Politics United States Presidential Election Thread

[Gold Knight]

I'm sure that for the first few years, Obama's universal health care proposal will seem like paradise to elderly people. But it will fail miserably in the end and hurt the country.

Doctors are going to make less money to the point where more and more people will opt to do something else other than being a doctor - why go to all the trouble of going to med school, paying through their noses to get that knowledge, if they aren't going to make that much money? They would REALLY have to become saints.

My family has known people from England and they're always complaining about what terrible health care they get there. To make up for the incompetent doctors they have, they import doctors from places like India and - guess what - certain countries that sent terrorists instead of doctors!

Canada has "universal health care" yet guess where they keep coming to when they want REAL medical help? Of course they'd have to have the money to be able to afford it, but you get my drift.

I love the idea of an universal health care system where we continue to keep a group of highly skilled doctors, because my mom does not have insurance and she has all kinds of ailments that nobody will help her with - unless it is a emergency. But that kind of system is something that will be very hard to create.

Think about this: right now if you get really, REALLY sick, you can find a specialist to take care of you right away. In countries that have Universal Health Care, not only do they have lousy doctors, they don't have ENOUGH. You have to wait 4-6 months to even get an appointment. For all intents and purposes - You're screwed.

It's not the government's responsibility to just GIVE health care to us like water and air. That's OUR responsibility to be able to make the money that we need to take care of ourselves and the people we care about - just as we need money to feed ourselves. If elderly people - and people without insurance, like my mom - insist on a system that will ultimately destroy the health care system we have in place right now, a program that would keep YOU and all our loved ones from getting decent medical care, they are ultimately being selfish. Understandable, but...

 

[Deleted_User_50953]

I'm sure that for the first few years, Obama's universal health care proposal will seem like paradise to elderly people. But it will fail miserably in the end and hurt the country.

Doctors are going to make less money to the point where more and more people will opt to do something else other than being a doctor - why go to all the trouble of going to med school, paying through their noses to get that knowledge, if they aren't going to make that much money? They would REALLY have to become saints.

My family has known people from England and they're always complaining about what terrible health care they get there. To make up for the incompetent doctors they have, they import doctors from places like India and - guess what - certain countries that sent terrorists instead of doctors!

Canada has "universal health care" yet guess where they keep coming to when they want REAL medical help? Of course they'd have to have the money to be able to afford it, but you get my drift.

I love the idea of an universal health care system where we continue to keep a group of highly skilled doctors, because my mom does not have insurance and she has all kinds of ailments that nobody will help her with - unless it is a emergency. But that kind of system is something that will be very hard to create.

Think about this: right now if you get really, REALLY sick, you can find a specialist to take care of you right away. In countries that have Universal Health Care, not only do they have lousy doctors, they don't have ENOUGH. You have to wait 4-6 months to even get an appointment. For all intents and purposes - You're screwed.

It's not the government's responsibility to just GIVE health care to us like water and air. That's OUR responsibility to be able to make the money that we need to take care of ourselves and the people we care about - just as we need money to feed ourselves. If elderly people - and people without insurance, like my mom - insist on a system that will ultimately destroy the health care system we have in place right now, a program that would keep YOU and all our loved ones from getting decent medical care, they are ultimately being selfish. Understandable, but...

The only reason that republicans are not for universal health care is because the pharmaceutical companies pay for a big part of their campaign, you would not go up against the ones paying for you. I think it's the other way around the elderly running to Canada to get prescriptions filled because its WAY to much money here.

I think its all brain washing them saying that if we do get universal health care it would be lower then what we have already, I really think thats a lie...

Has anyone seen Sicko?

 

[mrcongojack]

Personally I'm against Universal Health Care - to be honest, I think health insurance is a scam. Any way you go about health care - privately or government run - your going to pay through the nose without getting what you pay for. What the government should do is stop bending over backwards for the drug companies and get our meds down to a reasonable price. That is possibly the one thing I envy about my Canadian cousins - their prescriptions are much cheaper.

