Conscience of a Conservative


The U.S. electoral system is oft-maligned but provides checks and balances to the voting process of a very large republic. It also allows voters in states like mine, which is safely Democratic territory, to express our displeasure with both parties without affecting the election’s outcome.

I was never the most enthusiastic McCain voter, and his campaign pushed me to the point of ambivalence over the past two months. The biggest blow was McCain's muddled-yet-enthusiastic support for the bailout plan, which might be the worst law of my lifetime.

In addition, McCain's campaign has shown a frightening inability to remain organized or on-message. That's not only ineffective campaigning, but it bespeaks an unreadiness to govern. The Republican establishment has united, thus, to defeat Barack Obama (a worthy goal), but not to elect John McCain.

The nomination of Sarah Palin for Vice President helped Mr. McCain's cause with true conservatives like myself. She arrives, after all, with reform and conservative credentials, and a realness that is refreshingly foreign to the elite "I'm-from-Washington-and-I'm-here-to-help" attitude embodied by Mr. Biden, among others. However, the campaign's deployment of Ms. Palin has erased much of that good feeling. Rather than campaigning as herself, she has been tasked with bulldogging Obama and pumping up crowds. She could have brought a common-sense, maternal integrity to the campaign, but the consultants (no doubt) believed she couldn't handle real campaigning and had to act as a glorified surrogate instead.

Thus, one day before the election, I remain an undecided voter. I won't vote for Obama. If he lived in Europe, he'd proudly call himself a socialist (he likes socialized medicine, socialized housing, socialized insurance). He hasn't found a problem he doesn't think government can solve. He hasn't found an issue on which he disagrees with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. He hasn't delivered on his promise to change the tenor of Washington politics. I urge those of you who live in swing states to vote for McCain - if only to forestall a government unified across all branches in its love for itself.

But I may not vote for McCain. Would Bob Barr (Libertarian) or Chuck Baldwin (Constitution) make a better president? Perhaps, perhaps not. But neither is going to be elected, and a vote for either registers my disillusionment with McCain. A vote for a third-party gives me a modicum of vengeance on a Republican Party that had a mandate to make government smaller, more transparent, and more fair and abandoned that mandate.

For whom will I vote? Ultimately, I might walk into the voting booth tomorrow at 7:15am without having made up my mind.

Posted by Chops at November 3, 2008 1:34 PM
Comments
Comment #269299

It doesn’t matter who you vote for Chops. One way or another, the Obama is going to win on Tuesday and it won’t matter if its by one vote or a million votes, the leftists will declare they now have a mandate and the Obama and his lapdog house and senate will force their very far-left agenda onto all of us. You can’t protect your individual rights and freedoms or the Constitution, but you can still prepare your own personal life before the Obama is sworn in, and maybe not get burned as bad.

Worrying about who to vote for is trivial compared to how bad and violent things are going to become in this country.

Posted by: kctim at November 3, 2008 2:33 PM
Comment #269300

I am not going to vote for McCain or Obama. I will vote for a third party candidate in hopes that my vote will help create a viable third party. Both candidates say that they are not going to raises your income taxes.

…………………INCOME TAXES………………

What about the taxes that the big evil corporations pay?
They are just passed to the consumer.

…………WE ARE THE CONSUMER! …………

They all grow government at any cost to the taxpayer.

http://nomedals.blogspot.com

Posted by: Jason at November 3, 2008 2:42 PM
Comment #269301

ah yes kctim — the mantra of fear — and that is all the right has left anymore as a policy.
Have you ever thought about how many people you have driven from your party with that as your whole platform? fear of gays / demonizing abortion and claiming people use it instead of birth control while at the same time demonizing teaching sex ed.
next would be the war on drugs, remember the scares about crack babies?
and last fear of terrorism and Muslims, such fear that the current administration sold you a war in which we attacked a country that had nothing to do with 9/11
Now its fear of very far-left agenda while you have no proof that Obama is anywhere to the far left.
Well I am sorry sir but I refuse to live my life in fear.
You can fear all you like — I will live in hope and freedom — freedom from gods and fear.
— Savage

Posted by: A Savage at November 3, 2008 2:58 PM
Comment #269302

Palin’s problem, and perhaps the problem with much of the Republican agenda is that Americans don’t respond too positively to a lot of it (not all, I’ll concede), when it’s said outright. If you look at her background, you’ll find she’s some considerable distance from the center in her view points, and the center got that pretty quickly after her debut.

My theory on the reason she was kept out of reach of the cameras, is that given half the chance, she’d upset the applecart on appealing to the center. She knows this, the campaign knows this, so she decided to keep her mouth shut, and the McCain campaign decided to coach her on how to act like she wasn’t who she really was.

This cut down on her naturalness, but they couldn’t help doing that, and she couldn’t help it either, because to let her fully voice her Right-Wing views would be even more devastating than her looking somewhat stupid. Better dumb than a threat.

Her problem is a microcosm of Republicans on the national stage: you have to hide a lot of crazy to make the party appealing. When the contempt that the average Republican has for the center and the left becomes apparent, it’s never a good thing.

What has you folks at this point should be plain: the American’s asked a number of things of you as a party you weren’t willing to agree to. Americans went looking for new management. If McCain had come into this election with anything less than a reputation for independence from his party, Obama would have won without question. As it is, it’ll be tougher than otherwise, but Obama will likely still score a significant victory.

Will this be the point where the Republicans let go of their pride and start on the path back towards the mainstream, or will you guys essentially further encapsulate your party from the reality of 21st century American politics?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 3, 2008 3:00 PM
Comment #269307

Ah yes Savage, anybody not smitten by the great one just has to be a Republican don’t they.
I happen to support gay marriage with no restrictions whatsoever. I’m pro-choice. I have no problem with sex-ed at all. I am for all drugs being legal. And you are right, I do fear terrorists, much as you fear you fellow Americans who happen to be Republicans, but I was against going into Iraq.
I bet I drove millions of people away from the Republican party with those beliefs huh.

The Obama’s own words, past and voting record are the proof of just how far left he is. Only his blind loyal partisan lemmings who are trying to con people into believing he isn’t far-left, believe otherwise.

You say you “refuse to live your life in fear,” but yet you are for govt programs which play off your fears for yourself and others. But I’m sure its somehow “different” when leftists play off and live in fear, isn’t it.

You also say you will “live in hope and freedom,” but the Obama’s promises take away our freedoms. You are living in false hope and dependency.

“freedom from gods and fear”

As an atheist, I have to agree with the first part. But, as someone who believes in the Constitution, I’m sorry, but the Obama is going to change this country for the worse and that is a fear I do live with and one I will fight against.

Posted by: kctim at November 3, 2008 3:37 PM
Comment #269308

kctim-
You call him far left. Far left how? It just seems to be the prevailing cliche of the Right these past few months. And by whose standards, yours, or the average American? And if it is so objectionable, why are majorities of Americans registering positive reception for Obama?

I don’t think he’s fooling anybody. I don’t think he ever has been. Nobody takes pressure like this without revealing their true nature.

