How long of a line to vote?

[Ex Lion Tamer]

To pay for healthcare for everyone, or to not give a damn about people that can't afford to go to the doctor?

I wonder how many Americans would think this way if they ever required healthcare in Canada - the great socialized healthcare paradise - where 3-month waits for MRIs are commonplace. If I had to choose, I'd take the American system any day over the Canadian system, as it is now consitituted.

[Troy]

I wonder how many Americans would think this way if they ever required healthcare in Canada - the great socialized healthcare paradise - where 3-month waits for MRIs are commonplace. If I had to choose, I'd take the American system any day over the Canadian system, as it is now consitituted.

That's great if you can afford the MRI. You can get one today at the mall . . . for about $500. To a vast majority of Americans holding multiple jobs, there's just no way they can afford it. Unless they saved for 3 months . . .

[Troy]

IMO: Bush is a moron. He has gotten us involved in a war that is a waste of money and lives on the basis of "WMD's" that have mysteriously "vanished" into the ether; has a Veep and inner circle with open connections to Haliburton and other large corporations; claims to support American freedoms abroad while depriving us of them via the Patriot Act; masquerades as a "conservative" while approving every spending bill that has been passed by Congress; and is trying to return us to the failed economic policy of "Reagonomics." Those are just a few on his long list of mistakes and abuses. I'd go so far to say that his might be the most incompetent and corrupt Administration since Warren G. Harding.

Also IMO: On the other hand, I don't think Kerry is much better. He's just as much a member of the "old guard aristocracy" as Bush. His "flip-flopping" might work as a Senator and career politician, but not in the office of President. He may botch the war in Iraq and sacrifice many more lives (though at least he has an exit plan, or so he claims). I have a feeling that his campaign promises are mostly empty (aren't they all?). Anyway, this post is probably way too political for Rave Recs, so I'll stop there.

Pretty much sums it up for me too.

So the choice was "a sure bad thing" or a complete unknown. I'll go with the unknown 10 out of 10 times.

Considering that there was so much weight put on moral issues there is way too much moral hypocracy in the Bush agenda. How can you kill 100,000 Iraqis, many of them non-combatants and then say that it's immoral to experiment on non-aborted fetuses from fertility clinics that would just be thrown away?

[Ex Lion Tamer]

That's great if you can afford the MRI. You can get one today at the mall . . . for about $500. To a vast majority of Americans holding multiple jobs, there's just no way they can afford it.

I'm not sure I follow. Can they not afford insurance? Why? How much does health insurance cost? You're self-employed Troy, I'm sure that you have taken care of your heathcare needs. Should you be paying for those who are irresponsible enough not to look after theirs?

I'm not American, so maybe this is an over-simplification, but my impression is if you're truly in need (ie. on welfare or unemployed), healthcare is provided at no cost. If you're employed, but your employer does not provide group insurance coverage, it's up to you to arrange for it yourself. This seems reasonable to me, you just have to budget for it; housing, food, clothing, health insurance. I bet a good portion of those people who you say can't afford an MRI, or the insurance to pay for it, pay for cable TV, watch their big-screens, and spend their money on things far less important than health insurance.

I can't say for sure, but I'm almost positive that I pay more, probably a lot more, for my inferior health care through taxes, then you do for yours through insurance premiums.
Just the fact that MRIs are so easily accessible in the U.S. should tell you something. Guaranteed, that an MRI in Canada probably costs the tax payer triple the $500.00 that it costs in your country.

No system is perfect, I guess I'm just saying be careful what you wish for.

[Troy]

I'm not sure I follow. Can they not afford insurance? Why? How much does health insurance cost? You're self-employed Troy, I'm sure that you have taken care of your heathcare needs. Should you be paying for those who are irresponsible enough not to look after theirs?

I'm not American, so maybe this is an over-simplification, but my impression is if you're truly in need (ie. on welfare or unemployed), healthcare is provided at no cost. If you're employed, but your employer does not provide group insurance coverage, it's up to you to arrange for it yourself. This seems reasonable to me, you just have to budget for it; housing, food, clothing, health insurance. I bet a good portion of those people who you say can't afford an MRI, or the insurance to pay for it, pay for cable TV, watch their big-screens, and spend their money on things far less important than health insurance.