 

[miyi]

wow, I've been on hiatus and probably I won't be back until next week..but just a quick comment here..I'm leaning towards a universal health care system (yeah, I'm more democrat-leaning on domestic issues)..if it's working in other industrial countries, I think we should give it a try. And if it doesn't work out, we can always scrap it..

Doctors are going to make less money to the point where more and more people will opt to do something else other than being a doctor - why go to all the trouble of going to med school, paying through their noses to get that knowledge, if they aren't going to make that much money? They would REALLY have to become saints.

While I agree that doctors go through a rigorous process of training to become a doctor, they have sworn the Hippocratic Oath, and a Doctor's primary concern ought to be his duty to heal the sick, not his income.

I think that the medical profession today has become excessively preoccupied with the "profit" aspect, and they're less concerned with the idea that they are "helping" others...but of course, I don't want to over-generalize...my brother is an RN and he made 90k last year, although at the same time, I don't think it's about the money, he really likes what he does.

I think what we need in this country is to have a compromise; two health care types that will satisfy the poor, the rich, and even the middle class.

My ideal health care policy would be to have both universal and private health care:

[1] government-controlled universal health care which will guarantee medical care to any citizen. This means that anyone who chooses to receive this type of health care will agree to pay additional taxes of some sort..

[2] the wealthy can still opt to choose their private health care, so they will be exempt from universal health care related taxes.

This means that if you want more skilled "specialists", your wealth makes you more likely to afford these for-profit doctors, so it's a win-win situation for all of us.

I haven't really studied Obama/Hillary, nor Mccain's health care policies, so I wouldn't have a clue...

there is a moral issue involved here....as a government that we empower, we as human beings (not just an issue of being a "citizen") deserve proper health care. The poor should not be denied health care..

That's why I admire those doctors who volunteer to help in Africa to cure for the sick. They do it for non-profit and also to help people, which is what they've sworn to do. You don't have to be a saint, you just need to be less money-oriented..

The middle class would probably bear the brunt of the sacrifice, since they would probably choose universal health care, but pay taxes that will also benefit the poor, perhaps the biggest beneficiaries out of all this.

But I think the middle class will do fine, if they don't like it, they can always choose private health care.

Like I said, if it doesn't work within a decade or so, we can always scrap it. Our economy is strong enough so we can afford to experiment on which systems works best.

 

[Zwivix]

Okay so we talk about policy and experience, but what it comes down to here is does Clinton have an chance at all to win the nomination.

I've tried to do the math but I dont see how Clinton can win anymore? My professor told me of a website where they were tallying all the delegates, but I can't seem to find it. Anyone know where I might find it?

 

[Gold Knight]

..if it's working in other industrial countries, I think we should give it a try.

It's not BTW, miyi, as I already said in my previous post. It's only working for these countries because they bring foreigners over from other places to be their doctors who are willing to work in such circumstances: hence, the terrorist bombings in London by so-called doctors a while ago. But for the most part, they lack the manpower because not as many people ARE interested in becoming doctors, specialists, etc.

But I do agree with the rest of your post, especially the part where doctors should be more concerned about healing the sick rather than getting paid for it, and the drug companies being the primary "evil" here.

Unfortunately, that is not the reason why most people study to be doctors and you know it. And perhaps it's for the best. Doctors DO have to spend a whole lot of their time dealing with patients and more than often not, they do have families to support as well. They need money for all that.

My ideal health care policy would be to have both universal and private health care:

[1] government-controlled universal health care which will guarantee medical care to any citizen. This means that anyone who chooses to receive this type of health care will agree to pay additional taxes of some sort..

[2] the wealthy can still opt to choose their private health care, so they will be exempt from universal health care related taxes.

That does sound good to me.

I suppose I'm speaking from a mostly patriotic perspective. I'd definitely still like to get my mom some health care. Ugh.

 

[mrcongojack]

CNN's website has a tally of the delegates. Right now, Obama has 1,622 delegates (1,413 pledged and 209 super) and Clinton has 1,485 (1,242 pledged and 243 super). The only reason Clinton is in the race right now is because of the super delegates, and they are starting to slip into Obama's camp. And Clinton's campaign is having a meltdown - not a day goes by without Bill or Wolfson accusing someone of something. They are starting to get hypocritical, too. Wolfson criticized Obama for criticizing Clinton, saying something to the effect of "I thaght ur campign waz abt hope lolhax...". I can't wrap my mind around that logic.