Quit talking about “he’s far left”. That term is so subjective as to be worthless with anybody else but a fellow traveller. If you’re going to critique him, critique him on the points. Of course, that means you might get critiqued on your critique, but if you can’t stand the heat…

Be more specific. Bring some real argumentation to the table.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 3, 2008 4:02 PM
Comment #269310

kctim,

If Obama was far left, he’d believe in unrestricted access to abortion…he does not. He is closer to the center than you’ve seen…look into his record with the Illinois Legislature, I think you’ll be surprised…if not surprised, you’ll at least back off the ‘far left’ description.

I can’t remember who you follow, Barr, Nadar? But, I’m sure I can find as many or more things to doubt about them than you can on Obama.

If there comes a violent repercussion after the election, and it is because Obama won…why would you want to live in a country that turns into a third world nation for losing an election? You act as if you wish for such a thing. There are some who live out in the woods, spouting hate, shooting bark off trees, and in general being miserable and asking those around them to be miserable too. They may create some problems because Obama is black, but America has been known for over two hundred years for its peaceful transitions of power, do you think that is about to change? Do you WANT it to change?

Posted by: Marysdude at November 3, 2008 4:35 PM
Comment #269311

sorry to tell you —but I am not “smitten” by the man — he is just a man — to be honest I would rather have seen Biden at the top of the ticket
But he fought his why to be the nominee and damn he did it clean.
so then I started looking at him closer and what have I seen[and apparently the majority of this nation saw also]?
A man that is intelligent enough to come from a poor background / make his way to Harvard and once there prove himself to his peers enough to be president of the Harvard Law Review
during this campaign he has run a well oiled on topic political machine that he created himself,
and has proven that he is smart enough to enlist the best help with the best minds to get him where he is now.
now where you say”someone who believes in the Constitution”
sorry mate — its the right that seems to be tearing the Constitution to shreds — not the left — all in the name of fear.
Now as SD said above — bring something to the table to support your contention that he is “far left”
— Savage

Posted by: A Savage at November 3, 2008 4:47 PM
Comment #269312

Stephen
There is no “average American” anymore. We have dependent urban “average Americans” who want everybody else to live as they do…rural “average Americans” who wish to be left alone and everything in between.

I know you like to believe everybody supports leftists beliefs of universal healthcare, strict and forbiding gun control, high taxes, redistrubution of wealth etc…, but that is no more true than if I believe everybody still believes in the founders words and desires for this country.

Obama’s true nature is evident in his words, past and voting record. He is “critiqued” on his points daily, and you guys always defend, ignore or excuse every point made. He says one thing and you guys tell us what he really meant. A concern about his past is brought up and you guys tell us what it really meant. His voting record is brought up and you guys tell us what his vote really meant. He could come on air right now and say every single issue raised about him is true and that he doesn’t think he can lead this country and you guys would still show up and vote for him.

How about this, I will quit talking about how far left he really is, IF you can prove he really isn’t far left. And we are talking about being far left of the Constitution, and individual rights and freedoms. Not far left of what 50-55 percent of you guys think should be considered moderate.
Do you think his calls for larger govt is moderate? How about his calls for states to ban firearms? How about his views on abortion, think moderates agree with him there? Do you think moderates want higher taxes? $5 a gallon gasoline? Higher energy bills? Universal healthcare? More tax money wasted on those who don’t pay taxes? Maybe its his church that is moderate? The people he associates with? I’m sure their views are considered moderate aren’t they?
Do you really think all those like the MSM, moveon, kos, moore, robbins and all the far-left nuts would have thrown all this support and money behind such an inexperienced hack if he was truly just a moderate?

All the defending, ignoring and excusing you guys bend over backwards to do for Obama amounts to nothing more than partisan hot air, so standing the heat isn’t something thats been a problem for me Stephen.

Posted by: kctim at November 3, 2008 4:53 PM
Comment #269313

Stephen and Marysdude -

Don’t trust me and kctim that Obama’s a far lefty. Trust NARAL Pro-Choice America, which gave him a 100% rating every year in the Senate. Trust the National Journal, which ranked Obama as the 16th, 10th, and 1st most liberal senator during his brief tenure. The Irregular Times gives Obama a 75/100 “Progressive Action Score” - just six points behind the Senate leaders.

In the primary election, the Democratic Party ended up split almost 50/50 between Clinton and Obama. Predictably, Obama won among the more liberal voters, Clinton among the more centrist/populist (plus some feminists). Are we to believe that the left-most branch of the Democratic Party was all excited about a moderate, but the moderates weren’t?

For those of you who say Obama is “not far left”, please give me a list of a few serious policy proposals that some senators support but Obama does not, because the proposal is too leftist. Right now, the only one I can think of is the Iraq War - Obama (to his credit) does not favor a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq, but rather a slow, cautious one. He deserves credit for that. What are the other serious leftist proposals he has opposed?

Posted by: Chops at November 3, 2008 4:54 PM
Comment #269314

Chops,
Oh, you’re just trying to get my hopes up.

Posted by: phx8 at November 3, 2008 5:02 PM
Comment #269315

Dude
I have looked into his record.
The flak will not because of Obama being elected, it will be because of what he does while in office. The dumba** racists can be handled, but the average guy who loves his freedoms will be pushed to the limits and they won’t be happy.
Do I want it to change? We have drifted so far away from what this country was founded on, maybe that is what is needed to get us back on track, I don’t know. I can tell you this though, I know what side I will be on if it happens.

Savage
How about some examples of how the right is tearing up the Constitution more?

I put some examples in my post to Stephen, please feel free to add your own excuses and denials to those far-left beliefs.

Posted by: kctim at November 3, 2008 5:07 PM
Comment #269317

Jason,
Between 1998 and 2005, 2/3 of all corporations paid zero income taxes.

Furthermore, if corporations pass on the cost of their taxes to the consumer, why doesn’t the logic apply equally in the other direction? Taxing consumers takes money away spending on corporate goods and services.

The fact is, someone pays, and in a sense it all comes out to the same result. However, individuals pay their taxes out small individual pools, which has a greater impact upon them than upon the large pools of wealthy individuals or corporations. That is why we have progressive taxation.

Posted by: phx8 at November 3, 2008 5:15 PM
Comment #269319

Dude
I have looked at his record.
The flak won’t come from Obama winning, but from what him and his lapdog house and senate do.
Do I want that change? We have drifted so far from the founding principles and Constitution, maybe it is what is need for us to get back on track, I do not know. But if it happens, I have already picked my side.

Savage
“its the right that seems to be tearing the Constitution to shreds — not the left”

Really? How about some examples of how?

Posted by: kctim at November 3, 2008 5:23 PM
Comment #269321

Here are a couple of men who don’t seem to hold the Constitution in too high esteem.

http://www.independent.org/blog/?p=148

Posted by: janedoe at November 3, 2008 5:57 PM
Comment #269322

Savage
“its the right that seems to be tearing the Constitution to shreds — not the left”

Really? How about some examples of how?

