How long of a line to vote?

[Swish]

Check again. 18% that said that voted Kerry, 81% that did voted Bush. It disgusts me that so many people see him as moral! Truly mystifying.

Of course, it's all about the Christian thing when you get right down to it. the fact that we have a man with his finger on the button that truely BELIEVES in revelations is . . . well, we're doomed.



You have no idea what it's like out there in the wage slave world, do ya?



While American children go sick without care and only slightly older American childern die in Iraq for . . . corporate dollars.

and I'm quoting this from today's newspaper, ""A fifth of all voters said moral values were the most important issue in the campaign, and three out of four of those voters went for Bush". Do the math Troy, because you're not making any sense or you misunderstood the data. I also heard the same numbers on NPR yesterday as I was driving home from Philly. I don't usually listen to such liberal radio, but I wanted to hear Kerry's concession speech and Bush's acceptance speech. What a great day!

Swish

[Swish]

I've been a depressed mess all day long over this election. I voted against Bush. I have so many issues with the way he's run this country. The trade and budget deficits are out of control and he wants to give more tax cuts? 84 of the 250 largest corporations in this country paid ZERO TAXES in at least one of the last 3 years. Companies like AT&T and Boeing and PepsiCo actually made more money after taxes than before, each not paying a dime in taxes and receiving billion dollar rebate checks instead. It might be okay if these companies were re-investing, but capital investment for these 84 companies was actually down 8 percent. Kowtowing to big business is what this administration is all about. 35 years of hard fought environmental legislation has been undone during this administration. The SuperFund is gone, purposely (mis)managed into the ground. Coal industry lobbyists are appointed to top positions in the Department of the Interior. Oil executives and lobbyists write our energy policy. Pharmaceutical lobbyists write the Medicare prescription drug bill. It's one thing to be pro-business, but this administration has gone way, way over the line. I honestly don't know why anyone that works for a living would vote Republican. Then again, I'm on the opposite side of him on just about every issue, whether it's his anti-science stance, stem cell research, health care, Iraq or gay marriage, so I guess that makes me a loony lefty liberal socialist.

John

If you saw an earlier post of mine, I would love to see the Fair Tax Plan enacted, although it's probably a pipe-dream. It would eliminate all federal income tax and social security tax, for all consumers and businesses. The IRS claims they collect only about 75% of the taxes that are owed, and the system we created has added unnecessary costs to all goods and services (think of all the auditors, accountants and paperwork required to meet the demands of the IRS), along with the cost of the IRS itself. A national sales tax would end all of that waste and cheating on taxes wouldn't be an issue, at least not nearly as big as it is now. We own a small cash business but, unlike many others, we report 100% of our sales and pay our fair share. I could name dozens of similar local businesses who hide most of their sales and escape most of their tax bite, and they're all over the country. Just because they have a cash register doesn't mean they're reporting those sales. Trust me on that one.

Anyway, read more about it at http://www.fairtaxvolunteer.org/mate...factsheet.html.

Swish

[Ex Lion Tamer]

I have my doubts you've ever been to a US hospital, and I'm worried you believe too much of the current Canadian political BS about the sad state of canadian healthcare, and you think all US hospitals are like what you seen on ER.

You're almost right. The only time I've spent in a hospital was bringing my Dad to the emergency room at Bellvue in NYC. No wait in the Emergency room (it was a possible heart attack, so that would have probably been the case in Canada as well), and the care was in his words exceptional. My only other evidence is anecdotal, and second hand, my Dad again, was in a car accident in Florida in the early '80s. He was quite badly burned, the care was, he felt first rate and better than he thinks he would have received in Canada...(to his dieing day he feels that he would have died from equivalent injries had they been sufferred in Canada.) He was air ambulanced from the sight of the accident (Pompano Beach) to Gainseville. he had three skin grafts in a 1 week period. When he was transferred back to Montreal, scheduled skin grafts were cancelled on 2 seperate occassions because of labour unrest in the hospital at the time. A fairly typical occurrence even today. He also liked to tell about the indigent man in the bed next to him, who was receibving as good or better care than he was, though he had no way to pay.

I spent 11 hours in Atlanta waiting in an ER room to be treated for food poisoning...and it would have cost me $1200 if my insurance plan didn't pick up 80%.

There isn't a system in the world that can prevent long emergency room waits for those who don't "need immediate care". Impossible to get away from a triage system where some will have to wait. As for the cost, at least you know what that visit would have cost, maybe we would think twice in Canada if we saw what the cost was to the taxpayer for hospital visits, maybe it would keep people from showing at emergency rooms when they have a cold...a not uncommon occurrence.

Technology and quality wise, they're about even, but cost wise, the Canadian system has far less overhead and is far cheaper to run...not surprising since the insurance companies and drug companies don't have as much of a stranglehold on the system....

The latest studies I've heard quoted is that Canada has the highest per capita health care cost in the western world...about twice the cost of the American system.

Second, you STILL believe that there's a significant difference in tax rates between the two countries...WRONG...the systems are different, but don't even kid yourself...I just moved to Canada to accept a payraise, I'm in a higher tax bracket here, but when it's all set and done, the difference MIGHT be 1 or 2% per year...factor in the cheaper cost of living and the whole cheap healthcare thing and I'm far better off financially in Canada....