After Richardson endorsed Obama, an endorsement Clinton sorely needed and thought she had in the bag seeing as Richardson and the Clintons go way back, one of her supporters called Richardson "Judas" (ironically during Easter week).

For Clinton to win, she needs to get like 64% wins in every state until the convention, which is highly unlikely. Her own campaign has admitted she can't in with pledged delegates. Her only option is to try and get the popular vote, but even that would take a miracle. Obama has won. It's time for Clinton to step down so the party can reunite and get ready for November.

In many ways, the Clinton Campaign has gone through the cycle of grief. There was the initial denial after Obama won 10 states in a row. They said "those states don't matter" and "we've won the key states". Next came anger, when they went dirty with the "kitchen sink strategy". Right now they are in the bargaining phase, saying "well, we can't win with delegates but we have a chance at taking the nomination with the popular vote!" Soon we'll see depression and, finally, acceptance that the country doesn't want the Clintons in office again.

 

[Imperium]

It's not BTW, miyi, as I already said in my previous post. It's only working for these countries because they bring foreigners over from other places to be their doctors who are willing to work in such circumstances: hence, the terrorist bombings in London by so-called doctors a while ago. But for the most part, they lack the manpower because not as many people ARE interested in becoming doctors, specialists, etc.

Working... waiting months on end to get small check-up cannot be called working But what am I complaining about at least its free. >_>

Anyway public health care will probably not work in America. Our health cares budget is close to £100 billion (around $200 billion) and is not really enough, which is evident in some hospitals still managing to get into debt. Our population is around 56 million, while America’s is about 300 million. If around $200 billion is needed for around 56 million people...im guessing its going to a dang site more for 300 million.

Also GK is right in saying there is not many doctors. I recently watched a documentary about doctors from mainland Europe flying weekly to Britain just to work on weekends due to short staffing. Most doctors are going into private sector healthcare because of the money, leaving the public health service stupidly under-staffed. So its going back to the same argument of doctors working just for the money.

Oh, and the doctor involved in the Glasgow bombing, was actually not foreign, he was born and raised in Britain.

Btw, what is the big uproar over the church that Obama goes to about? God, so many videos of it, on youtube. >_>

 

[Gold Knight]

Thanks Imperium.

And that's right, he was British-born, I forgot. Guess that was a bad reference even if he was of Iraqi descent, but still, I guess you guys probably get the gist of what I'm saying. Such things could happen. The main issue I'm trying to point out is fewer doctors means worse health care for everybody and probably more vulnerability to such situations.

The big uproar is the minister at Obama's church is brutally Anti-American and almost seems to be racist from a black man's perspective - a Malcolm X encouraging an uprising against white people and somebody who seems hell-bent on demonizing America. The problem here is that people have a hard time believing that Obama kept going to such a church if he's so unpatriotic that he put up with all the stupid drivel. Of course, it might speak volumes about his patience with people, I suppose. That's something a President might need to have.

Personally I'm not letting that influence my decision too much about him. What does worry me is that I don't agree with his views, but he's so charming and well-spoken that he might as well be the Piped Piper that leads all the mice off a cliff.

 

[mrcongojack]

I'm personally more worried about Clinton and her "ducking under sniper fire" story. That was a complete fabrication, and yet she tells the story. Her excuse? She "made a mistake". Where I come from, we have a better term for it - bullshitting. There is no way anyone makes a mistake about whether or not there was sniper fire. Hill-dog also tried to point the finger at Obama, saying he has made similar mistakes "at least 10 times". I don't remember Obama making claims as grand as being under sniper fire. She tries to argue she is more electable, yet has fewer votes. Limbaugh had 16,000 of his dittoheads register Democrat just to vote for her. Would he do that if she was "electable"?