KCTIM
you are kidding right??
or you have been asleep the past 8 years???

Signing Statements
GITMO
Patriot ACT
Illegal wiretaping
secret searchs of persons abodes
extordinary renditions
etc etc etc
AMERICAN CITIZENS (THAT’S RIGHT, AMERICAN CITIZENS, NOT “ILLEGAL COMBATENTS” — THE THING YOU SAID COULD NOT HAPPEN )— ARRESTED WITHOUT WARRANT, HELD WITHOUT ACCESS TO DUE PROCESS, WITHOUT ACCESS TO LEGAL COUNSEL, SENT TO GITMO, AND TORTURED.
AMERICAN CITIZENS — AND IT IS DOCUMENTED SIR!!!

Posted by: Russ at November 3, 2008 6:18 PM
Comment #269323

Chops
You have shown your self to be extremely receptive to the right-wing talking point BS

Your description of Ms Palin and of Mr Obama (both quite inaccurate to say the least) only convinces me that your opinion holds little validity.

What is interesting is that in most of the conversations I have heard that are in support of Ms Palin is about her presence on stage
Charming, radient, looks good, exciting, etc
NOTHING about any attributes that would support the idea that she is capable for the job.
NEVER, even from right wing — they are all atwitter about her “presence” but THAT is it!!!

WHAT CREDENTIALS????
Anyone who looks beyond the surface finds that her “credentials” as a fiscal conservative, maverick or reformer are quite invalid or non-existent (as are her foreign policy and energy expertise “credentials”)

and Mr Obama is NOT anywhere near a socialist.
Spreading the Wealth is NOT a socialist tendency — otherwise you would need to label GW Bush with the same name — only thing is that he “redistributed” the wealth UPWARDS — but to you right-wing people THAT is OK — heaven forbid that someone who needs tax relief might just get it!!!

Posted by: Russ at November 3, 2008 6:27 PM
Comment #269353

ok -russ covered a lot of current abuses

lets look at your reply to Stephen
“I know you like to believe everybody supports leftists beliefs of universal healthcare, strict and forbiding gun control, high taxes, redistrubution of wealth etc…, but that is no more true than if I believe everybody still believes in the founders words and desires for this country.”
The tax and thus the redistribution issue is covered by the 16th amendment which Allows federal income tax If you do not like it — submit a amendment to get it changed — till then it is Constitutional
Guns — I disagree with the left on this issue just like you disagree with the right on some issues,but I can hope this issue has bitten the left on the ass enough times that they will be wise enough to stay away from it.
now this line “How about his calls for states to ban firearms?”
Its funny how the right screams states rights — till it bites them in the ass isn’t it?

next “I know you like to believe everybody supports leftists beliefs of universal healthcare,” wrong — we [well I] believe /hope enough people support it for it to get passed — and If you do not like it — well opt the hell out — if you do not like paying for it — tough shit cause I do not like paying for a over bloated military budget so we are even. [ the Founding fathers did not envision a full time standing army either —but boy the right loves it]

“Do you really think all those like the MSM, moveon, kos, moore, robbins and all the far-left nuts would have thrown all this support and money behind such an inexperienced hack if he was truly just a moderate?”
I will ignore the MSM line because all that is is straw man that the right is so used to using that you can not help it any more but so far as the rest — would you ever have expected them to support mccain? that would be like me expecting rush and fox to support Obama — so just 1 more straw man.

“How about his views on abortion, think moderates agree with him there?” Over 50% of this nation supports the right to choose — so it looks like your point is a fail.

“Maybe its his church that is moderate?” — If you listen to whole sermon —it is a lot different and I see plenty of hate preached by white churches. they may sweeten it up a bit —but its still hate
“All the defending, ignoring and excusing you guys bend over backwards to do for Obama amounts to nothing more than partisan hot air”
And you can look in the mirror and say same about self
— Savage

Posted by: A Savage at November 3, 2008 10:46 PM
Comment #269356

You know, part of the problem here is the pure subjectivity of labels. kctim says he doesn’t care about abortion. A number of Republicans do care. Some Republicans don’t. If we define somebody as left or right on that basis, then we will definitely get kctim’s relative position wrong. Is it liberal or conservative to support abortion? To support green energy or support diplomacy?

I think older conservatives and Republicans might say that raising taxes, when necessary, is the only responsible thing.

As a kid growing up in Texas, I admired Reagan and Bush. Perhaps I was naive to, but these were gentlemen who could talk with their enemies without getting into headgames as to whether they were elevating that enemy’s profile. They listened to advice other than just the most fervent hawks. They didn’t neglect governance for the sake of appearances. There seemed to be some shame in what they did.

And the politics seemed more respectful. When Clinton won, I wasn’t pleased, but I was fully prepared to be respectful of the new president. That kind of bipartisan respect was what I remembered from the Reagan-Bush days.

And then the party took a nose-dive into the muck. It became a party that stood on nothing more than corroding the standing of the office. It didn’t get better when they took the legislature. Suddenly, the party I remembered was replaced by a bunch of proudly ignorant, parochial, reckless ideologues. No more caution and prudence, keeping things settled. Just an attempt to unsettle everything, and reform the country in their image.

So in a weird sense, when people talk about the Republican Party not being conservative enough, the teenaged version of me might have quipped “You’re just figuring this out now?” To me conservatism was about not running around with your head cut off about different policies.

Taken from a different perspective, I don’t mind liberalism much, I just want people to be careful about the budgets and revenues when they go about it, and see where things can be done without government’s help. Regulation to me is not something to go hog wild with, but its not something to neglect, given the sorry history of letting these people make the rules up as they go along.

I want the regulation elegant, not so difficult to comply with under reasonable circumstances that they couldn’t ditch the squads of lawyers and start cooperating. At the same time, the regulations do have to be binding, otherwise there is no point wasting taxpayer dollars trying to enforce them, and not every economic interest should trump the public interest, because not every CEO is wise, and not every corporate interest works well for the rest of the country. If Buggy Whip manufacturers had been in charge, would we have ever seen the automobile?

In short, are our motivations and sentiments always so simple as an assignment on the spectrum? Is it not possible, no inevitable that people on the “right” and “left” can justify similar things on grounds that may be respectively different or the same?

The truth is, if your ultimate goal is to bring this country together around common policy, rather than conquering it through division, you will have to speak to those you consider liberals, those who you consider leftists. You will have to, if you want to get anything done.

The myopic, constant pursuit of unequivocal victories, rather than the ongoing successful dialogue of interests is part of why the culture warriors of the right see this generational defeat having failed to prevent much of the cultural change they were seeking to curtail.

I think the problem is one of a purposes of argumentation. Some argue to express a view. Others might argue to bring somebody else over to their point. If persuasion is the goal, then you have to rethink and peel back into the layers an mysteries of your message so that you understand what you are trying to say, and what might attract your audience to agreeing with that message.

