled by people, regulating the corporation regulates the person. If a person's pursuit of happiness is to run the biggest and best company the world has ever seen, by your logic he or she should be allowed to do that without restriction. You are making an exception for someone who is business savvy, so that leaves room for other exceptions to be made. The current laws against collusion, Monopoly, and Fraud need to be checked and adjusted constantly, but allowing the government to control the economy is incredibly dangerous. Ironically enough, you want the ultimate soulless conglomerate to have control over the entire economy. Governmental control over business is the ultimate Monopoly. Not only does the government spend other people's money, but there is no consequence for them screwing it up. Sure, a couple of individuals may be sacrificed, but the machine will keep chugging.
Finally, polygamy. Ahh, one wonders why you would want more than one spouse, unless of course you want to establish control over people by marrying your way to riches and influence. How much easier it could be to accomplish this if you didn't have to divorce the first wife to marry another. Not only that, but unless you meet both spouses at the same time, it means it OK to cheat. That encourages jealousy, spread of disease, more broken homes, incredibly complicated divorce proceedings, I am sure I can go on. Believe me when I tell you that there are often very good reasons laws have been implemented. Few were intended to control and subjugate (although abuses do happen), but were instead designed to prevent control and subjugation. Think about this; if fear of eternal damnation and suffering are not enough to keep people honest, what would they do if there were no real consequences?
-
A) I don't want to be a polygamist, I just don't have problems with those that do. Similarly, I'm not gay, but I have no problems with those who want to marry in the same sex. There are plenty of societies which existed perfectly capably with polygamy without those things you mentioned. The law was initiated because of our ethno-religious background as a culture, and for few, if any, other reasons. If a husband, for example, goes into a marriage knowing his wife will want to have another husband, things such as jealousy become a personal issue, if an issue at all. Broken homes? The divorce rate is around 50% and rising, is monogamy really doing that much better? Spread of disease? First of all, those people who would have unprotected sex enough to spread a disease under a polygamy allowing system spread it anyway with unprotected sex outside of a marriage. Secondly, when polygamy laws were written, STDs were not an issue.
If somebody is using a right, such as free speech, to incite illicit activities which are intended to lead to harm, such as inciting a riot, then they are seen as causes of said harm.
Yes, it is perfectly fair for somebody's behavior to make somebody else uncomfortable. I'm made uncomfortable anytime somebody is on the street, asking me for money. I'm made very uncomfortable when people come to my house to "talk to me about Jesus". Being comfortable with other people's actions is a personal problem.
There is nothing stopping somebody from making the world's best business when businesses are regulated. They will just have to do it without intentionally harming others, and, like I said, rights only last as long as they are not trampling on the rights of others. My pursuit of happiness cannot allow me to become a mass murderer, and for the same reasons, to a lesser extreme, others cannot trample on their workers for their pursuit of happiness.
I am very close to libertarian. But I'm not.
I see many laws as unnecessary, that doesn't mean they weren't made for a reason. I don't feel the reason for many is good. I also think that if the agencies which now exist to regulate business spent a little more time actually regulating business instead of being paid off, etc., it would be a good thing, not a bad thing. I happen to think the people need to keep the government more accountable as well, and I would like to see the system made a little more direct.
I don't get your last statement. Nobody is saying take away consequences for harming others. I'm saying that it isn't a crime to NOT harm others, no matter what form your are not harming them in. I don't really get what context that statement was supposed to be in, and it doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
-
I was making a correlation. Even with strong deterrents and fiercely enforced laws, people still regularly break the rules. The moment we reduce rules, people take advantage of them. You're analysis of marriage in today's society helps make my point. We can't handle things the way they are now, what would happen if we made them more complicated. There may be functional societies where polygamy is involved, but are there any societies as free as ours, particularly with women as equal to men as they are here, that allow polygamy? It is one thing to have many wives when they are considered trophies or property. It is something entirely different when they are your equal. Now, while I disagree with you, I don't believe you are necessarily wrong. With the right people, societies like the one you envision are possible, and I would love to be in a world where people could be trusted to be honest and fair. It just doesn't exist yet. More importantly, at least in my opinion, is that our opposing viewpoints are necessary to prevent the other side from going too far. Ironically, the extremes of both liberalism and conservativism lead to an Autocracy style of government, where the few control the many. The correlations are amazing. Conservatives censor speech due to moral beliefs, Liberals censor speech because it is offensive to certain groups. If you think those two statements mean the exact same thing, you're right. I can work out some other examples, but it would be better if you read Animal Farm. While it is an allegory on the problems with Communism, it can be said that any governmental style could end up this way, if one way of thinking begins to dominate a society.