After Hillary said "she made a mistake", she goes after Obama for the Wright sermon. Even Huckabee has defended Wright. McCain has defended Obama. When the Republican frontrunner is defending a Democratic candidate on Hannity's show, you know it might be time to move on. Harry Reid has said that the nomination will be taken care of before the convention, and I hope he does the right thing and lets Obama keep the nomination which he has earned.

 

[miyi]

[...]but he's so charming and well-spoken that he might as well be the Piped Piper that leads all the mice off a cliff.

you know what annoys me about Obama? in a normal conversation he acts as though he's still giving a speech, and he has these verbal ticks that sounds really awkward.

I give him props for his charisma and oratory, but no points for substance. I am not easily swayed by his words, no matter how well-spoken he is.

About the Reverend Wright controversy, he can say whatever he wants, I don't really mind. But his point of views are all a bunch of emotional hyperbole, not so much factual. And please don't make the Israel-Palestine conflict an issue about black vs. white, it is much more complex than that....there are various factors in play, such as politics, culture, social, economics, religious, as well as racial.....something he obviously cannot grasp. I agree with Huckabee and Mccain that Obama is being unfairly scrutinized because of all of this. There's no evidence that he shares these views, other than the fact that this pastor is someone close to him....I can accept that. I think the media is blowing this way out of proportion.

The democrat in-fighting I think will hurt the Democrat nominee in the long run, and work to Mccain's benefit....I hope Clinton and Obama fights all the way until the convention.

In other news, former first lady Mrs. Reagan officially endorsed Senator Mccain earlier today.

 

[Gold Knight]

I'm personally more worried about Clinton and her "ducking under sniper fire" story. That was a complete fabrication, and yet she tells the story. Her excuse? She "made a mistake". Where I come from, we have a better term for it - bullshitting.

I laughed at that the other day on the news. Yes, you're right. You'd think she would remember something like that... I mean, running around and sniper fire. You're right... complete B.S. But you already knew I mistrusted her from the start, I mistrust the Clintons. Since Obama and Clintons share most of the same views anyway, I'll definitely still take Obama over Hillary at this point if there was no other candidate.

...although I'm almost expecting Obama to announce that white bodyguards of Hillary's attacked him on the street a la Rodney King any day now. I feel like it's gotten THAT bad... -_-

you know what annoys me about Obama? in a normal conversation he acts as though he's still giving a speech, and he has these verbal ticks that sounds really awkward.

I give him props for his charisma and oratory, but no points for substance. I am not easily swayed by his words, no matter how well-spoken he is.

Yeah, you just reminded me of something Obama said in one of his books - that he felt early on as a child that the best way to "fit in" with white people was always put on a big smile no matter what. He certainly never seems to stop smiling. I'm not so sure that he can actually be honest with himself and the people around him, so his whole appearance could possibly be a fabrication.

Still, I DO get the sense that he is basically a decent person, though.

The democrat in-fighting I think will hurt the Democrat nominee in the long run, and work to Mccain's benefit....I hope Clinton and Obama fights all the way until the convention.

Lolololol. I'm surprised you were so honest to admit that, miyi. ^^

I feel exactly the same XD

In other news, former first lady Mrs. Reagan officially endorsed Senator Mccain earlier today.

I'd be shocked, absolutely shocked, if she doesn't. I mean... Reagan was THE Republican; he set the standard for modern Republicans in this age. However much of a maverick McCain is, he's still tons more attractive to the Republican party than either Obama or Hillary.

 

[mrcongojack]

A recent poll said something like 20% of Obama/Clinton supporters would not vote for the other candidate. I don't believe that. The same was said about McCain just a few months ago. Heck, Coulter said she would campaign for Clinton! The Republicans coalesced around McCain, and I believe the same thing will happen with Obama.

Yeah, I'm calling the race over and saying Obama has won the nom. Clinton's only chance of winning is if Obama melts down... Doesn't that mean Obama's lead is too substantial for Clinton to overtake it by usual methods (swaying pledged delegates aside). I think the Clintons have really gone over the deep end finally.