I can't say for sure, but I'm almost positive that I pay more, probably a lot more, for my inferior health care through taxes, then you do for yours through insurance premiums.
Just the fact that MRIs are so easily accessible in the U.S. should tell you something. Guaranteed, that an MRI in Canada probably costs the tax payer triple the $500.00 that it costs in your country.

No system is perfect, I guess I'm just saying be careful what you wish for.

I'm on my wife's company insurance plan. We pay 50% for her, 100% for me. Hundreds every month. Coverage is limited at best. I pay every time I go to the doctor. I have to pay for all my prescriptions. We have no dental plan at all. They take credit cards. I'd have to be REALLY sick for Kaiser to give me an MRI. As a preventative measure? Never happen.

The healthcare provided to indigents for free isn't what I'm talking about. Aside from the fact that the care is horrible (seen it first hand) and wouldn't come close to a standard most people would find acceptable, it's about healthcare for the wage slave families that can't get a leg up on anything. There are more poor here than you think. The division grows every day because the guys at the top give themselves tax breaks on everything and put the burden on the shrinking middleclass.

It's not a question of people being too irresponsible to pay their way. Times are tough. Lots of people make 20K a year. They can't afford a car. They can't afford to eat out. Ever. How can you expect them to pay insurance on anything?


It's a question of medicine costing WAY too much, driven up by wastefull expenditures in the last 30 days of life and incredible R&D budgets.

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". 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.

[Swish]

Altho I dropped it off at the polling place. It's the easiest way.

There were many more folks than last time.

If Bush wins, I'm gonna cry, then start breaking things. That guy rapes my dreams.

fp

while I rejoice at my favorite pub tonight. I'll also help George Soros find the monastery he said he would find to live in if Bush won, and I'll help Ben Afleck, Bruce Springsteen, and company pack up so they can move out of the country.

Your bud,
Swish

[JDaniel]

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". 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.

Almost everyone has a choice.

Nobody forces anyone to go to work for an employer that doesn't "take care of their people". Your statement "companies today treat employees like the computers. Throw 'em away in 3 years and get new ones." is only a generalization. Some companies do this without a doubt. But many do not. My point is that the person chooses to go to work for such employers. There are plenty of employers who do offer good benefits, including health/dental insurance, to qualified employees. That person should take the initiative to actively seek employers who offer the benefits they are seeking. Even in down economies, companies hire. Maybe not your specific co., or not in the town you live in, but what about the company in the town 20 miles down the road etc... In my 20 or so years of being a working adult, I've never worked for a company that doesn't "take care of their people". Whenever I've gone on a job interview, I've asked just as many or questions as the person doing the hiring. I'm interviewing them too, and doing my research first.

Same as to where I choose to live. I get sick of hearing people complain about their school system. Then take some initiative and move. No way would I send my kids to lousy schools, or schools that I didn't believe were safe. I researched the heck out of where to buy a house before our last move. No way would I choose to move to a community with lousy schools.

But hey, that's just my philosophy. I choose not to work for a lousy employer, and I choose not to live where the schools are sub-par.

JD

[Swish]

Pretty much sums it up for me too.

So the choice was "a sure bad thing" or a complete unknown. I'll go with the unknown 10 out of 10 times.

Considering that there was so much weight put on moral issues there is way too much moral hypocracy in the Bush agenda. How can you kill 100,000 Iraqis, many of them non-combatants and then say that it's immoral to experiment on non-aborted fetuses from fertility clinics that would just be thrown away?

if you checked out the exit polls. Only 18% mentioned moral issues as the reason for their voting choice. I don't think W is the second coming, but I could not fathom John Kerry and his trial lawyer sidekick leading this country. The liberal agenda is to unfairly and disproportionately tax those who earn more money, which smacks of socialism to me. I'm not saying you don't take care of the elderly, the sick and the needy, but at some point you have to say enough is enough. Our government should take care of our safety and our infrastructure, but they need to keep their hands out of our pockets, something that wasn't going to happen with Kerry in office. There are plenty of other reasons I don't like Kerry, but I'm not getting into that now.