I'm surprised to hear that, but I won't argue about it, though I will ask if you're factoring in the "hidden" taxes and not so hidden taxes...ie Federal and provincial sales taxes? Generally higher property tax? Outrageously high gas prices (because of taxes)? Deductibility of mortgage interest in the U.S? Etc, etc. Tax freedom day in Canada was sometime in late June, I believe, this year.

As far as the "unelected Supreme Court deciding social issues"...would you support a system that allows the wealthy upper classes to elect prejudiced judges to decide the fate of your country? The Canadian Supreme court doesn't make law..it interprets them..and interprets the fundamental freedoms in the Charter above all else...what's wrong with that?

.

Well, don't get me started on the Charter, what good is a Charter that can be overriden at anytime by any Provincial Government, by the "Notwithstanding Clause"? Why do you say "the wealthy upper classes" are electing the judges...isn't it one man one vote, or are the wealthy only allowed to vote for judges? As for the respective Supreme Courts, I am not in a position to argue which one is better, but I do think that the Supreme Court the way it is constituted right now in Canada is more often then not an arm of the Liberal Government to make (interpret?) laws that they don't have the guts to take a firm poisition on, (abortion, gay marriage). My argument though is that it is in fact better to have the people decide on issues like gay marriage, then to leave it in the hands of a few elite.

We think in this country that we are so morally superior to Americans...aren't we forward thinking with our laws on gun control (a fiasco) and gay marriage? I submit that if Canadians were ever permitted a vote on social issues, like gay marriage we would find that we are much closer to our American neighbors in basic ideology than we let on. But that will never happen, because our government knows whats best for us.

[kexodusc]

Regardless of what most liberals think, the economy is strong, with home ownership at a record high, interest rates at record lows, unemployment at near record-lows, and most other economic indicators are very strong.
Swish

Low interest rates are not a sign of a strong economy...they're a sign of forced desperation. Especially with ultra-low inflation. We aren't starving by any means, so the economy isn't as bad as, say, Japan's has been for the last 14 years, but relative to most other developed/G8 countries (ie: Europe, Canada, China) since Bush took office our currency has depreciated so much it's not funny. The economy has plummeted.
We've lost more jobs as a percentage of employment than any other 4 year period since the great depression. The only reason unemployment numbers don't make you want to put a bullet through your head is because of the decades old and outdated method of calculating it...a system that only keeps pressure of the politicians.

No, the economy isn't okay, and Bush's tax cuts aren't helping to stimulate it much...but they are helping people get through it, which is what is needed. Problem is he keeps spending like a madman on bad ideas, when he should be giving even more money back to the public.
We'll pull out of this eventually, but not because of Republican or Democratic policies, but because of the need and will of the American people to succeed.

[kexodusc]

There isn't a system in the world that can prevent long emergency room waits for those who don't "need immediate care". Impossible to get away from a triage system where some will have to wait. As for the cost, at least you know what that visit would have cost, maybe we would think twice in Canada if we saw what the cost was to the taxpayer for hospital visits, maybe it would keep people from showing at emergency rooms when they have a cold...a not uncommon occurrence.

Except they thought my problem was either my spleen had ruptured or I had appendicitis...we were shocked that "food poisoning" was the result...a good chunk of the bill was for "nuclear medicine" tests...If I had appendicitis, I'd be dead...and if your father was an uninsured american, instead of a Canadian with the support of medicare, the US hospital would have left him for dead too.

The latest studies I've heard quoted is that Canada has the highest per capita health care cost in the western world...about twice the cost of the American system.

You haven't read any published reports in the last decade then...there was a big one earlier this year that talked about the small amount of red-tape and redundant costs in Canada's system. Canada's not perfect but one thing we're good at is bragging when we're good at something. We have one of the most efficient, low cost health care systems in the world here, and as another poster earlier in this thread suggested, the difference was by some huge margin...15% or more compared with the USA. The US is currently spending millions studying the Canadian system to try to copy it. It was frequently an election platform issue in many States, referring to how much cheaper Canada runs it's healthcare system.

I'm surprised to hear that, but I won't argue about it, though I will ask if you're factoring in the "hidden" taxes and not so hidden taxes...ie Federal and provincial sales taxes? Generally higher property tax? Outrageously high gas prices (because of taxes)? Deductibility of mortgage interest in the U.S? Etc, etc. Tax freedom day in Canada was sometime in late June, I believe, this year.

Hidden taxes? you don't think the US has those? Even with the sales taxes (which many states have), gas tax, and property tax (which is way lower in Canada for the most part, try owning property near Detroit or Atlanta, the only exception I can see is Vancouver, where it was about par with Seattle). There's not nearly as big a difference as you're led to believe. Factor in the value Canadian social programs offer (health care, education, pensions) and its not even close...Public schools in Canada are often better than private schools in the USA...when I moved to Canada as a kid in grade 6, I was put in the stupid class because I was so far behind what the Canadian kids were doing they thought I was dumb...University tuitions in Canada are dirt cheap...health care is dirt cheap...I'd argue these are 2 social programs used by all that more than offset GST.


So much tax stuff varies by province and state it's hard to do a comparison, but I will say I make more money in Canada, and will retain a greater share of my salary, while the cost of living, including entertainment, is alot cheaper than the US. The only downside I've seen to Canada, is that low paying jobs in Canada are a bit lower. The difference isn't much, but Canada isn't anywhere near as highly taxed as Stephen Harper and Ralph Klein would have you believe. 10 years ago, well...things were different, in BOTH countries.

