This is from the Ron Paul camp who, with this attack vid, is showing he isn’t that different from the rest after all. On the other hand, those are McCain’s words.
Here’s an article on McCain’s timeline of involvement in the runup to the Iraq war. And one on his support of Bush’s wiretapping policies. And then there’s Republican Senator Lyndsey Graham who states McCain’s policies will be an extension of Bush’s. Then there’s the anti-GI Bill vote, the constant verbal gaffes and on and on.
McCain seems to be making sure that if you loved Bush you’ll love him. Or am I missing something?
Obama’s stated goals will destroy America. McCain’s stated goals will destroy America a bit slower.
In either case, we’re screwed. Enjoy freedom while you still have it.
#27 – MikeN,
By the way, weren’t you guys complaining about a fingerprinting database for the mortgage business a few days ago? One of the cosponsors was BARACK OBAMA!
But hey, he’s for socialized medicine, so you’ll sacrifice a little liberty for health care right?
Barack Obama leans to the right, as does Hillary Clinton.
I will vote for him because he is less to the right than the extremist McBush.
You should also note that of the democratic primary candidates at the start of the election, only Kucinich was for nationalized health care. Obama does not even promise to cover everyone. Clinton’s plan left the health insurance companies raping us all for enormous profit and providing bad coverage.
Did you know that the CEO of United Healthcare makes $130,000,000/yr? Did you know that his job is to ensure that you do not get health care? That’s what is means when a corporation is in charge. They are required by law to maximize shareholder profit.
http://politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2008
No one forces me to deal with United Healthcare.
Obama appeals to the “bread & circus” crowd, McCain to the war mongers. Sensible people have no one to vote for…
#33, If you people want the government to hold your hand and provide you with “free” healthcare, then sure, vote for it. The government has guns, so they make the rules, legitimately or not. But don’t go around insisting that something is your right, when having access to that “right” requires that others be compelled through force of law to provide it. Healthcare is no more your “right” than eating carrots out of your neighbor’s garden is.
#31 – CarbonSasquatch,
You may be interested to know that nobel prize winning economists have joined forces with climatologists and scientists in other fields that will be affected by climate change to recommend strong and decisive action on climate change as a good economic decision.
http://tinyurl.com/6qamem
Download the full text (PDF) and list of signatories with their credentials here:
http://tinyurl.com/5oajoz
#36–Sea Lawyer==there are other options that force of law to provide services “of right.”
For instance–the government can contract with those who wish to provide medical services as they do with the VA. Nothing being forced on anyone except removal of income thru taxes to pay for it.
There currently is no right to medical care other than emergency care==which is a right and is provided by those who agree to do so.
So==not everything you don’t like is fascist.
#36> Right on, SL.
You guys who jump on the McCain is the anti-Christ, skewer him with his own words train and then proceed to beat your chests about how Obama will be so much better are a laugh riot. The only reason we don’t have these same types of videos for Obama is that he basically never stands up for or says anything in his congressional/senatorial positions. His favorite vote is “present” or “not present”. What a friggin’ coward. Or my favorite: “I was one of the only people not to vote for the Iraq war.” Uh, OK. So everyone else–including all your supposedly intelligent liberal fellow Dems–saw the same evidence and decided they believed it, but you were even smarter and voted against it…on what basis? Are you telling us that you somehow saw something that everyone else didn’t see at the time? Are you really that much more perceptive than everyone else? Or are you saying that you didn’t really care what evidence was presented, and that you adopted the “no war is worth fighting” stance? Because the latter is the sign of an idiot, or at least someone I don’t want in a position of power to protect me.
McCain is not “My Man”. But at least we know where he stands, and most of his choices can be defended. Obama: Mostly we have no idea where he stands, and in the VERY FEW cases where he has a record of a choice, the rationale for his choice in the context of the time at which it was made is either lacking or scary.
#38, no, even emergency care isn’t a right, it’s a mandated entitlement. Rights and entitlements are fundamentally different things.
