|
|
|
| Who do you want as the next President of the USA? |
|
Richard Phipps
Member #1,632
November 2001
 |
From the people who are (or are likely) to stand.. who do you want? |
|
Vanneto
Member #8,643
May 2007
|
Bush for dictator! In capitalist America bank robs you. |
|
Richard Phipps
Member #1,632
November 2001
|
|
Arthur Kalliokoski
Second in Command
February 2005
 |
As long as it's not the Billary Clinton duo, I don't care They all watch too much MSNBC... they get ideas. |
|
Vanneto
Member #8,643
May 2007
|
Sorry, Im not American, so I didnt come up with something better. In capitalist America bank robs you. |
|
X-G
Member #856
December 2000
 |
Kucinich/Obama. -- |
|
Matthew Leverton
Supreme Loser
January 1999
 |
Let's see, for the Republicans, we have:
So of the above, I'd go for Ron Paul. You know exactly what you are getting because he's for absolutely nothing at a federal level. He'd pull out of Iraq and everywhere else; he'd close up the Mexican border; and he'd try to get rid of the IRS (income tax) and any non-essential federal program. Regarding the Democrats, I don't know because I don't follow them. I just hope Clinton doesn't win the nomination. Because if she does, then one of the screw-up Republicans will win the election. (I'm assuming Paul cannot win the Republican nomination no matter what kind of numbers he puts up.) It seems the biggest Democratic issue is health care. The biggest Republican one is war. And both talk a lot about immigration (ie: Mexicans working for below minimum wage). |
|
X-G
Member #856
December 2000
|
I could never with good conscience vote for Ron Paul; in short, the lesser of two evils is still evil. Anti-immigration, anti-gun control, anti-abortion, anti-gay civil unions, anti-universal health care and pro-creationism is what really sends him into "dangerously insane nutbag" territory. He's actually gone on record to claim that the separation of church and state is not constitutional. -- |
|
LordHolNapul
Member #3,619
June 2003
 |
We, italians, would be glad to send to you (americans) , for president, Silvio Berlusconi. Anyway you already have a good preparation having Bush for president.
|
|
Matthew Leverton
Supreme Loser
January 1999
|
I'm following the Republicans now because as a registered Republican I can vote in the primaries (which is more meaningful than my vote on election day). So getting the best of the worst nominated is important so that the worst of the worst doesn't win the entire thing. And Paul isn't necessarily anti-anything. He's just pro-state. To the extreme, as a politician 100+ years ago, he'd probably have insisted that slavery be handled at the state level. (Although obviously he would never ever even come close to suggesting that.) But that doesn't concern me, because there's no way a single President can get rid of the entire federal government. What he can do, however, is bring the troops out of foreign countries and not spend a single extra dime on stupid programs. And the other Republicans won't give us that. Quote: [Paul claims] the separation of church and state is not constitutional. Taken out of context, I don't know what that even means. But I do not believe the constitution ever mandates that the church and state must be entirely separate, in the sense that religion cannot be taught in public schools, the President cannot pray in office, etc. It does however promote religious tolerance, which means nobody should be forced to participate in religious classes, events, etc within institutions like the public school. |
|
Bob Keane
Member #7,342
June 2006
|
Quote:
Ron Paul - Champion of states rights. Votes No on anything that gives the feds power. Ron Paul, are you sure it is not RuPaul? As for Mitt Romney, I live in Massachusetts, nuff said. By reading this sig, I, the reader, agree to render my soul to Bob Keane. I, the reader, understand this is a legally binding contract and freely render my soul. |
|
StevenVI
Member #562
July 2000
 |
I thought that Ron Paul was RuPaul for a couple of months myself. I'm divided on the war issue. On one hand, yes, it would be wonderful to pull all of our troops out of Iraq. There is nothing I would like more than to have our military leave every country they're sitting in. We don't need to occupy other states. On the other hand, having our troops leave Iraq would be immoral because now that we've destroyed the country, we can't just say "sucks to be you, fix it yourself." Wouldn't most people say that this is wrong? For everything else, I think that Ron Paul sounds like a good candidate. Most of the debated elements of politicians are pointless because despite their personal opinion, they're not going to change most of the laws. For example, abortion. I haven't paid attention to the Republican debates, only the Democratic ones, so this may be true of the Republicans as well. In my opinion, the Democrats fight with each other too much and it is quite appalling. Would you really want anyone as fussy as the majority of them as president? It's like watching toddlers... __________________________________________________ |
