Election time in TNP comes around much quicker than in the US!
Who would you vote for as president?
- Thread starter Flemingovia
- Start date
See the sig!
Hey, did anyone else get a McCain ad with this topic?
Hey, did anyone else get a McCain ad with this topic?
R
Romanoffia (Guest)
Guest
Yeah, I got one.
I'd have to vote for McCain (mainly because in North Carolina they have removed the option of a 'write in ballot' because of electronic voting, otherwise I would vote for Tom Truelove!).
Miss Teen South Carolina Says: "I'm voting for Barrack Hussein Obama because he hopes of change and if he is elected he will change us all leaving none of us unchanged.
The funny thing about an Obama speech is that if you actually listen to what he says, he says absolutely nothing. And then five minutes after the speech you can't remember anything he said anyway, but I won't draw a historical metaphor.
If you listen to Hillary Clinton, you can't stand her strident, annoying voice so you don't hear what she says because you'd rather jump rope barefoot on broken glass while chewing on tin foil. Plus, the idea of Bill Clinton hanging around the White House with nothing to do is very unappealing.
Juan Pablo McCain is leaps and bound better than the previously mentioned two, but he'd have us all speaking Spanish in a year. But at least he's not slightly left of Mao like Hillary or slightly left of Fidel Castro like Ossama Obama.
My prediction and analysis -
Obama will take the popular vote delegates in the Democrat primaries, Hillary will get pounded into the dirt, but the 'Super Delegates' will give the Nomination to Hillary because she's paid a lot of money for the nomination and the "Super Delegate" system is indicative of the Democrat Party's contempt and distrust for the Democrats to the point that they don't trust the Democrat voters' choice of candidate.
McCain was my last choice for a republican candidate by leaps and bounds. I wish they could cross Romney with Paul for the ideal candidate. Actually...
Nixon in '08 - Death is no Excuse!
I'd have to vote for McCain (mainly because in North Carolina they have removed the option of a 'write in ballot' because of electronic voting, otherwise I would vote for Tom Truelove!).
Miss Teen South Carolina Says: "I'm voting for Barrack Hussein Obama because he hopes of change and if he is elected he will change us all leaving none of us unchanged.
The funny thing about an Obama speech is that if you actually listen to what he says, he says absolutely nothing. And then five minutes after the speech you can't remember anything he said anyway, but I won't draw a historical metaphor.
If you listen to Hillary Clinton, you can't stand her strident, annoying voice so you don't hear what she says because you'd rather jump rope barefoot on broken glass while chewing on tin foil. Plus, the idea of Bill Clinton hanging around the White House with nothing to do is very unappealing.
Juan Pablo McCain is leaps and bound better than the previously mentioned two, but he'd have us all speaking Spanish in a year. But at least he's not slightly left of Mao like Hillary or slightly left of Fidel Castro like Ossama Obama.
My prediction and analysis -
Obama will take the popular vote delegates in the Democrat primaries, Hillary will get pounded into the dirt, but the 'Super Delegates' will give the Nomination to Hillary because she's paid a lot of money for the nomination and the "Super Delegate" system is indicative of the Democrat Party's contempt and distrust for the Democrats to the point that they don't trust the Democrat voters' choice of candidate.
McCain was my last choice for a republican candidate by leaps and bounds. I wish they could cross Romney with Paul for the ideal candidate. Actually...
Nixon in '08 - Death is no Excuse!
FALCONKATS
TNPer
Well I voted for clinton. (because she has done a lot for the part of texas where i Live)
Southwest Asia
TNPer
You criticize one candidate for sounding nice, and then criticize the other for not sounding nice.Yeah, I got one.
I'd have to vote for McCain (mainly because in North Carolina they have removed the option of a 'write in ballot' because of electronic voting, otherwise I would vote for Tom Truelove!).
Miss Teen South Carolina Says: "I'm voting for Barrack Hussein Obama because he hopes of change and if he is elected he will change us all leaving none of us unchanged.
The funny thing about an Obama speech is that if you actually listen to what he says, he says absolutely nothing. And then five minutes after the speech you can't remember anything he said anyway, but I won't draw a historical metaphor.
If you listen to Hillary Clinton, you can't stand her strident, annoying voice so you don't hear what she says because you'd rather jump rope barefoot on broken glass while chewing on tin foil. Plus, the idea of Bill Clinton hanging around the White House with nothing to do is very unappealing.
Juan Pablo McCain is leaps and bound better than the previously mentioned two, but he'd have us all speaking Spanish in a year. But at least he's not slightly left of Mao like Hillary or slightly left of Fidel Castro like Ossama Obama.