Well, don't get me started on the Charter, what good is a Charter that can be overriden at anytime by any Provincial Government, by the "Notwithstanding Clause"? Why do you say "the wealthy upper classes" are electing the judges...isn't it one man one vote, or are the wealthy only allowed to vote for judges? As for the respective Supreme Courts, I am not in a position to argue which one is better, but I do think that the Supreme Court the way it is constituted right now in Canada is more often then not an arm of the Liberal Government to make (interpret?) laws that they don't have the guts to take a firm poisition on, (abortion, gay marriage). My argument though is that it is in fact better to have the people decide on issues like gay marriage, then to leave it in the hands of a few elite..

Ouch, I'd never live in any country that allowed the majority to restrict the rights of the minority in the interest of "democracy". Justice shouldn't be a tool of democracy...it should be politically independant...in both countries it isn't, but in the US, it's far more political. Watch when Bush appoints anti-gay, anti-abortion judges here in the next little while...Kerry would have appointed pro-stem cell judges etc...that's not justice, that's an extension of politics.

We think in this country that we are so morally superior to Americans...aren't we forward thinking with our laws on gun control (a fiasco) and gay marriage? I submit that if Canadians were ever permitted a vote on social issues, like gay marriage we would find that we are much closer to our American neighbors in basic ideology than we let on. But that will never happen, because our government knows whats best for us.

Yeah, Canadians are pretty high on themselves...well the Canadian left wing is anyway...but I wouldn't argue Canadian gun control is a fiasco...it's just another botched administrative program...the truth is, Canada has almost as many guns per household as the US, but because of restrictions, the murder rate is a fraction of a percentage as much...I don't know why, don't have all the details, but there must be something right about the system.

I have no doubt that most Canadians would vote against gay marriage too...the problem I have with that, is it's not right that a majority could persecute a minority...let's use an extreme example...If the majority wanted to bring in slavery, say against the French, despite the Charter protecting people from that, under your proposed system, it could...Wrong...the Charter is the highest law in Canada...it is interpreted by the courts to apply to all...hence any restrictions on marriage for gays is unequitable (despite irrelevant religious beliefs) and violates this Charter.

Marriage doesn't belong in the legal system at all..it's a religious institution...instead implement "civil unions" for all couples in legislation, and let people get married by thier churches rather than have it recognized by the legal system. Government and church don't mix. Marriage should be between you and your God (if applicable) not between you and government.

[BarryL]

[QUOTE=mad rhetorik]

I wish America was the fantasy land that I wish it was.

I really liked Obama's Democratic convention speech. I think he understands what the founding fathers were trying to do, and what needs to be done to really protect individual rights. He demonstrated a passion and a vision for what it means to be an American.

There are fundamental secular moral PRINCIPLES that I believe almost all American's believe in, including the fundamental right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. It will take someone with immense courage and wisdom to unite the country once again around these basic principles. The big challange is to convince people that morality comes before politics rather than starting with politics and then trying to derive a morality to justify the political ends.


I hope someone in America comes forward who can do this to save America, and thereby, the world.

[kexodusc]

I hope someone in America comes forward who can do this to save America, and thereby, the world.

I'm not sure who exactly said this, or what they were trying to convey, but I hope it's not what I think it means...
Much of the rest of the world is doing quite well, I think we should worry about fixing our own problems before even contemplating playing Global Police...

There's a name for the last group that talked like that...

[ForeverAutumn]

Marriage doesn't belong in the legal system at all..it's a religious institution...instead implement "civil unions" for all couples in legislation, and let people get married by thier churches rather than have it recognized by the legal system. Government and church don't mix. Marriage should be between you and your God (if applicable) not between you and government.

Putting gay rights aside for a moment...let's assume that I'm a hetrosexual athiest. If marraige is a religious institution, does that mean that I don't have any right to get married?

What if I'm a gay christian?

[Stone]

Marriage doesn't belong in the legal system at all..it's a religious institution...instead implement "civil unions" for all couples in legislation, and let people get married by thier churches rather than have it recognized by the legal system. Government and church don't mix. Marriage should be between you and your God (if applicable) not between you and government.

Then what if there's a split? Who decides how to divvy up the assets? Who decides who gets the kids and whether and when there's visitation? Who decides if there's child support? A priest, minister, or rabbi? Your argument sounds good on the surface, but practically it would be a disaster.

Oh, and the government certainly doesn't require people to get married to do things together, or even to live together. It's a choice they make. You could still be committed to one person and to God in doing so, while not being legally married.

[nobody]

I actually totally agree with kex on this one.

Why would a split be any harder if people had a civil union than a marriage? You would dissolve a civil union just as you divorce, in a courtroom. You would have the same legal status for assets and such as in a marriage.

Civil union would be the legal status, and marriage would be the religious status. If you want the legal benefits currently afforded a marriage, you would want to get both. Only difference would be the certificate you turn in after you get your religious ceremony is that it weould say civil union at the top instead of marriage. Your marriage would just be the religious ceremony if you want one.

And, to the athiest thing, just get a civil union. No need for a ceremony to god if you don't believe in him.

Personally, I think the whole difference between civil union and marriage is just semantics that the democrats came up with to try to straddle the line with the right.

[kexodusc]

Sorry Forever Autumn, let me explain...what I'm trying to say.

I don't want to take rights away from anyone...
Right now, the Canadian legislation is dependant on Christian definitions (Marriage, not capital"M") that discriminate against non-christian practices. This is fundamentally wrong...