Have you checked out the Fair Tax Plan? If not, I think you should. It would put an end to our federal income tax, for consumers and businesses, as well as social security tax. How can you not favor that? They would be replaced with a National Sales Tax on all new goods and services, putting an end to most tax cheats, eliminating the high cost for corporate tax accounting and the piles of paperwork associated with it. Don't take my word for, as if you would. Go to http://www.fairtaxvolunteer.org/mate...factsheet.html and read about it.

Swish, having a truly excellent day.

[Swish]

Almost everyone has a choice.

Nobody forces anyone to go to work for an employer that doesn't "take care of their people". Your statement "companies today treat employees like the computers. Throw 'em away in 3 years and get new ones." is only a generalization. Some companies do this without a doubt. But many do not. My point is that the person chooses to go to work for such employers. There are plenty of employers who do offer good benefits, including health/dental insurance, to qualified employees. That person should take the initiative to actively seek employers who offer the benefits they are seeking. Even in down economies, companies hire. Maybe not your specific co., or not in the town you live in, but what about the company in the town 20 miles down the road etc... In my 20 or so years of being a working adult, I've never worked for a company that doesn't "take care of their people". Whenever I've gone on a job interview, I've asked just as many or questions as the person doing the hiring. I'm interviewing them too, and doing my research first.

Same as to where I choose to live. I get sick of hearing people complain about their school system. Then take some initiative and move. No way would I send my kids to lousy schools, or schools that I didn't believe were safe. I researched the heck out of where to buy a house before our last move. No way would I choose to move to a community with lousy schools.

But hey, that's just my philosophy. I choose not to work for a lousy employer, and I choose not to live where the schools are sub-par.

JD

I believe in a capitalist society, where everyone has choices to make and opportunity to succeed. Our daughter went to a very good public school back in the 90s, but when we moved, we put our son in a private school because we didn't like the public school he would have to attend. It was our choice and it cost us plenty, but we did what we felt was necessary. My company provides very good health care benefits, although I do pay premiums for them. Their benefits package was one of the biggest reasons I went there to work and why I've stayed for 8+ years.

Yes, our healthcare system is a mess, but I don't feel government intervention (i.e. a government healthcare system) is the best way to resolve it. I watched a recent news bit that explained that 25% of the cost of our medical care is for paperwork, and that's outrageous. In Canada the number is just 10%, so it makes sense that we need to simplify the process. Also, we need to cap the dollar amount on lawsuits that have created high malpractice insurance premiums resulting in higher medical costs for everyone else (are you listening John Edwards?). It just kills me to read the ads in our local paper run by ambulance chasers looking for people taking Vioxx. Just amazing.

Swish

[Slosh]

Dubya's new America: now with 51% rednecks!

Moral issue? Isn't it more moral not to foist one's own morality on others? Is it moral to send soldiers off to die in the name of some pretend, omnipresent, all powerful entity - to kill those people that happen to believe in another pretend, omnipresent, all powerful entity? Oh, but they have all of that dangerous oil in their ground. Wouldn't want that to fall into the wrong hands. Besides, our Saudi friends don't seem to mind so much and what on earth do the have to gain from all of this anyway?

Guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people.

Drugs are dangerous and addictive and are generating huge profits for bad people who do not have your best interests at heart. Alcohol and tobacco are manufactured and distributed by good people who help fund our elected officials so how can they possibly be bad?

Who needs clean water and air and safe food when there's profits to be had?

Let's let those heathen non-Americans look into stem cell research. Satan doesn't mind if he has to wait a bit longer for them.

Etc, etc. . . .

I'll give Dubya this - he sticks to his guns, because, of course situations and circumstances never change. Don't wanna be called a flip-flopper. In order to be a convincing liar ya gotta keep your story straight, ya know.