Are folks on the right telling us or asking us, aiming to convert or rearing to condemn, to exclude? The difference could be the difference between a successful argument and a base stirrer.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 3, 2008 11:56 PM
Comment #269371

Chops wrote:

I urge those of you who live in swing states to vote for McCain - if only to forestall a government unified across all branches in its love for itself.

So can we assume you made the same plea for swing staters to vote for Kerry in 2004? Was that the lesson of 2004…that voting for Bush was a mistake that led to full Republican control?


Posted by: Sam McD at November 4, 2008 8:30 AM
Comment #269374

I find it amusing that, no matter who the Democrat Party candidate is, he is always the National Journal’s “most liberal” politician. In 2004, Kerry was the “most liberal.” Now, apparently Obama has overtaken Kerry in 2008. What a coincidence!

Would they have actually named Hillary number one if she had won the nomination? I wonder.

If you want to know how “liberal” Obama is, a better source might be the liberals. Progressive Punch, a non-partisan (yeah, right) group with the motto “Leading with the Left,” ranks Obama 46th out of 100 Senators. By comparison, Evan Bayh is 49th and Olympia Snowe is 51st. Dick Durbin, by the way, is 1st…maybe the McCain campaign and the National Journal have the wrong Illinois senator.

(In a separate area of the site, which takes only part of the equation into account, Obama is 27th…still not 1st.)

Here’s the link: link text

Posted by: Sam McD at November 4, 2008 8:53 AM
Comment #269377

Chop,
By this time you have voted (I hope) and why I hear your concerns about either candidate, I do believe that the Democratic Party has found gold in a Trickle Up Economic Theory if only they can figure out how to use it against the Trickle Down Theory of the Republicans. However, seeing the need for the consumer to have an other source of income in order for Labor and Management to stay competitive in the Global Market I wonder what can be done by Business to deal with the social problem of a Living Standard caused by some to need a better bathroom for every citizen?

For now the work begins tomorrow on how to build a better world Anerican Style does it not? So what kind of comprehensive economic, energy, and environmental plan would you send to the new President and Congress?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at November 4, 2008 9:35 AM
Comment #269378

Russ
So you are saying only the Republicans supported those things? They were the ones who signed the Patriot Acts? Really? The lefts savior even signed the wiretapping thing didn’t he? And renditions did not just start under Bush. Someones been asleep, but it hasn’t been me my friend.

Savage
I am well aware of what the 16th is, but we are discussing moderate positions and if the Obama shares those moderate positions. Do you think the average American shares the Obamas belief in high taxes and redistribution? Hardly. I would be willing to bet they hold a position between the Obama and myself.
The Obama believes states should be able to ban an Americans Constitutional right to bear arms, do you think that is a moderate position? Nope. Again, probably between myself and the Obama. And as far as states rights, do you not believe it is the federal govts duty to protect the Constitutional rights of all Americans? Or do you believe the federal govt should only protect the rights you agree with as Obama does?

I will not use or pay into universal healthcare, but comparing it to the military is apples and oranges unless you are talking about forced enlistment.

So lets see, an Obama supporter does not see an MSM bias and polls showing more negative ads for McCain are not true? Funny how one see’s bias in everything when its against who they support, but only see facts when its against who they do not support.
If you look at what those far-left nuts preach and compare it to the Obama’s voting record, past and words, you will see they are pretty much the same.

“Over 50% of this nation supports the right to choose — so it looks like your point is a fail”

But we are not talking about the right to choose. The Obama takes it further and includes partial birth etc… Do you think all that 50% take it that far?

“If you listen to whole sermon —it is a lot different”

Would you go to a church which damned your country and put down black people for 20+ years if you didn’t share its views?
You know, I realize Obama and wright are two different people and to be honest, his attendance to this church isn’t that big a deal to me. But, there is no doubt wright and all these associations are far left people who hold far left ideas, not moderate ones and to think Obama does not choose to associate with like minded people is naive.

“And you can look in the mirror and say same about self”

Of course I can, I am not a moderate and I do not falsely believe moderate Americans share my beliefs. But that doesn’t really matter does it? I’m not trying to lie and convince people my views are moderate in order to get their vote.

Posted by: kctim at November 4, 2008 10:05 AM
Comment #269383

as a republican i don’t believe either the dems or reps will honor the const. until we stop infringing on individual rights nothing is going to change. whether it’s the war on drugs, gun control, or redistribution of wealth through punitive taxation, all are infringement of individual rights. i live in a swing state so i voted for mc cain if only to vote against obama. IMO the only thing that will restore freedom in this country will be the institution of more liberatarian principles. that will not happen though as long as there are those who choose to force thier beliefs on everyone else, and both the major paties are equally guilty of this.

Posted by: dbs at November 4, 2008 10:26 AM
Comment #269385

Stephen
Voters, no me, have already decided what is right and left of the issues and it is not hard for them to determine how far left or right a candidate is if they listen and research them.
The Obama and I share a far-left view on abortion, but that doesn’t make it a moderate view simply because we are on opposite ends of the Constitution.

I love all this “respect us and work with us” talk coming from the left now that they are in power. Where was all that when you were not? The left has treated the last eight years ten times as bad as they were treated the previous eight and now you want to work together? IF you really wanted to work together, your party would have given us somebody with moderate views who we could have voted for. Your nomination of Obama showed that “common policy” means “your policy.”

Numerous people on here have said they once were Democrats but the party has moved too far left for them and you guys totally discount them. What problem does that solve in the “purposes of argumentation?” They are expressing their view, but are told they are really Republicans. They are trying to persuade you to re-evaluate where your party is headed, but are told it hasn’t gone far enough. They are trying to argue their case, but you refuse to give the same respect you demand by “peeling back the layers” and hearing their message.
Of course, with a candidate like Obama, peeling back the layers is a bad thing to do, its much easier to do what you condemn the Republicans for.

The problem isn’t that the right is so evil, wrong or don’t know how to argue their points, the problem is that you see it as it is only them who are guilty.

Posted by: kctim at November 4, 2008 10:42 AM
Comment #269390

kctim is delusional
he stated
I will not use or pay into universal healthcare, but comparing it to the military is apples and oranges unless you are talking about forced enlistment.

I hate to break it to you but your fear of “socialized medicine” has blinded you to the fact that you currently ARE paying into universal health care
however due to this resistance to an organized way of handling “universal health care” we are ALL forced into to paying for the inefficient and hidden “universal health care” system we currently are burdened with.