 

[miyi]

Surge in Iraq Hearings, Capitol Hill:

Spoiler

Article published Apr 9, 2008, from www.washingtontimes.com


Democrats call for Iraq pullout despite Petraeus' report of gains


April 9, 2008

By Sara A. Carter - Top Democrats pressed their case that the U.S. should cut their losses and pull out of Iraq, disregarding warnings by Gen. David H. Petreaus and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan C. Crocker that a retreat will plunge the region into chaos.

Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee Ike Skelton, a Missouri Democrat, pushed the two men, who were giving testimony for a second day.

"Iraq was invaded on incorrect information," said Mr. Skelton. "The turbulent aftermath following the initial military victory was not considered despite warnings of the aftermath, including two such warnings from me. Now we are in our sixth year of attempting to quell this horrendous aftermath."

Gen. Petraeus, who was scheduled to give the war report mandated by the Democrat-led Congress, said the U.S. troop surge had drastically reduced violence and helped the Iraqi government take control of about half the country's 18 provinces.

When pressed by Mr. Skelton on how the Iraqi Security Forces are handling the current uprising in Basra and Sadr City, a Shi'ite neighborhood in Baghdad, led by factions of Shi'ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army militia, Gen. Petraeus said he would give them a "B" or "B-" letter grade. The top commander said that Iraqi government and military have gained control of the port areas of Basra but still have pockets of insurgency that they need to get under control.

"The Iraqi Security Forces took control of the ports ... they have also taken control of key areas," Gen. Petreaus said. "There are still some militia strong holds."

But the general reiterated once again that he did not know how many U.S. troops would be in Iraq at year's end. He recommended a pause in troop withdrawals in midsummer after a 45-day wait to access the situation in the country. He added that U.S. forces can keep pressure on al Qaeda terrorists and other destabilizing elements, including Special Groups, sponsored by Iran from taking control of the fragile situation.

Here are videos of the Presidential Candidates, questioning General David Patreus and Ambassador to Iraqi Ryan Crocker:

Mccain


Obama part 1

Obama part 2

Clinton part 1

Clinton part 2


Obama's main concern, while noting that there are in fact, significant progress in Iraq, is when to determine the "endpoint", for when the troops will be able to withdraw slowly, without jeopardizing the gains in Iraq.

Patreus and Crocker both agree that the best indicator for when troops can withdraw, is when Iraqi officials are capable themselves, without needing further assistance, to take care of the violence and terrorism themselves. I know that this is very vague, and both Patreus and Crocker points out that while the situation in Iraq has gotten better, it is still potentially reversible. I think these are one of those situations where you simply go by intuition, and only people like Patreus and Crocker, those directly involved in Iraq, and not the Senators, can adequately pinpoint this detail.

Obama later makes an interesting point, which I agree with. He says that our troops are perhaps excessively concentrated just in Iraq and is stretched thin. There is some truth to this. What I disagree with is his advocating a timetable, which I think is counterproductive, and like I said, it's probably better in this circumstance, instead to use military expert intuition based on empirical observation.


Obama then adds that he feels there should be a "diplomatic surge in Iran". In other words, he feels that we should improve our relationship with Iran, in order to cooperate together in assisting Iraq towards a more stable government. This is ideal, and I agree with Obama on this.

However, there is one caveat to this. I will personally be comfortable dealing diplomatically with Iran, only so long as they confirm to us that their nuclear ambitions are indeed peaceful, by allowing weapons inspectors to do their jobs more thoroughly. Just judging from Iran's own news media, they are overtly anti-American and anti-Western, and it's nearly impossible to deal with a nation unwilling to be friendly with us. Not to mention that they supply Iraqi extremists with weapons.

Ideally, if Iran and USA can improve their relationships built on trust, then yes, I would love to work with them in assisting Iraq. We need that kind of option, and we can use their valuable contribution. I just don't trust their current leader and their spiritual leader, Ayatollah Khameini.

As far as Clinton, she makes a fool of herself blatantly ignoring the facts concerning the progress in Iraq. Her stubbornness is unbelievable. It is not even worth the time discussing her ridiculous comments. Patreus and Crocker repeatedly proved her wrong, and I guess towards the end, Mrs. Clinton ran out of steam, lol.