I don't believe that legislation should use the term "Marriage" as it is so synonymous with "Christian" marriage definitions...instead, let's replace "Marriage" with "civil union" at the legal level, between 2 people that provide ALL the tax, 401K/RSP, pension, common law etc, benefits to a couple (basically what we have now if you were a married atheist, hetero couple). This would allow gay marriages (small "m") without imposing on the churches After all, most atheists I know don't get married in churches, they get married by a justice of the peace or something.

So if a Christian couple wants to get Married, they do it in the church, the traditional legal marriage liscence becomes a "civil union liscence" to make it legally binding. This way a gay couple can enjoy all the legal privelidges of any hetero couple, and NO church is forced to change its religious practices by any government legislation.

The fact that marriage is recognized to have its roots as a religious concept, should be enough for all to agree to remove it from legislation...church and state should remain separate. Not every citizen is Christian, and shouldn't be disadvantaged for not being so.

Then the freedom to practice religion (also guaranteed in both Canada and the USA) would then allow people to be Married (by whatever definition their church defines it as).

To answer your question...this would mean a hetero, atheist couple can be married via civil union (not small "m" to denote the non-religious use of this term)...and a gay christian couple can also enjoy "civil union"...furhtermore, if they want to Married in a religious ceremony, that can be done in a church.
Hence, a christian couple would be both Married and in a legal "Civil Union" at the same time...

[kexodusc]

Then what if there's a split? Who decides how to divvy up the assets? Who decides who gets the kids and whether and when there's visitation? Who decides if there's child support? A priest, minister, or rabbi? Your argument sounds good on the surface, but practically it would be a disaster.

If there's a split, then common law "divorces" would end the "Civil Union" and the normal divorce laws and rules would apply! No differen than in any other marriage...instead of calling it "marriage" you're calling it a "Civil Union"... What's the problem here???

[nobody]

Oh...and what happened on election day?

The Republicans called he Democrats a bunch of pansy ***gots who were afraid to kick ass in the desert and wanted to let homo's get married and they turned a slew of rural rednecks and evangelicals out to vote along with their usual supporters in the high tax brackets. A cynical strategy to be sure, but an effective one.

The gay issue was huge whatever anyone wants to say. The old union vote, which is dwindling along with the loss of union power is the same working class group who don't want nothin' to do with supporting issues like gay marriage. The Democrats have lost these guys and they're gonna have to make real changes to get them back or get used to being marginalized in elections.

The only other hope is that since for the first couple hundred years only white people were allowed to vote, we should go a hundred years or so and just let black folks be the only voters for a while. I got my fingers crossed for this one.

[Swish]

Low interest rates are not a sign of a strong economy...they're a sign of forced desperation. Especially with ultra-low inflation. We aren't starving by any means, so the economy isn't as bad as, say, Japan's has been for the last 14 years, but relative to most other developed/G8 countries (ie: Europe, Canada, China) since Bush took office our currency has depreciated so much it's not funny. The economy has plummeted.
We've lost more jobs as a percentage of employment than any other 4 year period since the great depression. The only reason unemployment numbers don't make you want to put a bullet through your head is because of the decades old and outdated method of calculating it...a system that only keeps pressure of the politicians.

No, the economy isn't okay, and Bush's tax cuts aren't helping to stimulate it much...but they are helping people get through it, which is what is needed. Problem is he keeps spending like a madman on bad ideas, when he should be giving even more money back to the public.
We'll pull out of this eventually, but not because of Republican or Democratic policies, but because of the need and will of the American people to succeed.

what I've seen paints a much different picture. Consumer spending is up, corporate investiments are up, and job creation is up by a large %. Kerry would have you believe they're all low-paying jobs and that all the good jobs are going overseas, but that's only partially true. We're in a global economy and need to change the way we do things. Corpations are burdened by high taxes and we need to end the quaqmire we've created with our federal income tax and enact the Fair Tax Plan. I really, truly think it would work and stimulate our economy to heights we've never seen. Then again, I could be wrong.

As for low interest rates being a sign of desperation, home ownership creates wealth, and many more people have been able to afford their first own or to buy a better home because of the low rates. My first home has an interest rate of 10.25% and I had perfect credit! I'm now sitting at 5.125, exactly half of that first number, and my low payments allow me to spend money on things I enjoy like cds. I'm in the mortgage industry so these low rates have created a ton of opportunities for me and my sales team, along with the many customers who are buying theirr first home, a vacation home, or investment properties. It's all good if you ask me.

Swish

[Stone]

I actually totally agree with kex on this one.

Why would a split be any harder if people had a civil union than a marriage? You would dissolve a civil union just as you divorce, in a courtroom. You would have the same legal status for assets and such as in a marriage.

Civil union would be the legal status, and marriage would be the religious status. If you want the legal benefits currently afforded a marriage, you would want to get both. Only difference would be the certificate you turn in after you get your religious ceremony is that it weould say civil union at the top instead of marriage. Your marriage would just be the religious ceremony if you want one.

And, to the athiest thing, just get a civil union. No need for a ceremony to god if you don't believe in him.

Personally, I think the whole difference between civil union and marriage is just semantics that the democrats came up with to try to straddle the line with the right.

After I read the first couple paragraphs of your post, I thought "Isn't this all just semantics?", and you summed it up that way. I really don't see much of a difference at all, frankly.

Not every citizen is Christian, and shouldn't be disadvantaged for not being so.

You completely lost me. What's stopping a person from getting married if they're not Christian?