I can only hope all of this pandering to the religious right was merely a ploy to get elected and republican idiology (and not theology) will be the order of the day. If not don't be too surprised to see 60s/70s style radical leftist groups making a comeback in the not-too-distant future.

[BarryL]

Despite predictions of record turn outs I signed in at my precinct and was immediately escorted to voting booth #1. In and out baby.

jc

How is it that Bush got more votes and won the popular vote this time with his track record than in the previous election before the war, recession, etc.?

Are the Democrats really that incompetent? Is the press out of touch with most Americans?

I suspect that a lot of people have been socially bullied by the likes of media darling Michael Moore to speak against Bush in public, but admire the job he's doing in private.

I'm glad that, being a Canadian, I didn't have to choose. I'm also glad that the Democrats had the decency to concede defeat. Now, what the U.S. economy needs is massive government deregulation (the complete separation of state and economics would be a radical start) and a renewed respect by politicians for the the Bill of Rights and the Constitution of the United States.

By the way, how is it that if a Liberal is someone that believes in liberty, that be a bad thing? Only the socialists of the left could bastardize that term to mean someone who believes in more socialism and the destruction of liberty. And only the socialists of the right could accept that liberty = socialism.

To answer Troy's question about how the two candidates and parties are the same: they are both big spending socialists opposed to individual liberty and individual rights. They just have different agendas as to how much individual wealth they should confiscate and how they want to distribute it "for your own good" and for "the good of all Americans" to others who didn't earn it and who believe they are entitled to the property and wealth of others. If Bush really believes that tax cuts are a good thing because the money belongs to the people who earned it, then he should leave all of it with the people who earned it and let them decide how to spend it. But I don't think he really thinks that the money people earn should be theirs. But in my mind, in principle, it either is, or it isn't. You either take property rights seriously, or you don't. If you don't just admit it. To this extent, Kerry was more honest. He admitted that rich people and shareholders of big corporations shouldn't have the same rights as others.

Corruption and dishonesty in the business world pales compared to that of politics and politicians.

[Troy]

Almost everyone has a choice.

Nobody forces anyone to go to work for an employer that doesn't "take care of their people". Your statement "companies today treat employees like the computers. Throw 'em away in 3 years and get new ones." is only a generalization. Some companies do this without a doubt. But many do not. My point is that the person chooses to go to work for such employers. There are plenty of employers who do offer good benefits, including health/dental insurance, to qualified employees. That person should take the initiative to actively seek employers who offer the benefits they are seeking. Even in down economies, companies hire. Maybe not your specific co., or not in the town you live in, but what about the company in the town 20 miles down the road etc... In my 20 or so years of being a working adult, I've never worked for a company that doesn't "take care of their people". Whenever I've gone on a job interview, I've asked just as many or questions as the person doing the hiring. I'm interviewing them too, and doing my research first.

Same as to where I choose to live. I get sick of hearing people complain about their school system. Then take some initiative and move. No way would I send my kids to lousy schools, or schools that I didn't believe were safe. I researched the heck out of where to buy a house before our last move. No way would I choose to move to a community with lousy schools.

But hey, that's just my philosophy. I choose not to work for a lousy employer, and I choose not to live where the schools are sub-par.

JD

While I think that you're right in that not all companies are about feeding the executive bonuses, it's a lot more prevalent than you seem to be assessing.

And while I think it's great that people with college educations and a leg up from the womb can pick and choose career paths and employers, MANY in this country cannot. Most people are . . . well, not idiots, bu tthey are not too bright. They are easily duped and taken advantage of. Corporrate America takes advantage of them to the fullest extent and from every angle. They cannot police themselves so the government has to do it for them. Your old pal Donny was wrong, "One bad apple DOES spoil the whole bunch".

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.

All of us on this board live a life of relative luxury and comfort. Some more than others. We are all smarter than average. It's REAL easy to say "pull yourself up by your bootstraps and change your life, but to most people, it's virtually impossible to get by, let alone get ahead. It is truly tough out there.