|
X-G
Member #856
December 2000
|
I'd rather have an incompetent bumble with good intentions than a competent villain, that's for sure. -- |
|
Kibiz0r
Member #6,203
September 2005
 |
Paul, Kucinich, or Obama. --- |
|
ImLeftFooted
Member #3,935
October 2003
 |
X-G said: ... anti-universal health care ... How can anybody possibly be for universal health care? America has some of the best doctors as well as nearly the strongest medical industry. You hope to destroy it all for something like England's health care system? I mean, you're talking about our lives. Of all the things I could share with poor people, my life is not one I'd be willing to negotiate with. |
|
X-G
Member #856
December 2000
|
Quote: America has some of the best doctors as well as nearly the strongest medical industry. Even if that were true, quality health care is affordable by only a small majority of the population in the USo'A. The rest... not so much. England's health care system is leaps and bounds beyond yours, and available to everyone. Universal health care provides efficient and secure healthcare for everyone as opposed to just the wealthy elite. Oh, and of course, in reality, your system is far from the best. According to the World Health Organization, the United Status is only 37th best, and 72th when it comes to overall health. You are, on the other hand, the country with the most expensive health care in the world. Kind of telling, isn't it? You pay more, and get far, far less. That's capitalism for you. -- |
|
Matthew Leverton
Supreme Loser
January 1999
|
Quote: Wouldn't most people say that this is wrong? No. While I think we are liable for financial support, we don't need our military there. In the worst case, they end up just like most of the other Middle Eastern countries. Totally backward and harmless. Quote: Most of the debated elements of politicians are pointless because despite their personal opinion, they're not going to change most of the laws. For example, abortion. Agreed. Just review the recent YouTube/CNN Republican for evidence. That's why I try to look at the things the President really can control. And this time around it looks mostly like war and immigration. And if a Democrat wins, some form of expanded health care. Quote: How can anybody possibly be for universal health care? I'd be for it if I thought there were a sound financial way to do it. Quote: Even if that were true, quality health care is affordable by only a small majority of the population in the USo'A. The rest... not so much. England's health care system is leaps and bounds beyond yours, and available to everyone. Universal health care provides efficient and secure healthcare for everyone as opposed to just the wealthy elite. I'm sure I know less about UK's health care system than you, but if I'm not mistaken there's still a market for private practices there (for dental work, etc). If that's true, then the state sponsored one cannot be "leaps and bounds" beyond a private one like the USA. And while health care is not 100% free for many people in the USA, there are a lot of programs that are available, especially for older people and moms / kids. |
|
StevenVI
Member #562
July 2000
|
Since in my opinion socialism is a bad idea and capitalism has always worked for me (I have never had any significant amount of money) I see no problem with having to pay money to be taken care of. There's no such thing as a free lunch. Everything the government does it does poorly. Why make medical care be done poorly? If you don't work you don't eat. Same goes for doctor's visits. Even those earning minimum wage can afford health care here if they budget their money properly. Don't buy an PS3. Disconnect the cable TV. As for me, I don't want to be subsidizing the poor choices of others with my tax dollars. __________________________________________________ |
|
Matthew Leverton
Supreme Loser
January 1999
|
To expand on my previous post... In Illinois, if you are a family of 4 with a monthly income of no greater than $2,289 you're entitled to comprehensive, free health care for kids 18 and younger. Or if you make at least $3,443 per month, then it costs $80 per month. The more you make (per child), the more it costs. But I'm with Ron Paul on issues like this... let the states figure it out. They are much more responsible with money than the federal government is. Plus it's much easier for states to change things around when it's not working than it is for the federal government to; there's too much turnover in Washington for anything long term to get done well. |
|
nonnus29
Member #2,606
August 2002
 |