If there's a split, then common law "divorces" would end the "Civil Union" and the normal divorce laws and rules would apply! No differen than in any other marriage...instead of calling it "marriage" you're calling it a "Civil Union"... What's the problem here???

No problem, except it's just a name change from what's now in place.

[kexodusc]

I'm not giving Bush all the credit either...low interest rates were required to stimulate a pathetic economy...part of the problem was Clinton's administration, part of it was just the cyclical nature of the economy, but Bush didn't do enough to help it. We've lost alot of ground to the international community...both parties are to blame for that.
Investments, and consumer spending, have only gone up RECENTLY, the last year or so...they never should have been as low as they were!!! And they're not up to the point where interest rates go back up higher to where they should be...

If Bush's tax cuts had actual TEETH to them, there'd be more consumer spending on non-essential goods, more economic investment, creating MORE jobs...spending billions in other countries fighting wars we can't really win, without any other justification isn't exactly productive.
Not that I like Kerry's options any better...That guys got National Bankruptcy written all over him.

Fact remains Bush did lose more jobs than any other president, and it's in spite of him that we're slowly pulling out of it...

And with a few minor tweaks, I like the Fair Tax Plan.

[kexodusc]

You completely lost me. What's stopping a person from getting married if they're not Christian?

The problem stopping a person from getting married isn't their religion, it's their sexual orientation...right now, gay couples aren't given access to the same "legal priveledges" (marriage) that exist for hetero couples because the laws use a RELIGIOUS definition of marriage...gay couples can't marry.
That doesn't speak well to equal rights for all, here, the gay couples get left out, but the government can't legislate religions to change their definitions either.

So the definition of marriage has to change in a way that gives everyone, regardless or sexual preference or creed, the same legal rights, in they eyes of the government, without imposing requirements on religous organizations (ie: forcing them to marry gays if they don't want to).

It's not just semantics, it's equality across the board, and separating the Church from State definitively.

[BarryL]

I'm not sure who exactly said this, or what they were trying to convey, but I hope it's not what I think it means...
Much of the rest of the world is doing quite well, I think we should worry about fixing our own problems before even contemplating playing Global Police...

There's a name for the last group that talked like that...

Al Stewart has a line in his song Russians & Americans that I always thought was very astute ; "A county is more an idea than a place." What I was thinking about was a leader who could lead through the promulgation of positive ideas in support of a renewed vision of America, more aligned with the America seen by its founding fathers, of a country united behind the idea of liberty and man's natural rights, not ruled by brute force. And certainly not a world ruled by America's military might or threat thereof. America, and the world, needs a new renaissance. The last thing I would want to see in the world is a global government ruled by the U.N.

What we have in America and the world today is politics by brute force. As Bruce Cockburn wrote, "The trouble with normal is it always gets worse."

[Ex Lion Tamer]

We have one of the most efficient, low cost health care systems in the world here, and as another poster earlier in this thread suggested, the difference was by some huge margin...15% or more compared with the USA. The US is currently spending millions studying the Canadian system to try to copy it. It was frequently an election platform issue in many States, referring to how much cheaper Canada runs it's healthcare system.

You can't only look at the cost side, you have to look at supply of services as well. Maybe it is cheaper in Canada, though I'm still sceptical, but just try to move to a new city and find a family physician, or as I said in my responmse to Troy, get an MRI, or look at how many surgeries get cancelled or delayed. My mother moved to my area, has been here over a year and has been refused by every doctor she's approached. Doctor's aren't taking any patients because it doesn't make sense for them because they're already at their patient quota. Doctor's from Canada are flocking to the States to have the freedom to run there practice as they see fit. A system is not only about the end user and the cost to them it's also about the provider and how they are treated.

University tuitions in Canada are dirt cheap...health care is dirt cheap...I'd argue these are 2 social programs used by all that more than offset GST.

Here's where we part company. I don't believe that a University education is an entitlement, it should cost what it costs, not be subsidized by tax dollars.

Ouch, I'd never live in any country that allowed the majority to restrict the rights of the minority in the interest of "democracy"..

Hate to break it to you, but you do. In Quebec, the rights of the English minority have been usurped in the name of protecting the French culture and language ever since Bill 22 was introduced in 1976, and it continues to this day.

Yeah, Canadians are pretty high on themselves...well the Canadian left wing is anyway...but I wouldn't argue Canadian gun control is a fiasco...it's just another botched administrative program"

It's a fiasco because it makes criminals of law abiding gun owners and does nothing to combat the problem of hand gun in our cities.

..the truth is, Canada has almost as many guns per household as the US, but because of restrictions, the murder rate is a fraction of a percentage as much...I don't know why, don't have all the details, but there must be something right about the system.

Exactly they spent billions solving a problem that didn't need solving.

As for the gay marriage issue, I have no problem with gay couples having the same rights as heterosexual couples, rights to spousal benefits and the like. I do have a problem with the gay rights lobby insisting that the word marriage be used. Just another way the left has eroded our traditional symbols, (ie. Christmas and Easter have turned into secular holidays), in a misguided effort to keep from offending "minorities".

[ForeverAutumn]

As for the gay marriage issue, I have no problem with gay couples having the same rights as heterosexual couples, rights to spousal benefits and the like. I do have a problem with the gay rights lobby insisting that the word marriage be used. Just another way the left has eroded our traditional symbols, (ie. Christmas and Easter have turned into secular holidays), in a misguided effort to keep from offending "minorities".

If they can't use the word "marriage" then they don't have the same rights, do they?