My wife has been working as an RN in hospitals for about 15 years now, and she is completely amazed at the numbers of people that receive extended hospitalization who are not paying for it.
Where do you think the money comes from to pay for this??
Why do you think it costs $50 for an asperin in a hospital, why do you think YOUR (if you have it) Insurance premiums are so high??
It is the “hidden” universal health care
and it is driving the costs of healthcare in the country thru the roof.
People who cannot afford medical bills put off preventive care or early intervention so that, even if they do not use the ER, they still end up with medical intervention late in the game, when it is orders of magnitude more costly to treat — and usually without a good outcome even after spending tons of money.
Your hated French have BETTER health care at LOWER COSTS with BETTER outcomes
Ohhhhhhhh it is “socialized”??? maybe
but does it work?
Yes

I love the label we use here
“Health Insurance”
This is not “Insurance” in the typical sense — it is a Subscription service — pay into it to have access to “consumer discounts”
If it were insurance — it would only pay if you have an accident — or something unforseen happening.
but — if we had everyone subscribed (subsidized subscriptions for those who cannot afford it) — in a system that promotes prevention and EARLY intervention, — with commonality of standards of documenting, reporting, service, etc so that the doctors don’t have to have full time staffs just to understand all the different systems — then the costs to ALL of us will go down.
You can pay me now, or pay me later as the saying goes, only problem is — with health issues paying later means paying ALOT MORE — for ALL of us.


Onto the Patriot Act
The president lead the charge, and as I recall, when it was passed the repubs had the majority — and again the right wing “leadership” was via fear, lies and name calling (treason, etc) — many of the left (and some on the right) stood up to this BS
It is up to the pres to set the tone — and Bush and the right wing set the wrong tone for this country — a hard charge to trampling the constitution
Besides the Patriot Act there were and are many EXECUTIVE actions that did not include congress (thanks to the Repubs just laying down and allowing it) that trampled our rights (funny — you didn’t answer re: the FACT about AMERICAN CITIZENS being arrested, sent to GITMO and denied THEIR RIGHTS AS CITIZENS —EVEN THO YOU APOLOGISTS KEPT TELLING US YOU DIDN’T CARE IF TERRORISTS WERE “INCONVENIENCED” AND THAT THIS WAS NOT BEING DONE TO AMERICAN CITIZENS)

KCTIM — YOUR PAST RESPONSES HAVE ALWAYS BEEN BS AND IT IS NICE TO KNOW YOU HAVN’T CHANGED.
KEEP IT UP — YOU MUST SOMEHOW ENJOY BREATHING THE DUST OF THOSE WHO MOVE WITH THE TIMES AND PROGRESS.

Posted by: Russ at November 4, 2008 10:54 AM
Comment #269391


“You can’t protect your individual rights and freedoms or the Constitution, but you can still prepare your own personal life before the Obama is sworn in, and maybe not get burned as bad.”


“Worrying about who to vote for is trivial compared to how bad and violent things are going to become in this country.”

how right you are.

Posted by: dbs at November 4, 2008 11:12 AM
Comment #269392
kctim is delusional

Can we please stick to critiquing the message? Thanks, guys.

Posted by: Chops at November 4, 2008 11:37 AM
Comment #269393

Russ,

So you are saying that the answer for bad government is more bad government?

Interesting…

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 4, 2008 11:40 AM
Comment #269394

rhinehold
Where the Heck did you get THAT conclusion???
The current health care system is NOT any form of a government program — it is TOTALLY a private sector issue and PROBLEM (and they are doing a heck of a job, right? —)
So I turn it back to you
You suggest the answer for FAILED PRIVATE SECTOR PROGRAMS to be MORE FAILED PRIVATE SECTOR PROGRAMS???

(THE FINANCIAL SECTOR IS ANOTHER FAILED ITEM — THANKS TO THE PRIVATE SECTOR ACTIONS)

Posted by: Russ at November 4, 2008 11:45 AM
Comment #269395
Furthermore, if corporations pass on the cost of their taxes to the consumer, why doesn’t the logic apply equally in the other direction? Taxing consumers takes money away spending on corporate goods and services.

It does.

Which is why the oppressive taxation we have now is ruining the country, along with our ever-increasing debt.

Over 50% of the income in this country is shipped to Washington, do you really think that is a good idea and that we should be sending MORE?

Or, wouldn’t it be better to spend less and allow the money to say with the consumer to be spent on the goods and services that they need/want to acquire?

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 4, 2008 11:50 AM
Comment #269396
The current health care system is NOT any form of a government program — it is TOTALLY a private sector issue and PROBLEM (and they are doing a heck of a job, right? —)

No, it is not. Hospitals are required to treat anyone irregardless of their ability or desire to pay for those services. That is what is known as an ‘unfunded mandate’ that is breaking the budgets of many hospitals and is being passed onto the consumers who are responsible enough to pay for their own healthcare.

That is not a ‘private sector issue or problem’ when it is mandated by the government.

And the financial sector is not failed at all, McCain was right that the fundamentals of the US Economy is still sound. If we didn’t have a devaluing dollar because of governmental debt, an oppressive tax system and government overreaction to Enron we would not have had the issues the past two months that we saw. But even with those issues, the economy will correct itself and didn’t need the bailout package that was passed in fear.

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 4, 2008 11:54 AM
Comment #269397

Oh, and that is without going into the other side of the costs of medicare and medicaid that are pushed on to the hospitals and on to the consumer as well. Doctors today spend about 1/3 of their time dealing with paperwork and other non-medical issues, meaning that they cannot treat as many patients and must therefore increase their costs.

Such a good plan.

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 4, 2008 11:56 AM
Comment #269399

Doctors today spend about 1/3 of their time dealing with paperwork and other non-medical issues, meaning that they cannot treat as many patients and must therefore increase their costs.
Most of that is “pushed” onto the Dr and Hospitals by the PRIVATE INSURANCE COMPANIES
that provide a wide range of forms, allowable expensense, what is covered what is not covered and for many a basic policy of REJECTING EVERY CLAIM THE FIRST TIME.

and as for your “unfunded mandate” — you are WRONG

the actions I have described go beyond what is required by law.
the law requires that if someone shows up in the ER of a non-profit hospital, they cannot be turned away, there is no direction as to the level of care required however
even without the law
Most Drs. and Hospitals would not, could not turn away someone with life-threatening conditions.
It would be inhuman, inhumane, and immoral to do so — so I am offended by your suggestion.

This also points more to you — your selfish, disregard for others — the fact that it would appear that you would require some law to force you to do the humane, right thing.
is that what you are suggesting?

That as a rational option to making sure everyone has access to healthcare, that we throw out humane laws (or throw out humane actions) altogether, let people who can afford insurance, or who have access to employer provided insurance have access to healthcare, and prohibit, or prevent or somehow keep those who can’t afford it away from the system, thereby not burdening the rest of us with the cost of their care??

Is THAT your answer?
Do you realize that even IF you were to somehow get that “ideal” and so you wouldn’t be “inconvenienced” by those “indigents” and “free-loaders” and others that you somehow deem to be “undeserving” that you would ultimately be paying a higher price than you are now, or that you would if you were somehow “forced against your will to be HUMAN”????

If not, then please, instead of just taking shots — give us YOUR answer
YOUR proposal to the healthcare issue!
I am really interested in what YOU think is the answer.

and are you ever dilusional regarding the basis of the financial meltdown
It is NOT what you have just stated
These Ponzy schemes are falling apart, and they are the product of the Financial Sector of the Economy
I didn’t say a failed Economy — I said a FAILED FINANCIAL SECTOR — and with all the failures of the Banks and Investment houses — failures of their OWN MAKING — you are way off base dude.