 

[Gold Knight]

Is it too soon to move towards discussing who will win the whole race, McCain or Obama? Heh.

Yeah, I agree that Hillary has just done herself in lately. I'd like to say that I predicted it would happen all along since I did say I never trusted her at the start of this thread, but I have to say I didn't imagine such a meltdown to actually take place for her. Some of who the Clintons considered their strongest supporters are actually defecting over to Obama. It's kinda sad in a way (for her) but I'm glad people are starting to see the truth about them.

Thanks for posting up Obama's thoughts miyi. I suppose Obama doesn't have that bad an approach towards the whole Iraq/Iran issue at all. But I seriously doubt we will have a friendly relationship with Iran anytime soon, I would almost say that's naive to think that way.

 

[miyi]

@Gold Knight:

Just remain cautious though for what Obama says. Although I agreed with him partly on some issues during the Congressional hearing this week with General Patreus and Ambassador Crocker, having shown some sense of rationality in his part, doesn't mean Obama is all pro-Iraq stability.

He still seems fixated on withdrawing the troops, regardless of whether or not Iraq will reverse the past military-political gains. The inability of the Democrats to grasp this concept baffles me.

They claim that lives of US soldiers are continually being lost, and it's effecting our economy. But as Republicans continually point out, consider the consequences of pulling out of Iraq while it's still unstable, and how far more damaging that will be to our future economy. In addition, leaving Iraq while not giving it enough chance to stabilize is irresponsible, it means that we would simply abandon Iraqis to soothe their problems on their own, because it isn't ours. That is immoral, and I cannot see why any sensible person would even support that kind of reasoning. Unless Obama can persuade to me that he will withdraw troops following the advise of military experts on the ground, and doing so wisely, then there's a chance that I might support him.


On another note, I cannot fathom why Democrats are opposing the Columbia Free Trade Agreement.

They claim that the trade pact does not adequately address labor protection, citing that violence against unions have not improved.

This is false.

In fact, under the current Columbia President, Alvaro Uribe, who is an important American ally, the protection over unions have been drastically improved, where violence have dropped 80%!

An article in the New York Times even suggests that it is far safer to be a union worker, than to be an ordinary citizen! The fact of the matter is that Democrats are opposing this trade agreement for purely self-serving and political reasons. Presidential candidate Mrs. Clinton argues that US workers are losing jobs specifically because of our foreign trade deals in Latin America. I believe econmists call it "protectionism" -- that is, the more barriers via tariff we impose towards our trading partners, we protect economy at home by lessening our foreign competition (or something like that...I took economics 6 years ago so correct me if I'm wrong on this).

Clinton and Obama is banking on the support of unions in America as they are campaigning for the Presidential election, and their claims that they oppose the FTA because of human rights are bogus claims. They fail to see the current reality and look at the facts. The accusations they launch at Columbia for inadequately improving union protection is based on facts before Uribe held office. Indeed, violence at that time was horrible. But look at Uribe's success while in office, and you'll see the dramatic difference. Failing to acknowledge this is probably best explained, that Clinton and Obama is relying on union supporters to vote for them in office in this year's election.

If we reject this FTA, we are rejecting an ally in Latin America, and denying Columbia's chance to prosper economically, and possibly ours, as well.

Here are articles:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2008-04-08-21-40-59

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/29/opinion/29schumacher.html?pagewanted=print

http://www.theminorityreportblog.co...ement_congressional_democrats_need_to_step_up

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-fund/a-test-for-democrats-on-f_b_95401.html

 

[manu]

i love reading this thread, seriously i've looked over every post and usually stay out of the conversations because 1. I know my vote in Washington state is pointless so why bother and 2. I haven't the facts to support my opinions.

Now that I've got those out of the way let me point out that sometimes Americans want to feel that we have a person in office supporting us. Talks about withdrawing the troops and putting tariffs on trade will happen if the people want it to happen, regardless of if its wrong because that is what the people want. Obama has given a track record of voting for the way I feel that America's younger generation generally wants the country to be moving forward too. McCain is probably just as ordinary and consistent as we could hope for in a President but for the sake of progress I believe America wants to put Obama in office. Progress in that we a challenging the status quo, that we make decisions with people instead of per capita in mind. Obama may ruin the country, and the way that America has been run the past 200+ years may have been correct but I rather find out what could be with him then live through a predictable 4/8 years of McCain.