#40–Kwad==how much coolaid does it take to become that unhinged?
I don’t think very many people bought any intelligence for invading Iraq. What did happen is a lot of politicians were afraid to vote against the war because there are too many idiots like you who think such stupidity is the mark of a good American and “can be defended.”
McCain thinks forcing ourselves into the Middle East is a good idea, the war is going well, the economy is going well, torture is ok, continued deficit spending is just fine, no energy policy, no healthcare policy, and on and on. He is an old war horse that should be put out to pasture.
Obama’s best characteristic is he is not a republican with their proven failed/bankrupt/dishonest policies. I am sure Obama will misstep as well, but hopefully in a more positive direction AND he will be able to recognize a mistake and take corrective action rather than stand on WRONG POSITITION THAT CAN BE DEFENDED. Dolt!
#41–Sea Lawyer—ok, quibble accepted. Now address the main argument?
This gets posted on the blog and I hear Dvorak spreading scurrilous rumors about Obama. Come on Dvorak if you disagree with Obama’s policies and political style at least state what those are and make your case. Spreading bullshit and implying horrible things about him is weak. If that’s the best you can do no wonder John McCain is going to lose.
>>Healthcare is no more your “right” than
>>eating carrots out of your neighbor’s garden is.
I knew lawyers were assholes, Sea Lawyer, but you’re taking it to a new low.
To equate stealing food from my neighbor with providing American citizens something that the rest of the civilized world takes for granted is breathtaking, even coming from a lawyer.
Did you really say that?
#27, Lyin’ Mike,
By the way, weren’t you guys complaining about a fingerprinting database for the mortgage business a few days ago? One of the cosponsors was BARACK OBAMA!
More of your bullshit ???.
While I don’t approve of the measure, I also don’t believe Obama is even on the Banking Committee. The measure was sponsored by the Republican Richard Shelby. Committee Chairman Dodd went along with it in order to get Republican support.
#42 bobbo said,
Obama’s best characteristic is he is not a republican with their proven failed/bankrupt/dishonest policies. I am sure Obama will misstep as well, but hopefully in a more positive direction AND he will be able to recognize a mistake and take corrective action rather than stand on WRONG POSITITION THAT CAN BE DEFENDED. Dolt!”
Right, Obama is not part of the failed/bankrupt/dishonest Republican party. He is part of the failed/bankrupt/dishonest Democratic party. I see not a shred of difference between them on any of these three criteria.
And keep drinking that “hope” KookAid. “hopefully in a more positive direction…blah blah blah”. You know, I hope there’s a Santa and an Easter Bunny. But, you know, the evidence is just not there. And the same applies to Obama. The guy is, so far, a telegenic, charismatic empty suit.
Say this for Hillary (and I can’t stand Hillary): At least you have a decent idea where she stands, and she knows how to actually voice a yes or no when a vote is taken. She isn’t an empty vessel trying to sell you YOUR hopes and aspirations. Only a fool would buy that.
#43, but, it’s not just some quibble over semantics. If the government creates an entitlement, it has to justify why it is being provided/mandated; a right, on the other hand, is something that by its very nature cannot normally be infringed upon without justification.
Welfare is an entitlement created by the government, which it had no real obligation to provide in the first place, and the government is free to discontinue it at any time. If welfare were a right, it would have been the government’s obligation from the very beginning, and any decision to not provide it would demand scrutiny for not doing so.
The reason why I raise the objection is because people who use the term “rights” when attempting to paint their argument for universal healthcare are relying on the intrinsic nature of rights simply attempting to influence the debate by appealing to people’s emotions, and are in the process, corrupting the entire concept of what they are and mean. Meddling with these very fundamental concepts has a very real effect on the shape and scope of our government over time, for better and worse.
This points to the heart of the matter, that you cannot have a right that is dependent on others providing you with goods or services, because that would directly contradict any right they legitimately have to choose not to.