They created a house of cards — and it is all falling down — even Greenspan said his assumptions re: his view of the world has turned out to be wrong — and once I heard what his assumption was — I could have told him he was wrong 20 years ago — my own experience with whose interest Co Execs and managment look out for — I could have told him then that it wasn’t the shareholders they would be worried about (like he thought)
and reality has proven me right and Greenspan wrong!!

Posted by: Russ at November 4, 2008 12:25 PM
Comment #269403

Ah, the old ‘you’re selfish’ ignorant charge again.

Russ, there is a difference between being responsible and helping those that need help and using the power of government to use compulsion and force people to be responsible and help others that need help.

If you would consider that option as viable, which it is, you might find a few different options than to create a forced HMO run by the government which is the road we are heading down.

There is no incentive for an individual to take care of themselves, get checkups, use preventative measures, etc in either the current system or proposed system.

Healthcare savings accounts that are on the market now which allow for roll-over (a 401k for healthcare as it were) is the best solution because it provides incentive to the healthcare recipient to care what they are being billed and consider cheaper alternatives AND taking care of themselves. If it is being provided by ‘someone else’s money’ then that incentive is gone and we will be come MORE unhealthy than we are now.

Those who can’t take care of themselves should be taken care of through charities and the caring nature of human beings. Those who CHOOSE not to take care of themselves should be required to live with the consequenses of those decisions if they cannot convince others to help them out (family, friends, charity, etc).

Using a gun to force people to take care of other people is an evil road to drive down, turning back before it is too late, if it isn’t already, is the only compassionate and responsible thing to do. But we won’t because the politics of envy, greed and power will now allow people to see the truth behind their actions.

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 4, 2008 1:00 PM
Comment #269404

chops

the sad thing is your protest vote will do nothing other than make your conscience feel better, it really won’t send any messege. the only way i could see any difference being made is to have equal access for third party candidates, and an electorate willing to cast that vote. we need the ralph naders, and bob barrs being able to participate on an equal level in debates. what would be truely exiting would be to see would be third parties getting a substantial chunk of electoral votes. this would send a clear messege that the electorate is seriously looking at other options.

Posted by: dbs at November 4, 2008 1:00 PM
Comment #269406

Russ
On healthcare: I have a choice on if I want it or what kind of insurance and who I use right now. Under universal healthcare, I will have that dictated to me and I will be forced to pay against my will.
It is your right to not be pro-choice, but it is also my right to be pro-choice.

You can ignore the fact that Dems also signed the Patriot acts, I know its more convienent for you to do so. But by saying Bush hoodwinked them, you are stating that the Dems who signed did not do their jobs. Is signing anything that comes across their desk the way they always do their job? Why elect somebody like that?

“funny — you didn’t answer re: the FACT about AMERICAN CITIZENS being arrested, sent to GITMO and denied THEIR RIGHTS AS CITIZENS”

IF that is happening, then of course it is unconstitutional and it is wrong. That would rank right up there with all the 2nd Amendment violations and universal healthcare in my eyes. I would appreciate any info about this also, so I can show my conservative friends.

“YOUR PAST RESPONSES HAVE ALWAYS BEEN BS AND IT IS NICE TO KNOW YOU HAVN’T CHANGED.
KEEP IT UP —”
But I am consistent in my responses and beliefs. I do not change my view to suit my personal beliefs and I respect all of our rights, not just a few as you have shown.

“YOU MUST SOMEHOW ENJOY BREATHING THE DUST OF THOSE WHO MOVE WITH THE TIMES AND PROGRESS”

Thats the difference between you and I Russ. I respect your right to move with the times and progress if you want, but you do not respect my right to “breath your dust” as you throw away what made this country great and move forward in your mind.
I don’t want to force you to live according to my beliefs, why do you want to force me to live according to yours so bad?

Posted by: kctim at November 4, 2008 1:05 PM
Comment #269410

kctim-
By chance, are we discussing your moderate positions or our moderate positions? The distinction between the two could be quite significant.

Take your tax position. If we judge Obama’s tax position historically, it’s nowhere near the highest this country’s ever seen. It’s no different than Reagans, who is revered as a tax cutter.

Another problem is, you’re seeming to buy into the Republican’s rhetoric, which badly exagerrates his moderate positions. Well, if I bought into those talking points, I’d consider Obama immoderate. But then, that’s the point of such rhetoric. The Right’s been stirring itself into a frenzy, trying to gain a last-gasp victory over Obama by playing to people’s fears.

As for deciding what is right or left, there’s a problem: they represent nothing real. You can call a point of view right or left, but if we were to look through history, there are many position that could flip-flop between parties, because essentially nobody has the lock on them. The only thing that holds parties to positions, political spectrums to voters is a consensus of what those things mean. It’s superficial and misleading.

Clear that clutter away, and you can see the mechanics of Obama’s approach as it has already worked. I’ve written about this several times: the strength of weak connections. Rather than attempt a base election and drum up a bunch of votes that depend upon trenchant partisan rhetoric, Obama’s spoken in more ecumenical terms. Rather than take the fight to the Republicans, he takes the fight to the current leadership. In that way, he’s not actively driving Republicans back with “GOPers are teh evil” talk, while he’s appealing to their dissatisfaction with their own party’s leadership and extremity.

What he’s playing with here are the hidden connections and commonalities that a focus on the visible party lines can create mental blocks towards. Rather than accept the current map, the current mix, Obama’s set about deliberately creating the conditions for a critical mass of voters. McCain essentially has to thread a needle and use brute force rhetoric and political to try and peel Pennsylvania. If he loses that, then it becomes incredibly difficult for him to win.

If you look back through my posts, peeling back is exactly what I’ve done. I’ve pitched my rhetoric with strong factual backup, so that I reduce partisan disputeability to a minimum, and address things in practical terms. Obama does it even better. That’s part of the promise his keynote speech presented, and his campaign has fullfilled, and may yet win upon.

The trouble with those who consider themselves right wingers, is that they’ve become less concerned with convincing others, and more with convincing themselves. Rather than use thin connections to branch out, they go back to their strongest support and try to make it stronger. Taking this approach, though, Republicans are essentially folding in on themselves, limiting their appeal beyond certain regions, certain cultures, and certain ethnicities. If and when Obama wins, he will win because he did his best to make common cause with people regardless of party.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 4, 2008 1:15 PM
Comment #269415

Or, it didn’t really matter who was on the ballot, people just wanted something different than what we have now and being able to ‘make history’ appeals to people as well?

It was interesting that I’ve seen polling data from Rasmussen that in the same week recently (after the stock market issues and FMs) told us that 59% of Americans want Reaganomics, 52% of Americans favored McCain’s economic plan but a majority of Americans think that Obama will be better on economic issues than McCain.

It has been an odd year, that is for sure.

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 4, 2008 1:36 PM
Comment #269416

>Or, it didn’t really matter who was on the ballot, people just wanted something different than what we have now and being able to ‘make history’ appeals to people as well?
It has been an odd year, that is for sure.
Posted by: Rhinehold at November 4, 2008 01:36 PM

Rhinehold,

The glass is still half empty???