-
I do love Animal Farm, though that's more of a statement on the evolution of communism in the USSR (which I now notice you've stated). But, while you can say that the same thing could occur with change, any system can grow to have those type of problems (and unchecked, every society will).
Also, I mean Polygamy, not Polygymy. In a society that simply allows Polygymy, women often do become property. I'm not encouraging forcing polygamy, either--just allowing it legally. No person, group or establishment has to allow or engage in polygamy (or anything else for that matter)--they just can't stop others from doing so. For example, I would have no problem if the private institution of some religion (we'll say Lutheranism, for example) did not allow its congregation to religiously engage in polygamy. I just don't think there should be laws governing everybody.
I also don't agree with censoring speech for either of the reasons you just mentioned (while I strongly disagree with, for example, somebody saying that one race is lesser than another, as long as that person is not advocating physically harmful action or political devolution, they have every right to say what they believe).
Doesn't every society come down to an Autocracy, in some way or another? In our country, there is definitely a group of economic and social elite that more or less has the important government jobs.
One way 9f thinking does dominate society. Every society. That's culture. Just because other ways of thining exist doesn't mean there isn't a dominate one. I am proposing that there should be a different way of thinking which is dominant, one in which people are allowed to pursue what they wish so long as they do not hold back others from doing the same (within reason. You'll always be able to come up with examples for me to counter, but you know the spirit of what I mean, and I think you know that outside of playing with semantics, it could be worked out). Is it perfect? No. Am I saying we should drop everything and make society today like it? No. But I do think that it is a goal that we should strive towards because it is much more realistic than our "perfect societies" people often try to strive for--a perfect socialism in which everybody is working and happy, a perfect capitalism in which those who are naturally talented and work hard always get ahead. These are just fabrications which could not possibly come true. But a society with a checked capitalism, in which those who have trouble achieving are aided and people are left to judge what is right for their own lives is perfectly possible--if not immediately so.
-
But how far are we away from that now? Most people who work and study hard DO get ahead. If we paid enough attention as a group, we would realize that these "elite" depend on us, as they always have. The difference is we can do something about it. If small special interest groups can affect change, then large groups can do great things. We already have programs galore to help people who struggle receive aid, both private and governmentally backed. As funny as it may seem, the most helpful and charitable people in this country are also the most religious, and tend to vote Republican. Funny how those who want bigger government control don't want to help anyone directly. Here's a fun assignment: Name me 2 main stream charitable organizations that are not backed by a religious organization. Good Luck. Our government is not Autocratic because we can change things if we really want to.
-
Primarily, I never assaulted the religious here--and it's true that the most generous people groups (in private life) tend to be the most religious. That's one of the good things religion has to offer.
We're pretty far away, considering the number of people who are locked into debt and poverty. There are tons of people who make it in life because their parents were well off, and didn't have to do a thing for it. That's certainly not an ideal society. I have a fun assignment for you. Find the number of people in this country alone who work more than one full time job. I would consider that working hard, and a very small percentage, if any, of those people will go up in the socio-economic strata because of it.
I don't want to help anyone directly, I want to help groups of people who need aid. I also don't support blatant and flat-out welfare, because sad as it is, that does lead to some people not willing to work.
As for charitable organizations that aren't religious, most scientific research grants are not religious, and do qualify as charity. The NAACP does charity work, and the AARP Foundation is a non-religious charity. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Toys for Tots is not backed by a religious organization, and is only religious in the sense that it gives Christmas presents (Christmas is considered a national holiday as well as a religious one, and I know many non-religious persons who celebrate it, including my own family). There are also plenty of non-religious scholarships and educational grants, even if you take out government sponsored ones. There are also plenty of veteran affairs charities or non-profit organizations which are not religiously backed. Make-a-Wish is a very well known and mainstream charity which is not religiously sponsored. This is all off the top of my head, I'm sure if I did research I could find a slew of others.
In fact, I think Wikipedia is classified as a charity, though that is not the type of charity I think you were looking for.