Quote: How can anybody possibly be for universal health care? Because every time I go to the doctor I get a letter from my insurance company saying my 'claim is denied' so I have to go thru a months long process to appeal it. I supposedly have 'good' insurance too. It's complete bullsh*t. The other thing that pisses me off is: why should doctors get rich off of illness and misery? And look and how many giant, multimillion dollar hospitals that are springing up every where. It's a racket and it's a waste. Even Hilary recognizes that pulling out of Iraq is a bad idea. Obama doesn't stand a chance; no experience: he sounds like an amateur when it comes to foreign policy. And he was too open about his drug use. I think the Dems will come down to Hilary and Edwards. Blacks don't even like Obama. For the Reps: McCain comes off as a whiny biatch, he won't get elected. It'll come down to Giuliani and Romney. Romney being a Mormon isn't a problem for me. I've known a lot of Mormons and I have a favorable impression of the people practice it. Giuliani's a scrapper though. Quote: As for Mitt Romney, I live in Massachusetts, nuff said. What does this mean? You will/won't vote for him? |
|
blargmob
Member #8,356
February 2007
 |
Hehe..Hilary Clinton ftw! --- |
|
gnolam
Member #2,030
March 2002
 |
Quote: anti-gun control Now what's wrong with that? -- |
|
Goalie Ca
Member #2,579
July 2002
 |
Can we send you brian mulroney? He takes bribes so he'll fit right in. (actually, i haven't really followed that story so i don't know if it is true or not). I light a bit of a troll on slashdot. Maybe you guys can read it. What is even better are all the replies. I hope it gets +5 troll It is funny to watch ron paul fanboys go on. They are able to possess the same kind of double think only found in 1984 and creationists. Quit amazing. They think he is a god from heaven or something. I have yet to find mac trolls so devout.. ------------- |
|
Matthew Leverton
Supreme Loser
January 1999
|
Considering your post was self-contradicting and lacking any real insight, I would expect zealous fans to reply accordingly. |
|
ImLeftFooted
Member #3,935
October 2003
|
Quote: The other thing that pisses me off is: why should doctors get rich off of illness and misery? And look and how many giant, multimillion dollar hospitals that are springing up every where. It's a racket and it's a waste. There is no such thing as a free lunch. You will get what you pay for. And I can't believe you are mad about more hospitals. You're freaking crazy. If you really are against hospitals go live in the woods and leave us productive citizens to enjoy our health and emergency care. You can die out there without any "rich hospitals" to make you mad. I can only hope there aren't enough of you to vote our country into a death sentence. X-G said: Even if that were true, quality health care is affordable by only a small majority of the population in the USo'A. The rest... not so much. England's health care system is leaps and bounds beyond yours, and available to everyone. Universal health care provides efficient and secure healthcare for everyone as opposed to just the wealthy elite. According to that pdf you linked to (which looks like a bunch of rubbish to me) England's health care system is 1/3rd as productive as Americas. What makes you think England's solution has worked out for them? I've heard all sorts of horror stories. People losing limbs because their illnesses were a lower priority and were backlogged months. There are also many stories about Doctors simply not caring about their patients, getting them in and out as quickly as possible. Illnesses overlooked simply because there isn't a person thorough enough to find them. Heres the results from some quick googling: Article said: All too frequently they don’t get care all; are subjected to queuing for 12 months or more; get better on their own; are sent to other countries for care; are shifted to the private sector for care; or die while on the waiting list to see a doctor or gain access to a hospital. In America, I can walk up to a hospital and get treated immediately for serious / urgent issues or spend a very reasonable amount of time in the waiting room for less-serious issues. I am treated with respect and handled by very competent doctors. For the lesser financed Kaiser is available, which provides fairly decent less-serious issue care and amazing urgent care at very low cost (minimum wage in California easily pay for this with room for cable). In my opinion the current health care system is already too socialized. Since hospitals are required to treat first - bill later, some ridiculously high number of patients never actually pay their bill. As a paying patient, I am paying for their care through higher costs. It varies by hospital, but my local urgent care gets about two thirds non-paying patients. If the socialists of our country really believe they have the solution I believe they should get together and form their own hospitals and give away service. Leave the ones we responsible citizens use alone! |
|
|
|