Do we just let these people wallow in their own stupidity and degradation? Even if you are heartless enough to say "Yes, screw 'em, they are nothing to me" that will bite you in the butt later when they steal your car and rape your wife because they have nothing to live for and nothing to lose.

Some people need help. Some people need insurance. Saying that ALL these people are taking advantage is like saying ALL corproations rape the staff as much as possible. These people won't just go away. They are a potentially huge resource to be tapped if given the chance. Corporate fat cats paying a little more tax to pay for health bennfits would be a step in the right direction . . . a HUMAN direction. One not based on "me first" greed for once.

[Slosh]

Our government should take care of our safety and our infrastructure, but they need to keep their hands out of our pockets

Believe it or not I'm with ya Swish. I always thought republicans were for a smaller, less intrusive government and fiscal responsibility. Haven't seen that with Dubya so far. Not by a long shot.

Kind of ironic that we did see those things happen under Clinton (even if he was forced into it).

[Troy]

if you checked out the exit polls. Only 18% mentioned moral issues as the reason for their voting choice.

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.

I don't think W is the second coming, but I could not fathom John Kerry and his trial lawyer sidekick leading this country. The liberal agenda is to unfairly and disproportionately tax those who earn more money, which smacks of socialism to me. I'm not saying you don't take care of the elderly, the sick and the needy, but at some point you have to say enough is enough.

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

Swish, having a truly excellent day.

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

[Troy]

How is it that Bush got more votes and won the popular vote this time with his track record than in the previous election before the war, recession, etc.?

Incumbents during war seldom lose. Maybe this is the real reason he started the war in the first place? I've heard that from several people today.

Are the Democrats really that incompetent? Is the press out of touch with most Americans?

Apparently, yes. The dems shoulda run a southerner. They are the only ones to win for nearly 50 years. You simply GOTTA win some of the south. The urban areas simply aren't enough.

Kerry was weak. Bush got dirty, Kerry shoulda got dirtier. Shoulda called out the whole ex-drunk born again fake song and dance. He was too gentlemanly, opting to not go for the juggular. Another Dukakkis. Loser. Pussy.

I suspect that a lot of people have been socially bullied by the likes of media darling Michael Moore to speak against Bush in public, but admire the job he's doing in private.

I dunno, I've talked to A LOT of people today about this by e and phone. There are some seriously ANGRY people out there. Angry at their American brethren too full of themselves in their big fat American arrogance to see the world for what it is. Angry at the party for not finding a better candidate then Kerry. I've heard more than once "If we get another terrorist attack, we desrve it". God forbid it happens in one of the RED states.

Now, what the U.S. economy needs is massive government deregulation (the complete separation of state and economics would be a radical start) and a renewed respect by politicians for the the Bill of Rights and the Constitution of the United States.

Welcome to fantasy island.

[-Jar-]

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.

I participate in this system the best way I can because that's what you have to do. I help large corporations and banks collect money from those who can't pay their bills any longer, because they've spent all their money on "things" they've been brainwashed that they need by other large corporations, or just because they feel they need to have an SUV in the driveway to keep up with the Joneses. In turn, I get paid twice a month, enough money to pay for my house and buy food for my family and pay back those same banks that I, in turn, owe money to. For all my efforts, I'm snugly in the middle, worried about staying there and hoping that the economy doesn't go further south.

Quite a game isn't it?

-jar

[ForeverAutumn]

It's not a Bush victory that bothers me as much as the fact that all these anti-gay-marriage initiatives passed (esp the one in Ohio). We're all used to monkey boy..

However, what I'm now keenly aware of is how most of the people that I live and work amongst really feel about gay rights.-jar

I don't know enough about most of the issues to have an opinion one way or the other. I have enough problems keeping up with the liars and thieves in my own country. But...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.

[mad rhetorik]

How is it that Bush got more votes and won the popular vote this time with his track record than in the previous election before the war, recession, etc.?

Are the Democrats really that incompetent? Is the press out of touch with most Americans?

I suspect that a lot of people have been socially bullied by the likes of media darling Michael Moore to speak against Bush in public, but admire the job he's doing in private.