But, yeah, I'm not entirely sure where that challenge came from, but the aid we are giving simply does not cut it. I don't know about you, but I feel like people should be able to get medical care when they need it, no matter where in society they were born. I would be more than willing to pay out of my pocket to make sure that everybody who can't pay out of pocket receives care. And this would be much cheaper to achieve if we didn't rely on for-profit insurance agencies. There are lots of people trying to help, but there are also lots of people taking advantage of those who cannot economically defend themselves.
-
There are tons of people who make it in life because their parents were well off, and didn't have to do a thing for it. That's certainly not an ideal society.
Here lies the problem. At the root of socialism and communism we find the desire to punish those who have more than others. It's not about giving people an equal chance at success, it's about making sure no one gets ahead. Because if someone gets ahead while others don't it is, by there definition, not an ideal society.
The infuriating thing for liberals is that giving people an even playing field doesn't guarantee equal outcomes. Some people really are lazy and/or stupid. Since legislating equal opportunity doesn't work, they have to start legislating equal outcomes, which means taking from the rich and giving it to the poor at the point of a gun. Not where I want to live.
-
I'm not a violent revolutionary marxist, nor do I believe in taking from the rich and handing to the poor (especially at the point of a gun). I do believe that those with more money should give a larger amount of money to the society they live in, in the form of taxes--this is not the same as giving to the poor. Also, yes, I do believe it's a terrible shame that some people get ahead by birthright. In fact, it flat out disgusts me that this is true. I would love to live in a society where birthright had no standing to life outcome--but, alas, I understand such a society is essentially impossible.
Perfect equality is ridiculous. Some people are naturally more intelligent, more athletic, etc. Some people are raised in a way that they gain these traits through hard work. There is no point to trying to make everybody equal. I want to take steps towards making sure everybody can earn a living wage, no matter where they come from. I'd like to see steps taken to make sure everybody can at least put food on the table and not have to skip going to the doctor because they can't afford it. I wouldn't want to live in a world where everybody was perfectly equal, because to truly be equal two people must be identical. I would like to live in a world where the welfare of a society as a whole is considered a societal imperative, not a personal one. I find it silly for people to say they love America, but not be willing to hold up the Americans who make it run how it does. I also find it ridiculous that being poor is a personal problem--poverty is correlated with crime, young pregnancy (and thus abortion), under education, young death, drug use, and other problems which we consider societal problems. I we can consider any of these a public issue which requires government funding, then poverty should be just as important, if not more so.
We spill plenty of taxpayer money every year into each of these other categories which are correlated with poverty (and some into poverty as well). Why is it okay to take away from everybody and give to the poor after-the-fact, where it doesn't help the root of the problem? Is it cheaper to hold a thousand petty thief in jail, or to reduce the probability that the person will become a petty thief (both monetarily and in other costs)? The fact is, we're taking money and giving it to the poor, sometimes at gunpoint, as it is. Why don't we make it a national policy to help those in need, not by handing them money, but by providing the services which they cannot afford, so they can spend the little money they do earn on other living expenses? We already have started this trend with public education and other public services which are a cornerstone of our society. I don't think we've taken that far enough.
-
The problem with the concept of a living wage, or of the minimum income needed to live decently, is that the standard keeps shifting as society as a whole advances. 100 years ago, indoor plumbing and refrigeration were luxuries; now, they're essentials. 50 years ago, air conditioning was considered a luxury; now, it's almost a basic human right. Things that were once unheard of have become necessities. So how do we define our basic acceptable standard of living? Is it a median of what the entire society possesses?
Similarly, when you say that everyone should have access to health care, what exactly do you mean? That every individual deserves as many CT-scans and transplant surgeries as they need, along with every other new technology that may yet be invented and every experimental drug? That every person has a right to be treated by the very best, most skilled, doctors? And what about non-life-saving medical treatments, such as cosmetic surgery? (Should only the rich be allowed to make themselves beautiful?) I believe one of the big problems with our health care system is the advance of technology, leading to an increasing sense of entitlement; each patient believes he deserves every possible treatment, no matter how costly, even if it's a treatment his grandparents would never have dreamed of. If it's available to someone, it should be available to everyone. It's like saying that because housing is a basic human need, we should pay for everyone to own the largest, most up-to-date mansion available, with the latest heating system and the most infallible security system.