—
Now, if you want to debate the issue of whether it is a good policy to create a new entitlement. I would probably agree that it could be economically advantageous to do so, assuming there aren’t other things that could be done to fix the problems; and I’m not convinced that a good share of the them weren’t caused by the government in the first place. But I would still disagree with the system on the foundation that requiring people to provide a service to anybody and everybody without them having a say is a basic infringement on several real rights. It’s like anti-discrimination laws – I agree that it is probably good policy, while I still don’t like the fact that the government is essentially stepping on people’s property and free association rights to do so.
#45, I’m sorry Mustard, are you saying that forcing my neighbor to provide me with healthcare, and forcing him to feed me aren’t the same? If it’s my “right” then he really doesn’t have a choice, does he?
>>I’m sorry Mustard, are you saying that forcing my
>>neighbor to provide me with healthcare, and forcing
>>him to feed me aren’t the same?
Christ, Sea Lawyer, did you get your law degree from EasyDegreesOnline dot com, or what?
To the extent that you’d be “forced” to give your neighbor healthcare, he’d be just as “forced” to give it back to you in return. Are you familiar with the concepts of “insurance” and “pooled risk”??
Just as your neighbor is “forced” to give you interstate highways, a military force, regulation of crucial services, etc., you are “forced” to give the same services back to him. It’s all part of being an American (or a citizen of any country where services are provided in exchange for taxpayer dollars).
It would be just like it is now, except people wouldn’t be financially destroyed by unexpected medical expenses, and the entity in charge of administering payment would not have “deny as much health care as humanly possible” as part of their vision statement.
Got that? There’ll be a quiz.
#50 – Mr. Mustard,
I’d just like to go on record as saying … very well said. Thanks.
#50, now you are trying to equate a government mandated system to a voluntary, opt-in insurance system? You really do know how to make sound arguments.
>>now you are trying to equate a government
>>mandated system to a voluntary, opt-in
>>insurance system?
Wtf, Seabiscuit. Are you daft, or just trolling? Would you like to sign up for an “opt-in” system to protect you from foreign attack? An “opt-in” system to provide you roads to drive on?
Health care is not like buying an iPhone or going to Disneyland, where if you don’t want it, you don’t do it, and you don’t pay for it.
Medical care is something that EVERYONE needs, no matter if they are healthy or sick. And insurance against catastrophic medical expenses is something that every American should be entitled to (just as every citizen of other civilized countries are).
I pay plenty in property tax, most of which goes to support local schools, even though my kids are long gone from any local school system. I pay Social Security taxes, even though I’m far from being able to collect Social Security. Part of my car registration fees go towards protecting others against uninsured motorists, even though I’m not an uninsured motoris, nor have I ever been hit by an uninsured motorist.
People pay a certain amount for the privilege of having a higher overall quality of life, and sometimes they are able to avail themselves of the services. Sometimes not.
If everyone had the option of “opting-in” (or not) to whatever they felt like at the moment, we’d live in a dystopian society where a privileged few were living like Donald Trump, and the rest of society would be wallowing in the septic mud of our knuckle-dragging forebears.
I guess, being a lawyer (although of the sea variety), that sounds pretty good to you, eh?
So rich people pay extra for some health care, which means everyone else doesn’t have a right to that level of care? Or would you ban all private health care?
I could be wrong,but I read this
Sens. Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Mel Martinez (R-Fla.) authored a bill (with 11 co-sponsors, including Sen. Barack Obama) that was incorporated into a housing bill passed by the Senate Banking Committee 19-2 before the Memorial Day recess — a bill that creates a national fingerprint registry.
According to a Martinez press release, the language merely “create[s] national licensing and oversight standards for residential mortgage originators.”
> Medical care is something that EVERYONE
> needs, no matter if they are healthy or sick.
So is food, clothing, and shelter. However, I don’t see universal food, clothing, and shelter supply. You still work to buy what you can afford. Those who make more money can afford more meat, better clothes, and bigger houses.
Take away someone’s food and it will kill someone just as quickly as some diseases will.
Just because we are currently socialized on so many things does NOT make it ok to socialize on everything else. One more wrong does not make it right.