I'm glad that, being a Canadian, I didn't have to choose. I'm also glad that the Democrats had the decency to concede defeat. Now, what the U.S. economy needs is massive government deregulation (the complete separation of state and economics would be a radical start) and a renewed respect by politicians for the the Bill of Rights and the Constitution of the United States.

By the way, how is it that if a Liberal is someone that believes in liberty, that be a bad thing? Only the socialists of the left could bastardize that term to mean someone who believes in more socialism and the destruction of liberty. And only the socialists of the right could accept that liberty = socialism.

To answer Troy's question about how the two candidates and parties are the same: they are both big spending socialists opposed to individual liberty and individual rights. They just have different agendas as to how much individual wealth they should confiscate and how they want to distribute it "for your own good" and for "the good of all Americans" to others who didn't earn it and who believe they are entitled to the property and wealth of others. If Bush really believes that tax cuts are a good thing because the money belongs to the people who earned it, then he should leave it with the people who earned it and let them decide how to spend it.

Corruption and dishonesty in the business world pales compared to that of politics and politicians.

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). Like Troy said, better the unknown quantity than an Administration that has already proven a thorough failure.

As a Canadian watching this whole debacle from 'cross the border, you make some good points--there are anti-Constitution cronies on BOTH sides, not just the right. And all of them were out in force this election--Moveon.org types, Hollyweird socialists, Communist intellectuals, warmonger rednecks, big business fascists, Religious Right nutjobs, etc. etc. For me the Religious Right have been some of the worst (those hypocrites Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson need to be disposed of, and I mean NOW). I'm embarrassed to admit that I'm a Christian if it means being associated with those wankers. There's a damn good reason why religion and state should not mix.

I'm glad that Kerry had the dignity to concede and not turn this into another Florida. Bad enough that our Supreme Court had to choose our President the first time.

The American press IS out of touch--either pro-Dems (CNN being one) or pro-Republican (Fox), both of them completely outside of the vast majority of Americans who I think want their bullshit served straight, if you get my meaning. Objectivity is a good thing, and it's being ignored in favor of 15-second soundbites and the spin of the day. We need a serious overhaul of American media, and we need one yesterday.

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."

I'm no fan of the Bush tax cuts. I'm not saying I support an inverted, Sweden-like "tax the rich to feed the poor" scenario, I just think they were poorly planned and are designed to favor the 1%. We've been through this already--supply-side does not work. All it does is give the rich more money to spend on a new yacht, while the average middle-class family gets what? $400? $600? With state taxes being raised through the roof to cover the discrepancy, nobody wins.

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 claims to support "the little guy" while living the Good Life on the Upper East Side. He writes sensationalist garbage and then turns around and accuses the media of doing virtually the same thing (see Bowling For Columbine). Moore takes facts and conveniently warps them into his own version of reality. Ex. Citing the fact that the NRA and KKK both formed not long after the Civil War (1871 and 1866 respectively), and insinuating that the groups are somehow associated with each other (nevermind the fact that they could not have been more opposed, the NRA being a "Yankee" organization, pro-civil rights, and often deliberately anti-KKK). Then there's his smear job on Charleton Heston, his painting of pre-invasion Iraq as some sort of paradise (in Fahrenheit 9/11), and plenty of other distortions. Joseph Goebbels and Leni Riefenstahl would be proud. Click here: http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

Oh yeah, and just as a disclaimer to all of the above: IMHO. ; P

[Dusty Chalk]

So the choice was "a sure bad thing" or a complete unknown. I'll go with the unknown 10 out of 10 times.

That sounds overly optimistic. What if the unknown was a deranged communist who "heard voices"? You have the chance to learn the unknown (I mean, it's not like he doesn't have a congressional record or anything) -- I did, and I wasn't happy with what I found out about him, neither.

I still say, "Gumby/Pokey in 2008!"

[Ex Lion Tamer]

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.

All of us on this board live a life of relative luxury and comfort. Some more than others. We are all smarter than average. It's REAL easy to say "pull yourself up by your bootstraps and change your life, but to most people, it's virtually impossible to get by, let alone get ahead. It is truly tough out there.