Posted by: Marysdude at November 4, 2008 2:05 PM
Comment #269417

Stephen
I do not claim to be a moderate, and I am discussing what the Dems and Reps I know and meet have said. You however, wrongly believe your views are moderate and that is the only way you could actually believe Obama is a moderate.

I believe it is you, not me, who is buying into rhetoric. I have listened to Obamas words, looked at what little of his past that is known and have seen his record. Those, not Republican rhetoric, is why I know Obama is no where near being a moderate.

Obamas approach to this election has been to make Republicans look evil and to make promise’s he can’t keep without pissing off millions of Americans. He is nothing but an inexperienced car salesman telling people what they want to hear. Hell, some of them even believe he is going to pay for their mortgage, gas and other crap.

Stephen, lets be honest here. Looking back through your posts, we see excuses and defending above and beyond what is asked for from partisans. Do you really think telling people what Obama really meant or what his shady past really means, is trying to convince others, or is it more of you just trying to convince yourself because he is your guy?

Obama is going to win Stephen, and this “common cause” baloney you speak of will be shown for what it really is: a slogan to get votes.

Posted by: kctim at November 4, 2008 2:11 PM
Comment #269421

Rhinehold:

You said over 50% of the income is shipped to Washington. What does that mean, exactly?

Posted by: googlumpugus at November 4, 2008 2:37 PM
Comment #269425

kctim-
I wrongly believe my views are moderate? I’m for a careful, gradual withdrawal from Iraq, a mainstream position. I’m for an energy policy that gets us off our addiction to oil. Very moderate. I support social security, like most Americans. I support, good, well-written regulation to prevent the kind of meltdowns and crisises of confidence that are burdening our economy now. I support a restoration of fiscal sanity.

If you aren’t a moderate, I don’t see how you are qualified to tell anybody they’re not. By your own admission, your perspective on these matters is not neutral.

Obama’s had to do little more than talk about the Republican policies, their contradictions and incompetence, their economic elitism, and perpetual negativity in plain terms in order to persuade people. He hasn’t really had to make it personal. That’s why people don’t think of him as too negative; it’s not negative to tell it like it is.

To be blunt, one of the things helping Obama is the general consensus that something’s screwed up, that the current system is incapable of properly handling it, and that McCain’s party has had a pretty heavy hand in getting things to where they are. Though some might argue the technical extent of the blame, trying to push it as a bipartisan failure for which Democrats should suffer, too, I think the voters are looking at this on a more metapolitical level, blaming a general philosophy of governance for the problems. The Republicans are unlucky enough to be the main evangelists of that policy.

I don’t think that this common cause is going to go away all too soon, and I don’t think Obama’s moderate liberal policies are going to sneak up on his approval ratings to mug it just yet.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 4, 2008 3:03 PM
Comment #269431

You really went out on a limb with what you are for there Stephen. Using those words and by being so vague, me, Obama, McCain and yourself are all moderates.
I agree with you about the general consensus. If it had happen under a Dem administration, they would have been voted out also. But, with the general consensus being “we will vote for you if you will fix everything that is wrong,” people are not thinking about other things they care about and when Obama and his lapdog house and senate are sworn in, they will start pushing things that will make people regret their vote. Why? Because their views are further left than those voters had wanted to go. It happened with clinton and he was really a moderate liberal, not just a campaign moderate as Obama is.

You guys will take this win and consider it a mandate. This “working together for the common cause” will turn into the “what Obama and the left thinks is best for the common cause.”

Posted by: kctim at November 4, 2008 3:41 PM
Comment #269432

kctim-
If I’m moderate, by definition I’m not going that far out on a limb. There’s a reason that McCain is appealing to people in much the same way: Because he needs to get the moderates to win. His handicap is his lack of distinction from an administration that is decidedly seen as immoderate.

It seems like you keep on operating from the theory that people don’t know what they’re getting into. I think they do. Naturally, though, if they do, then the conservative era as it’s run since Reagan is truly dead.

Results are going to be what matters in the coming four years. If Obama gets results, then the uncertainties of policy will be reduced.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 4, 2008 3:56 PM
Comment #269433

kctim

“You guys will take this win and consider it a mandate. This “working together for the common cause” will turn into the “what Obama and the left thinks is best for the common cause.”

first cause, massive new gun control legislation. all we can hope is that they can’t get those needed 60 votes.

Posted by: dbs at November 4, 2008 3:56 PM
Comment #269437

kctim
No one here (at least not me, and Obama neither) is DICTATING compulsive participation in a GOVERNMENT run healthcare system.
The problem with your arguements is that you are operating on generalities that do not apply.
A) The Current, mainly Private Sector, system is bad, inefficient, costly, run poorly and does not deliver health care.
B) the Health insurance that have the privelage of having access to provides excellent coverage including paying for preventive measures (annual checkups, etc) (under Obama’s plan I would be able to keep that plan — and NOT have to pay taxes for having — as McCain would have me do)
C) There are many systems that provide health care for all, that allow you to use the doctor of your choice etc. — it is not either or as you have been presenting — that is why I asked for your proposal.
D) personal accounts have some advantage, but I REFUSE to participate in any plan where any excess of moneys disappears at the end of the year — you may be ok with that, I am not.
E) As I tried to point out before, the refusal to address those people who are UNABLE to participate in the system (charities have to take care of them, whatever) WILL result in untold costs to the rest of us taxpayers in one way or another — I have seen this arguement used in other “Government intrusions in MY decisions” where there is a refusal to acknowledge that YOUR decisions DO have an effect on US and COSTS TO US and IN THOSE CASES WE do feel that WE should have a say in YOUR decisions that will ultimately COST US.
Just because YOU don’t recognize this fact, does not mean it does not exist.
Lost productivity — resulting in higher prices for goods and services
Increased healthcare costs that WILL BE passed on to the rest of us
Money going to insurance companies rather than to healthcare professionals
Money going to clerical staffs rather than healthcare professionals

We will ALL benefit by reduced health care costs and improved delivery of health care systems if we get together and find away to cover EVERYONE.
and it doesn’t have to be an either or system as you have been arguing about.
You will notice that I have NOT promoted any specific system, but I have acknowledged that there ARE systems out there that DO work for THEIR citizens — do NOT represent an undue Tax burden, costs LESS per capita than the US broken system and DELIVERS BETTER healthcare. (heck, in FRANCE they even still do House calls!!!)

But in THIS country — the fat cats (and right wing) have been so successful in using the “socialized” boogeyman to FRIGHTEN people out of exploring VIABLE ALTERNATIVES.


But we need to start by admitting that the current system — basically run by the Health Insurance Industry only profits the Health Insurance Industry and Pharmacutical industry
at the expense of OUR pocketbooks and OUR health.


Posted by: Russ at November 4, 2008 4:25 PM
Comment #269456

Russ,

Maybe, when you ask for my views, you should debate them and not what you had hoped that I had said.