On the healthcare issue...I work in the life insurance industry. There is an insurance product available in both Canada and the US called Critical Illness insurance. The product works very similar to life insurance only, instead of your family getting a chunk of cash when you die, you get the chunk of cash if you are diagnosed with certain life threatening illnesses.

Most of the Canadians that buy this product do so, so that they can afford to jump the border into the US for faster/better treatment. What does that tell you about the perception of our Canadian healthcare system?

[ForeverAutumn]

Al Stewart has a line in his song Russians & Americans that I always thought was very astute ; "A county is more an idea than a place." What I was thinking about was a leader who could lead through the promulgation of positive ideas in support of a renewed vision of America, more aligned with the America seen by its founding fathers, of a country united behind the idea of liberty and man's natural rights, not ruled by brute force. And certainly not a world ruled by America's military might or threat thereof. America, and the world, needs a new renaissance. The last thing I would want to see in the world is a global government ruled by the U.N.

What we have in America and the world today is politics by brute force. As Bruce Cockburn wrote, "The trouble with normal is it always gets worse."

It's about time someone tied this thread in with music!

I'm just doing my best to get us to page 4!!!!

[jack70]

It's not a question of people being too irresponsible to pay their way. Times are tough. How can you expect them to pay insurance on anything?
It's a question of employers not willing to pay these extremely high med insurance costs for their employees. "We have to drop medical and dental cuz we can't afford it, even if you pay half". I come from the school of thought that employers are supposed to take care of their people. Unfortunately, companies today treat employees like the computers. "Throw 'em away in 3 years and get new ones".

I don't disagree with your basic sentiments Troy. But don't you wonder WHY many ( hardly all) tend to treat their employees that way? Ever wonder WHY medical costs are 3-4x that of inflation? The reality is that it's precisely GOVERNMENT that's the main reason.

This taxation on incomes over 200k (meaning business) to pay for medical insurance for the working class would FORCE business to pay for taking care of the people that they should be taking care of ANYWAY.

That's outright socialism, and no, it would only make things worse in the long run. You'd force some businesses (most of which are small one's of the type you want to punish) into bankruptcy, and others overseas to avoid confiscatory taxes. The way you get lower costs & higher quality is by providing a free marketplace, allow competition, and give people free choice. This is how any other market works (our food, computers, or toilets)... with the direct result of greater choice, lower prices, and better quality. The problem with healthcare is primarily because government has gotten TOO involved into it. (where do you think HMO's came from? answer: Teddy Kennedy). This is a typical result when government sticks it's nose into things it has no business doing... (you'd think more people would realize this by now).

Now, why should an EMPLOYER provide heathcare anyway? You don't buy your house, fire, life, or car insurance from your employer... or with a similar group of people on your street, do you? The reason is that wage & price controls (always a stupid idea) that were a result of WW2 made it illegal for companies to increase wages to attract better workers, so they got around it by offering the "benefit" of health insurance, which escaped those federal price controls. We now accept it as part of our wages... but the truth is... it's the main problem. You'd NEVER expect your employer to provide your food... and that's far more important than medical care.

The other problems of "inflation" of healthcare costs, where they've gone up 100-500% more than normal inflation is a DIRECT result of governmental interference. Troy, how would you be effected if THE GOVERNMENT required logs, forms, reports and hundreds of regulations on the minutia of what you do every day? The answer is it would cost you more... in time, effort, and in the end... COSTS. You'd have to raise your prices, work longer and have less in the end to show for it. Solution: GET THE FRICKIN GOVERNMENT OUT!

The result of such governmental control is the rationing and poor quality you get in many Euro countries and Canada. Doctors salaries in those systems are capped, so they come to the US where they can earn what they are willing to work for ( not as a pseudo-governmental employee). And we need Doctors deciding on medical decisions, NOT a bunch of fat inefficient governmental bureaucrats doing it.

Doctors & hospitals now practice defensive medicine, simply to avoid litigation (read: "extortion" by lawyers). It's only one reason for rising costs. It's also forcing MD's away... in my state alone 1000 MD's left last year after complaining (w/o any resolution) to the state lawmakers. I know one MD who's in his 50's who gave up medicine completely... just the type of experienced doctor we need. Houston... we have a problem.

Now, maybe you think a fully governmental run medical system will be better ,but it won't. It will make doctors governmental employees, and medicine will go the way of the dept of motor vehicles. Sound good? Don't fall for the scare tactic pseudo "reasoning" of the left here. One reason liberals have lost so much power over the past few decades is that most people reject this model... they're smart enough to know it's a trap that's worse than today's problems are. Get the government OUT... fix the marketplace so it's fairer and free-er. You really need to start reading a wider (read:more conservative type) of opinion writers... professional economists who know what the hell they're talkin about, instead of listening to moron politicians who pander to voters fears and barely got C's in their remedial high-school math courses. (/rant)

Capitalism will eventually fail because people are imperfect. Everyone is born with different intelligence, different abilities and different ambitions. Being "rich" requires the right combination of intelligence, ambition, financial smarts and opportunity. Capitalism causese the classes segragate, those at the top convince people in the middle that they "need" this and that, so many in the middle spend until they're broke, because, well, they lack the "smarts" Those at the bottom, there because they lack "ambition" and/or "opportunity" become dependent on charity and/or welfare. It all goes back to the way people are.... Quite a game isn't it?