Personally, I think all the entitlement programs you mentioned should be abolished, not added to.
Universal health care is nothing more than more gov control over people. Put your hand in _my_ pocket one more time you’ll pull back a stump.
>>Personally, I think all the entitlement programs
>>you mentioned should be abolished, not added to.
So you want to pay yourself for the roads that you drive on, pay yourself for the military that protects your neighborhood in the case of foreign attack, foot the entire bill for schools that your kids go to, and like that?
Man, do you have cans of tuna fish and rifles buried in the back yard, or what? Whoa!
>>Universal health care is nothing more than
>>more gov control over people.
When it comes to medical care, I’d rather have the government have control over it than some guy who gets an additional $1,000,000.00 in his bonus for every thousand people he denies medical care for. The interests of the denial-of-healthcare industry are diametrically opposed to those of citizens.
#54 – MikeN,
So rich people pay extra for some health care, which means everyone else doesn’t have a right to that level of care? Or would you ban all private health care?
If you want to spend more to “upgrade” to private care, I wouldn’t have a problem with it. However, I doubt you’ll find better care in any of our health insurance options than one might get on any western European system.
Remember, our system is still ranked dead last among the developed democratic nations of the world.
That’s worst on life expectancy and worst on infant mortality. Dead last, emphasis on dead.
I said “entitlement.” The military is defined in the constitution. Schools and roads should be apportioned as defined in the constitution as well.
And health care used to be that way until the gov mandated HMOs. THAT’S why we have the problems we have now. The gov forced us to use these big companies.
If you want to play hard head with me, you’ll never win as you will never convince me that promoting a welfare state is good, whether it means giving out a single food stamp or providing health care for 300,000,000 people by taking money from people who can afford it. The gov can’t even balance it’s own checkbook and you want to dump a trillion dollar project in its lap. All that’s going to happen is everyone’s taxes will triple and we’ll still be looking for a solution. You’re delusional if you think it is up to the task.
I am really saddened there are people out there who think it is ok to steal my money and give it someone who is too lazy to earn it themselves. “Poor little Billy Bob, can’t afford health care because his mama’s a whore and didn’t teach him right.” Puh-Leaze. My sister is a nurse and when I go and visit her and hear her patients hope Gore gets elected so they can get more money so they can go out on Friday night, I feel like we wouldn’t be in this situation if it weren’t for bleeding heart jerks who don’t think people can take care of themselves.
>>So by Federally Certifying an HMO, the gov
>>effectively gave these corps the right to deny
>>health care. Thanks for proving my point.
No, thanks for proving MINE. Cut out the profit-mongering middleman, denying health care for the sake of the shareholders, and you’re almost home.
>>(BTW . . . Gore did run in 99 which is when I
>>witnessed said conversation. You might want to
>>pass that along.)
Well, guess what, Einstein? That’s not what you said.
You said “My sister is a nurse and when I go and visit her and hear her patients hope Gore gets elected so they can get more money so they can go out on Friday night, I feel like we wouldn’t be in this situation if it weren’t for bleeding heart jerks who don’t think people can take care of themselves.
>>How else are you going to get this
>>health care to everybody?
Hey, go to a civilized country and find out how they do it. It’s not for nothing that the United States is at the bottom of the dung pile when it comes to health care provision, even though we have some of the finest medical facilities in the world.
#37 – So we can harm the economy a little just in case the boogey monster might hurt it more? There’s good science – not. So now economists are qualified judges of climate science. Their whole argument is based on the unproven assumption of impending disaster.
The nutballs really are ratcheting up the pressure to get something done before they’re proven wrong. New evidence of the hoax comes out every day and that little paper proves they’re getting desperate.
We really are screwed. We’ve got liberal, collectivist Republicans and Democrat totalitarians that would leave Stalin speechless with awe. We are doomed.
PS. Nobel Prizes don’t necessarily mean much any more – Christ, Carter and Gore have them – doesn’t say much for credibility of the prize. How about you find something from economists who believe in capitalism?