It might make someone consider discussing with you rather than be ‘yelled’ at. As it stands, there seems little point.

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 4, 2008 6:57 PM
Comment #269501

Stephen
Everything you said what you were for is what almost everybody is for. It is our detailed positions on the issues which place us further left or right of those with moderate positions.

Anyways, the Obama won last night as expected and he will be the next leader. I know it does no good, but I will continue to keep trying to remind you guys that your narrow victory does not mean this hard shift to the left is going to be wanted or accepted by enough people to justify it. We will be divided more so than we are now and the results from last night show that.

Posted by: kctim at November 5, 2008 9:17 AM
Comment #269514

Russ
“No one here (at least not me, and Obama neither) is DICTATING compulsive participation in a GOVERNMENT run healthcare system”

If a person is forced to contribute money against their will to a govt run healthcare system, it is compulsory participation and it is being dictated to them.

A) Many current, govt controlled programs are bad, inefficient, costly, run very poorly and do not deliver quality services. What makes you think govt dictated healthcare will not be ran the same?
Thats not the big thing though. I have the freedom to make my own choices with the current system and govt makes my choices for me under the new system.

B) Right now, I have the priviledge of have access to excellent healthcare coverage of my choosing. Under Obama’s plan, I will soon be paying for the coverage I have now and for his plan, just as I do for retirement.

C) The either or situation will be that we can either pay for two healthcare plans or we can ditch the plan of our choice and accept the Obamas govt plan.
I thought you asked Rhinehold for his proposal, wasn’t ignoring your request for mine. My plan would respect your right to have govt do it for you while respecting my right to take care of myself and live with my decision.

D) So why should you be able to “refuse” to participate in a plan, but not me? You don’t like how those plans are run and you have the choice to not use or give to that plan. Under the Obama’s plan, I will soon not have that right.

E) Those “untold costs” will only be there if people who say they care, don’t stand behind their rhetoric. Combine that with charity and those people who truly do need help will get it.
The one’s who are to lazy or abuse the system don’t deserve any help and should have to live with their decision.

“— I have seen this arguement used in other “Government intrusions in MY decisions” where there is a refusal to acknowledge that YOUR decisions DO have an effect on US and COSTS TO US and IN THOSE CASES WE do feel that WE should have a say in YOUR decisions that will ultimately COST US.”

There is no “refusal to acknowledge” anything Russ. I just don’t think your feelings trump my rights.
My decisions would not cost you anything other than you respecting rights over feelings and letting people live with their own decisions and you actually supporting what you say you care about.

“We will ALL benefit by reduced health care costs and improved delivery of health care systems if we get together and find away to cover EVERYONE.”

ALL Americans benefit by respecting each others individual rights and freedoms Russ, because without those, we are no longer Americans.

“You will notice that I have NOT promoted any specific system, but I have acknowledged that there ARE systems out there that DO work for THEIR citizens”

But none of them respect the individual rights and freedoms that make us Americans.

“But in THIS country — the fat cats (and right wing) have been so successful in using the “socialized” boogeyman to FRIGHTEN people out of exploring VIABLE ALTERNATIVES.”

That is because rights are more important feelings.

“But we need to start by admitting that the current system — basically run by the Health Insurance Industry only profits the Health Insurance Industry and Pharmacutical industry
at the expense of OUR pocketbooks and OUR health.”

You could start by actually supporting what you say should be done, instead of wanting everybody else to be forced to do it for you.

Posted by: kctim at November 5, 2008 10:04 AM
Comment #269546

Kctim
Thanks for reminding me why it is totally stupid to even begin any sort of discussion with you.
I lost my way and forgot —
your response above has me totally confused because it seems to address points that were not made, proposals that were not made and other boogy-man issues that are only existant in your responses.
my bad, and will not be repeated — too much of a waste of time.

Posted by: Russ at November 5, 2008 12:06 PM
Comment #269557

Its not really that hard to follow Russ. My A) is in response to your A), easier than copying and pasteing everything.
Easier to just claim confusion instead of actually reading something that dares hold an opposing viewpoint though, so I understand why you went that route. I know rights over freedoms isn’t something you guys understand, but sheesh, to get confused?

Too much of a waste of your time? No problem, your leader feels the same way about us unintelligent clingers who hold opposing viewpoints also, so its something I’m just going to have to get used to.

Posted by: kctim at November 5, 2008 1:03 PM
Comment #269725

dbs -

An economy in the tank, two wars (one illegal), prisoners held in strict violation of the Geneva Convention, our right to Habeus Corpus tossed out the window, the end of Posse Comitatus, warrantless wiretapping…and you’re worried about your GUNS.

What will you say four years from now, dbs, when Obama’s running for reelection and there has been NO federal attempt to take away your guns? Registration, perhaps, in order to fight crime and at least keep the guns out of the hands of some criminals, but NO federal attempt to take away your guns.

What will you say then?

Ah, save it. We’ll just continue to hear the same old nonsensical Republican fear-mongering that “the guv’mint’s a-comin’ to take away our guns!”

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at November 6, 2008 3:02 PM
Comment #269726

Kind of like how we continue to hear the same old nonsensical liberal fear-mongering that the federal govt is listening in on your phone calls? Even though there has been NO federal attempt to take away your privacy? Limited monitoring, perhaps, in order to fight terrorism and do our best to prevent another 9-11, but NO federal attempt to take away your privacy.

It interesting how such warrantless wiretapping was an impeachable offense for the sitting Republican President, but a non-issue for the liberal Democrat trying to become President?

DBS
Your concerns about your rights are trivial and will be mocked and ignored if they are not the rights that fall in line with the liberal agenda. And, as we just seen, you will be called selfish, racist or made out to be an unintelligent redneck for daring to speak those concerns out loud.
Get used to it, its only going to get worse over the next 4-8 years.

Posted by: kctim at November 6, 2008 3:37 PM
Comment #269734

I voted as Green as I could including CMcK in Illinois, and my significant other voted mostly Green but for JMcC for POTUS. I haven’t gone through many of the figures yet, but it looks a lot like Rpblcns in key states decided to give BHO an electoral college victory to go along with the popular vote victory. I don’t get what the Rpblcn base had against JMcC. Not crazy enough? He got Team Alaska to help with that, but I guess it was too little too late.

Posted by: ohrealy at November 6, 2008 4:40 PM
Comment #269868

kctim wrote:

>I happen to support gay marriage with no restrictions whatsoever. I’m pro-choice. I have no problem with sex-ed at all. I am for all drugs being legal. And you are right, I do fear terrorists, much as you fear you fellow Americans who happen to be Republicans, but I was against going into Iraq.
I bet I drove millions of people away from the Republican party with those beliefs huh.


If you had been a leader of the Republican party, I’m sure you would have driven many away.

Posted by: Hotshot at November 7, 2008 1:00 PM
Comment #269889

“If you had been a leader of the Republican party, I’m sure you would have driven many away”

Very true Hotshot.

Posted by: kctim at November 7, 2008 3:01 PM
Post a comment