Gee, that's awfully negative Jar. It's true we're all born unequal, but at least in this country you have the ability to achieve according to your work (effort) from the freedom we have. The only alternative to the liberty we have here is a more socialistic government, and that's PROVEN to lead to misery. You REALLY think, say, Cuba would be cool? Socialism= shortages, blackmarkets, slavery (forced to work) for the state, imprisonment and secret police, faceless bureaucrats, and often outright bloodbaths. No thanks. Capitalism, for all it's flaws, is so much better than the alternatives... it's not even worth debating.

Most people, in 99% of countries, for centuries and centuries have NEVER had what we have. Even people but a century ago would consider the world we live in as "miraculous" -- the quality and choice of food, freedom to travel, health and longevity, and hundreds of smaller things. Concepts like "leisure" and " entertainment" etc , were as rare as hens teeth. Today, it seems the focus of many of our lives. Watch some of the recent "reality" programs on PBS that mimic what daily life was really like in the 1600's (New England), 1700's (London), and 1800's (American West)... the drudgery, death and misery... just to survive ecery day. Our collective historical memories are way too short.... sometimes I think we're spoiled rotten. Or, you can walk the streets of New Delhi or Central Africa to get a wake up call. In the end, we have much more control of our lives than the rat-race sometimes makes us think. Methinks you may be in need of a little vacation, or a few beers.

Also funny to note that "liberal" used to mean Lockean principles like limited government, property rights, etc. and now has been perverted into "socialist in democratic clothing."

It's not really a "perversion"... it was a general change of accepted definitions over the centuries. Many notions, words and ideas change their meaning over time. It's really only a "problem" when using those terms relative to earlier times. Better to use the term "left-wing" instead of liberal.... it's not perfect, but it doesn't slam the term "liberal" quite so badly.... LOL.

I also heard the same numbers on NPR yesterday as I was driving home from Philly. I don't usually listen to such liberal radio...

I've listened to NPR for probably 2 decades. I agree, it's gotten gradually worse in it's political slant to what news it gives, and how it words those stories. But it still does a good job when it comes to science and the arts, so I still listen. As a libertarian, I'm one of the rare people who not only listens to NPR, but Pacifica (commie-radio) Radio, Rush Limbaugh, Imus, and Laura Ingraham. They all offer things worth knowing. BTW, the old WSJ (Wall Street Journal) TV program that used to be on C-NBC has re-emerged on PBS. It's generally on weekends, Sat night for 1/2 hr. Probably the best "talking heads" TV political show. Worth seeking out if you want to be informed in a truthful way. Yeah, gotta give PBS kudos for adding this (although not ALL PBS stations broadcast it).

..one of the things that struck me as ironic from the very beginning is how concerned Bush was about the freedom and the rights of the Iraqi people, while he steps on the freedom and rights of gay Americans.

Bush said flat out he likes/prefers the idea of "civil unions" with all the proscribed legal consequences of what marriage gives. (I saw the interview, but the media is so biased you rarely see anything but anti-Bush "goofy" stuff). He, like most Americans, doesn't think religion should be FORCED to change their ideals by the GOVERNMENT (get it, all you who are so afraid of church & state coziness?). If the right wing was putting pink triangles on people, I'd be concerned, but the left's preoccupation with this subject is simply an anti-religion, Bush-hating INTOLERANCE than anything. Sorry, but Republicans's are NOT anti-gay. And the overwhelming referendum in many states is NOT about gay rights... it's a backlash aimed at activist judges, who with dictatorial zeal thwart the will of the legislative process and the people. Quite simply, the people are fed up with such judges NOT obeying the law, as they are required to do.

So what's wrong with Bush's solution of giving "gay unions" all the civil rights and privileges of "marriage" without co-opting religion with the boot of government? Personally I wish both side would just shut the F-_k up about it all. Maybe fix the billions in Medicare fraud, our tax structure, social security, etc etc. Myself, Personally I'm just an "atheist for Jesus".

Judging by what you've written above, would it be safe to assume that you are a free-market Libertarian? I almost voted for the Libertarian party candidate but in our good ol' American two-party system that would be like a vote for Bush. So I went Kerry (I know, very un-Libertarian).

I pretty much agree with every point you made in your post. As a libertarian, I guess that makes sense? But although I voted libertarian in the state/local elections, I went for Bush in the National. I wasn't going to, but a few months back I started reading many of the left wing/ Dem/ Kerry Blogs and sites. The absolute hateful stuff I saw (smacks of 30's era Germany) so turned me off -- the fear-tactics, and outright lies, and absence of real logical debate on real issues (like you find on the conservative and libertarian Blogs) made me so angry I had to vote against such intolerance.

The fact Kerry had no solid positions on much of anything made me think he didn't deserve being voted for anyway. The only positive thing I can say about him is that he isn't as bad as that crook Al Gore (remember Al's "no controlling legal authority" and Marcia Hsia and her dozens of intimate e-mails with Al, and her subsequent 25 year prison sentence for illegal corruption?)

As for Kerry vs Bush.... Kerry had absolutely NO ideas on the future... on ANY problems (that I could frickin' tell.... ) He'd say one thing and then contradict himself the next day. Typical Senator... with absolutely NO leadership skills that governors, CEOs, and Presidents need to have. Bush, is at least going to TRY to simplify the IRS MESS (tax hell), save Social Security from it's inevitable death (something Clinton could'a/ should'a done had he any balls... Democrat Moyniham urged him to fix this inevitability, but he (Clinton) showed no leadership). Those 2 things by themselves make Bush a far better choice than Kerry.