Gotta call you on this one. My father-in-law came to Canada from Italy in the '50s with basically nothing, no education, no money, not speaking the language; nothing but a good work ethic. He's now a successful restaurant owner, a restaurant that provides a comfortable living for him, and his son and family. His story is far from unique in my country or yours. Now you're trying to tell me that people "CAN'T pick up and move to a place with better schools"? Nonsense. People don't move because the welfare state we've created has turned us into a nation of excuse makers who rely on the government to feed, cloth and take care of us, and of elitists who believe that people are basically incapable of taking care of themselves without the "help" of big brother. It's way worse in Canada, but the U.S. seems to be headed in the same direction.

[Whooptee]

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

[Audio Girl]

"Pharmaceutical lobbyists write the Medicare prescription drug bill".

Nothing could be further from the truth. I have been involved in the biotechnology, healthcare, pharmaceutical industry for over 20 years, and really must take exception with your statement because that is not who writes the Medicare prescription drug bill. If you have ever dealt with a government payor at a policy-impact level, you would understand that they are not influenced by lobbyists, etc. That policy is written internally, usually by government employees who have no medical background, and have no concept of what they are allowing/disallowing, or even the mechanism of action for the medication that they are reviewing. AND they certainly understand it much more than any physician, scientist, or clinical trial participant would ever be able to. Trust me, the policy makers within the government payor sector have no desire to support any bill or measure that a lobbyist places before them. No matter how powerfully perceived.

[Whooptee]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Audio Girl Whooptee, please clarify your source or what this statement is based upon...really must take exception with your statement because that is not who writes the Medicare prescription drug bill...

Hi Mary,

What I was saying was that it was basically impossible to distinguish the administration and the Republican congress from the pharmaceutical industry during the drafting and passage of the Medicare prescription drug bill (formally known as Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act of 2003).

I really don't care about the little details of the bill, I care about the big picture stuff, like the provision that prohibits the government from negotiating lower drug prices. The low-level details were in all likelihood drafted by HHS staffers. But even that arm wasn't free of the drug lobby's influence. A deputy assistant secretary in the office of policy was a former PhRMA lobbyist named Anne-Marie Lynch. Prior to her HHS appointment she was a paid PhRMA lobbyist that lobbied against price controls on pharmaceuticals.

The drug and HMO lobby employed 952 lobbyists for the fight on this bill. 431 of those were what are referred to as "revolving door" lobbyists who had previously worked for the federal government. 11 of those were top staffers in the Bush administration and 30 others were former US senators and representatives.

After the passage of the bill, four top Bush White House officials left “to help industry clients benefit from the Medicare bill they wrote or promoted.” Those aides included Tom Scully, who was the administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. In addition, three prominent drug industry and HMO lobbyists from the Medicare battle now hold senior health policy positions in the Bush administration’s Health and Human Services Department.

Then there's Rep. Billy Tauzin from Lousiana. He was the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. He spent months negotiating the bill to overhaul Medicare, often meeting in the basement of the Capitol with a small group of lawmakers, administration officials and industry groups. One of those groups was PhRMA which has offered him their leadership job. That post, sources say, would pay Tauzin more than $2 million a year. These meetings consistently excluded the 5 Democratic members of the committee.

A great place to research this issue is at the following link:

http://www.ourfuture.org/issues_and_...6_25_03_mr.cfm

In the end this bill was a great deal for the pharmaceutical companies and HMOS, but a bad deal for seniors. It really turns out to be nothing more than a subsidy for Big Pharma. 60% of the money spent on this plan is going to go to windfall profits for them. That's a lot of money! You can find a link to the study that explains that at the above web site.

I hope that clarifies what I said earlier for you and that you no longer take exception.

John

[kexodusc]

First, I can't say for sure, but I'm almost positive that I pay more, probably a lot more, for my inferior health care through taxes, then you do for yours through insurance premiums.
Just the fact that MRIs are so easily accessible in the U.S. should tell you something. Guaranteed, that an MRI in Canada probably costs the tax payer triple the $500.00 that it costs in your country.