Wait I was wrong, with McCain we might run into a few heart attack scares >.> low blow I know but the age really is an issue for me.

 

[Gold Knight]

Believe me, miyi, I am remaining cautious about what Obama says... and McCain for that matter. I'm just commenting on the contents of your post so far ^^

No comment on the Columbia Free Trade Agreement... I'm not exactly crazy about unions sometimes (I think Reagan had the right idea concerning unions, ie. air traffic controllers' strike) but I don't know enough "facts" to really talk about that one.

And if you feel that way, manu, let's see if McCain will choose for himself a good vice president. Honestly though, to me, McCain seems robust enough that I expect him to last 4 years at least. Also, he doesn't have a history of health problems as far as heart attacks: what he HAS been treated for, is mainly a skin cancer called melanoma, which is where the mark on the left side of his face came from. His health prognosis as of 2005 was pretty good according to wiki.

 

[mrcongojack]

Has anyone heard the latest Obama gaffe? Here's a
link.

to sum up what he said, he said small town folks are bitter that their jobs are going overseas, and they cling to guns, religion, and dislike immigrants because of it. While terribly worded, I agree with him.
Many of the jobs in my town, where one of the main employers is GM, are going overseas or to Mexico, and pay is going down to $14 an hour. Many people cope with the loss of employment by clinging to religion, which can't be taken away. Many of my uncles and cousins do this.

To be honest, all of the main candidates (Clinton, Obama, McCain) are looking like bad choices. Clinton's a hag, Obama puts his foot in his mouth too much, and McCain is cranky. I think I might just vote Libertarian. I agree with most of their policies (except education...we need to invest more money in that.) Most political quizzes put me as a left-leaning libertarian. I agree with many of the policies of the Democratic Party, but it's run by idiots. Seriously, it shouldn't take this long just to get a nominee. And so many PACs and lobbyists wield too much power in the DNC. Plus, Mike Gravel has defected to the Libertarians, and I really liked him at the beginning of the campaign.

 

[miyi]

Has anyone heard the latest Obama gaffe? Here's a
link.

to sum up what he said, he said small town folks are bitter that their jobs are going overseas, and they cling to guns, religion, and dislike immigrants because of it. While terribly worded, I agree with him.
Many of the jobs in my town, where one of the main employers is GM, are going overseas or to Mexico, and pay is going down to $14 an hour. Many people cope with the loss of employment by clinging to religion, which can't be taken away. Many of my uncles and cousins do this.

I disagree....if you're referring to outsourcing, it's really not such a bad thing. For those who's lost their jobs, I sympathize for them.

But don't give up, you can find jobs elsewhere. Be a greater competitor. That's just the way free trade works.

There's some conspiracy going on that outsourcing is a corporate evil practice.

That's simply not true. The truth is that if people in China or Mexico, for example, are willing to work for the same job for lesser pay, then in my opinion they deserve it. It's called competition.

America has survived two World Wars, and why should competition abroad suddenly be such a big deal?

There are vast job opportunities elsewhere, and we should all strive for greatness, instead of whining about how we have lost jobs to foreigners.

The media has adopted this outsourcing as some type of corporation conspiracy, and it only makes American workers feel like victims. We've lost our vigor and our competitive spirit, and Clinton and Obama will use all means necessary to paint themselves as defenders of American workers.

What's worse, is the way Obama confine his Pennsylvania audience as people who have resorted to religion (as if that was such a bad thing), guns, and xenophobia to express their frustration. It's a stereotypical and condescending, armchair analysis.


He did something similar to this, too, when he put "baby" and "STD" in the same sentence, as if to say babies are punishment.

Did he misspoke, or was it a Freudian slip?

Either way, it came out wrong. No amount of explanation or "uncles" will revise that sentence.


I expect a lot from Obama, because I really think he's an intelligent guy...but lately he and Clinton are just full of...well...shit.