The other troubling thing about Kerry was the lightweights he surrounded himself with.... his military, economic advisors etc. I saw over a half dozen of em interviewed on CSPAN and other TV shows. They seemed more predisposed to being a second rate high-school teachers than high governmental officials. I was NOT impressed.

Finally, anyone who lived in Boston for 30 years and picks Eddy Yost as his "fave Red Sox player" is either someone who'll say anything to get elected, or a complete moron... probably BOTH. (Yost never played for the Sox).

Many people just CAN'T pick up and move to a place with better schools with families and relatives and roots. Life is just too complicated for that. it takes $ to move to the nicer area and it takes a good job to get the $, but to get the good job you need . . . education. It's a classic conundrum.

Well, I'd differ with you there... most can... they just lack the desire or moxie. I do agree with you that it might not change a lot for many though. But your contention about being "trapped" is exactly what most Europeans face today... and you know why? cause their socialistic governments has made them SO dependent on the state, by taking away their freedoms little by little (in a false promise to a "better" life), to the extent they're little more than wards of the state. Not much different than The BORG. (but then, many of the Borg probably like it that way?)

As far as Michael Moore is concerned, he is a hypocrite, charleton, and propagandist troll, pure and simple. The Democrats were only hurting themselves by aligning with him. He

Did you see Moore on C-SPAN last week? He made a speech outdoors to a college audience. He cut off C-SPAN's cameras after 15 minutes after he realized they were there filming him... what a phony. That kinda fraud goes beyond propaganda. Even Reifenstall wasn't that heavy handed with Hitler. If you wanna be anti-Bush... fine, go to it, but Moore doesn't know what documantary means and even distorts the term "propaganda". Go to Slate.com and search for Christopher Hitchen's (a lefty) powerful slam of the movie.

The old union vote, which is dwindling along with the loss of union power is the same working class group who don't want nothin' to do with supporting issues like gay marriage.

I've belonged to unions. They are, without any doubt, the most corrupt organizations there are. They might have once been of some good, but today they are nothing but a tax on workers that goes to the elite union bosses pockets, to wastfull extravagant spending, and political coffers (against the will of it's members).

Oh, wasn't this thread about voting...?
I waited about an hour, a little longer than most presidential elections, but fairly typical. The day after the election I read lots of Blogs and stories like this one. Here's a sample from the short post there:
2. The two books containing voter registration and voter signatures were considerably smaller than before. In the past, the voter books were about five inches thick, and now they were about 1/4 of their usual size..
Seems like Chicago (& PA & OH) are falling back on the old dirty tricks they used for decades. I'm glad this wasn't me, as I might have landed myself in jail.... LOL.

[Slosh]

Sorry, but Republicans's are NOT anti-gay. And the overwhelming referendum in many states is NOT about gay rights... it's a backlash aimed at activist judges, who with dictatorial zeal thwart the will of the legislative process and the people. Quite simply, the people are fed up with such judges NOT obeying the law, as they are required to do.

Bullshit. Dubya wants to appoint justices that believe Christian values and strict constitutional interpretation are one in the same. Quite often constitutional interpretation does thwart the will of the legislative process and of the people. So be it.

So what's wrong with Bush's solution of giving "gay unions" all the civil rights and privileges of "marriage" without co-opting religion with the boot of government?

Sounds fine to me. Lawabiding, tax paying citizens get equal rights and religions retain the right to discriminate. Don't see it happening in the next four years, though.

Election's over. Back to the music . . . .

[-Jar-]

Gee, that's awfully negative Jar. It's true we're all born unequal, but at least in this country you have the ability to achieve according to your work (effort) from the freedom we have. The only alternative to the liberty we have here is a more socialistic government, and that's PROVEN to lead to misery. You REALLY think, say, Cuba would be cool? Socialism= shortages, blackmarkets, slavery (forced to work) for the state, imprisonment and secret police, faceless bureaucrats, and often outright bloodbaths. No thanks. Capitalism, for all it's flaws, is so much better than the alternatives... it's not even worth debating.


I agree that it's the best system we have and of course, I'm thankful that I live here in the great US of A. Don't get me wrong.

But, when I play it out in my head, so to speak, I see the poor growing in numbers, the super-rich consolidating their wealth and power, the government and the coporations merging into one.

I can't see how this can work itself out so everyone is happy. Yes, Capitalism may be the best economic system we have, but it's far from perfect.

-jar

[nobody]

I've belonged to unions. They are, without any doubt, the most corrupt organizations there are. They might have once been of some good, but today they are nothing but a tax on workers that goes to the elite union bosses pockets, to wastfull extravagant spending, and political coffers (against the will of it's members).

I've worked both union and non-union jobs, and most people I know and my family have been union workers for the most part with some exceptions. Working in a union shop pretty well assures you higher pay and better treatment than those doing the same job non-union. If you don't think that's true, you're just not paying attention.

You may not think getting workers more money and better working conditions is no longer valuable, but I and many others will disagree with you 'til the death.

The real problem is people willing to take those non-union jobs and not respecting picket lines. The only real power a union has is the power to strike, and when you can hire scabs cheaply and everyone crosses a picket line with no problem that power is gone. That loss of power, much more than corruption has spelled the weakening of unions.

Are many unions coprrupt? Sure, most large organizations have some level of corruption to, including churches, businesses, governments, whatever. That's not reason enough to wish them to all just disappear.