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.

I've sent more than 1/2 my life in 3 states, Michigan, Georgia, and North Dakota...there's no way in hell that the Canadian system is inferior...I'd say their about equal, both needing some serious fixing. 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%.

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...

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...

SOME provinces are a bit harder on businesses, but my province (New Brunswick) has the lowest corporate tax rate in the country, and would be more than competitive back home in the US.

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?

[Swish]

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.

I participate in this system the best way I can because that's what you have to do. I help large corporations and banks collect money from those who can't pay their bills any longer, because they've spent all their money on "things" they've been brainwashed that they need by other large corporations, or just because they feel they need to have an SUV in the driveway to keep up with the Joneses. In turn, I get paid twice a month, enough money to pay for my house and buy food for my family and pay back those same banks that I, in turn, owe money to. For all my efforts, I'm snugly in the middle, worried about staying there and hoping that the economy doesn't go further south.

Quite a game isn't it?

-jar

Sorry Jar, I'm not buying that. Look, I was dirt poor when I was younger, and I got no entitlements from anyone. I worked my ass off, paid my student loans and other bills on time, and worked my way up the ladder. I took some risks along the way, going to commission sales when I was fairly comfortable with my salaried job, but not really putting anything away for the future save a modest 401K. Yes, I'm doing quite well now, but I've stuck to my industry for 22 years and did whatever was necessary to survive. Living hand-to-mouth for many years taught me quite a bit about myself. I was one of 8 kids in my familly and, while I never went without food or clothing, it was anything but comfortable.

How did I survive those early years? For one thing, I didn't buy a new car until I was nearly 40 years old, and when I bought a used car, it was always more than a few years old. We did without for a long, long time, and I worried daily about how I would fund my kids education. Yes, I'm doing quite well now and have been for about 8 years, and now liberals like Kerry would have me share it with those not so fortunate. Do you see where I'm going with this? Nobody did me any favors along the way. Not that I was treated badly, but my daddy never got me a job, I did it on my own. I paid my way through college and still wonder how I did it. Yes, there are many who feel they need or derserve the best of everything and they want it NOW, but is that my fault? Is it the fault of "corpoorate brainwashing"? It comes down to personal accountability Jar, and I don't pity them when they fall on their faces. I feel sorry for them, but I don't pity them nor do I think that I should underwrite their plight.

Look, I don''t agree with all things Republican, but I certainly am a fiscal conservative while I'm a moderate when it comes to social issues. Tthe Democrats sealed their fate by running the most negative campaign that I've ever seen, showing great disrespect for our President and creating a backlash of support for him. Their snooty, elitist attitude, making Bush out to be an imbicile is what makes us Republicans so defensive and what brought us out in record numbers. HATING BUSH IS NOT A PLATFORM that could succeed. Kerry had no vision except that he wanted to unseat Bush, and we saw through that facade. If the Democrats hope to win the next election, they need to tone it down considerably and move a little closer to the center if they expect to gain any Republican votes. "Vote for me and I'll raise your taxes". Genius, pure genius. At least they won't have to resort to bashing Bush in 2008. They should also keep guys like Ted Kennedy, who should be in jail for murder, as he does nothing but cast a shadow over the party.

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. The Bush tax cuts are working, regardless of what you think or what Kerry told you. As for the war in Iraq, that's a tough one, but one I support because I do believe we are fighting the most important war of my lifetime, the war on terrorism. I would rather rid the earth of that vermin over there than here or brace myself for another 9/11. What you probably don't know is that my son will be deployed in Iraq within the next few months, so I need to continue my support of the efforts by our troops. I am very concerned for his safety, but proud that he volunteered for military service and will be honoring his country at a level that I will never be able to do.

Hey, we can go back on forth on this stuff for months, but the bottom line is that Bush won, the Republicans control the House and Senate, and will move their agenda along at a swift pace. I think we will all be better off because of it, but we'll have to wait and see, won't we?

Yer bud,
Swish