-
The difficulty of defining a baseline doesn't mean you should throw out the idea of a baseline.
Everyone should be able to buy decent healthcare and not get rejected. Healthcare companies are not allowed to deny coverage to anyone whose employer offers a group health plan, and the healthcare companies aren't going bankrupt doing it. So—everyone should have the chance to buy into those same group health plans. You can solve the "only sick people will want to buy insurance" problem by making insurance mandatory—with options to get lower premiums by paying higher deductibles, etc.
Also, healthcare companies need to get OUT of the business of serving their shareholders and need to start serving their policyholders instead. People who offer no services (shareholders) are making money off people's suffering. That's not right. Insurance companies should be required to refund the majority of their profits to their policyholders at the end of the year.
-
I'd take that one step further and say I don't think medical insurance companies are moral institutions because the entire premise of them is to make a profit off of other people's suffering. So long as medical coverage is handled by a private business, that business has a responsibility primarily to those people who invest in it, and then the customers.
I don't think everybody should be able to up and get whatever treatment they want from wherever they want. But should anybody, especially those who are more likely to need it (e.g. the homeless or poverty stricken), be able to walk into a hospital and find out what is wrong with them? Yes. If somebody needs a surgery that could be performed at nearly any hospital in the nation to try and save their life, they should be able to receive it without putting a second mortgage on their home. Does this mean everybody is entitled to the best possible medical care around all the time? No. Should everybody be given enough health care to handle accidental injuries at their local hospital? Yes.
What is poverty has to shift with growing technologies, as they affect us as a society. That being said, I don't have AC and I'm not in poverty. I do have indoor plumbing, because in order to maintain sanitation it's pretty important that everybody have indoor plumbing. Also, because refrigeration is taken for granted by the food industry, it's pretty important that people be able to buy things they used to be able to get locally when they needed them (meat, for example). Changing times make what is poverty change. There are international standards for poverty which have been laid out by social scientists, policy makers, etc. who work on these very same problems and the very least we could do is try to match the low standards those set.
-
My car insurance company is a private business, yet it exists to serve its policyholders rather than shareholders—because the policyholders are the only shareholders per se. It does exactly what I described—it cuts a dividend check at the end of the year for excess premiums.
Credit unions operate on basically the same principal—they exist to serve their members rather than to turn a profit. So it is possible for helpful private organizations to exist without government control. (Government oversight is important, though, and credit unions are backed up by a government agency similar to the FDIC with the same guarantee limits.)
I agree that the healthcare industry has proven that the shareholder-pleasing profit model does not serve the good of the people in this instance. In most industries companies compete to offer the best services to their customers. But with the current healthcare industry, the whole point is to get people to pay when they don't need help, and then when they do need it, they're desperate and cannot go somewhere else because no one will cover them.
-
I agree with that in part, but de-privatizing health care is not the answer. The majority of hospitals, for instance, are technically "not for profit" hospitals. Yet, many of them receive poor grades for care, and are more expensive than private hospitals. Competitions is the key here. Why is auto insurance different? Because you can buy from any company you want. They have to fight for your business. Health insurance, on the other hand, is restricted. The state where you live or work limits your choice, and also regulates differently than other states. The government is the worst possible solution, because they are the biggest mismanagers in the country. I also disagree with making insurance mandatory without changing the way insurance companies are regulated. Massachusetts has already taken on this practice, yet insurance premiums have not gone down, nor has coverage increased. Canadiens pay very high taxes compared to us, yet while their national health care is available to everyone, there are many limitations. You don't have the choice of doctor's you do here, and the waiting list to see one can be absurdly long. There is less access to specialized equipment because of the cost restrictions, so only hospitals with high volume have them. Again, longer waits or bigger travel expenses occur. The system definitely needs to be fixed but not by increased regulation.
Taxes, taxes, taxes. This argument kills me. The top 5% of American earners pay 80% of the taxes, and we want them to pay more? How about we make sure that the money is actually better off in the Government's hands. The money they invest into companies (which provide jobs), colleges (which allows for discovery and invention, which makes the world better and creates jobs), and in hospitals (look at the plaques on the walls, just about everything is bought by philanthropists) be taken from them so Congress can misuse it? Until I see some real spending reforms, I don't want another penny extra given to those clowns.