My prediction and analysis -
Obama will take the popular vote delegates in the Democrat primaries, Hillary will get pounded into the dirt, but the 'Super Delegates' will give the Nomination to Hillary because she's paid a lot of money for the nomination and the "Super Delegate" system is indicative of the Democrat Party's contempt and distrust for the Democrats to the point that they don't trust the Democrat voters' choice of candidate.
McCain was my last choice for a republican candidate by leaps and bounds. I wish they could cross Romney with Paul for the ideal candidate. Actually...
Nixon in '08 - Death is no Excuse!
Hypocrisy and double standards, all.
Triumph and Disaster
TNPer
Gravel agrees with my views the most, but probably Obama.
On the other hand, Obama says "change" and everybody cheers.
On the other hand, Obama says "change" and everybody cheers.
R
Romanoffia (Guest)
Guest
Not hypocrisy at all. I don't like any of the three top contenders.You criticize one candidate for sounding nice, and then criticize the other for not sounding nice.Yeah, I got one.
I'd have to vote for McCain (mainly because in North Carolina they have removed the option of a 'write in ballot' because of electronic voting, otherwise I would vote for Tom Truelove!).
Miss Teen South Carolina Says: "I'm voting for Barrack Hussein Obama because he hopes of change and if he is elected he will change us all leaving none of us unchanged.
The funny thing about an Obama speech is that if you actually listen to what he says, he says absolutely nothing. And then five minutes after the speech you can't remember anything he said anyway, but I won't draw a historical metaphor.
If you listen to Hillary Clinton, you can't stand her strident, annoying voice so you don't hear what she says because you'd rather jump rope barefoot on broken glass while chewing on tin foil. Plus, the idea of Bill Clinton hanging around the White House with nothing to do is very unappealing.
Juan Pablo McCain is leaps and bound better than the previously mentioned two, but he'd have us all speaking Spanish in a year. But at least he's not slightly left of Mao like Hillary or slightly left of Fidel Castro like Ossama Obama.
My prediction and analysis -
Obama will take the popular vote delegates in the Democrat primaries, Hillary will get pounded into the dirt, but the 'Super Delegates' will give the Nomination to Hillary because she's paid a lot of money for the nomination and the "Super Delegate" system is indicative of the Democrat Party's contempt and distrust for the Democrats to the point that they don't trust the Democrat voters' choice of candidate.
McCain was my last choice for a republican candidate by leaps and bounds. I wish they could cross Romney with Paul for the ideal candidate. Actually...
Nixon in '08 - Death is no Excuse!
Hypocrisy and double standards, all.
Hillary is a Maoist.
Obama is a Marxist.
McCain is a squishy Socialist.
I can't stand Hillary after knowing what she is all about.
I can't stand Obama because I he has no idea what he is about.
I can't stand McCain because he coddles illegal aliens.
But at least McCain scares the hell out of the Chi-Coms and Islamo-fascists and he might actually have a pair of cajones.
I hate socialists and wealth-redistributers who pander to class/race warfare and I utterly despise those who promote any form of government managed economy (fascism/socialism/communism). I also hate social engineering in any form.
I firmly believe that government needs to keep out of people's personal affairs, stop subsidizing industry and let the economy regulate itself so that market forces are left alone to persuade the economy.
I believe that the socialized medicine crap from Hillary is pathetic - she wants to force people to pay for something that they can't afford to pay for and it only amounts to government subsidization for the medical industry.
OTOH, the republicans want the lenders to take a hit for a failing credit system that government regulations have created in the first place. I believe in sink or swim. If single mother illegal aliens from Mexico can go out an pick lettuce with their kids, so can welfare recipients. Sink or swim.
The American people have to learn that it isn't the government's role to buy them HDTVs, new cars, healthcare and steal from those who produce and give it to those who do nothing but sit on their collective arse on the dole. The American people need to learn that if you want something, they need to get off their arses and earn it and not expect the government to steal from one person and give it to another.
I'm so conservative that I'm almost and anarchist.
Southwest Asia
TNPer
That's not socialized medicine. Socialized medicine is using your taxes to pay for healthcare. What Hillary is advocating is basically capitalistic healthcare.
Government regulation didn't create the credit crisis: the subprime mortgage crisis came about because government didn't regulate that part of the market.
Also, generally speaking, people recognize that the conditions that people like the single mother illegal aliens are considered unfair and morally wrong. I don't think encouraging that is a good thing.
The government doesn't do that right now. Instead, it steals from the people and redistributes them to big businesses in farming, defense, and companies that offshore jobs. The only people who have been stealing have been the heads of corporations.
R
Romanoffia (Guest)
Guest
What Hillary is proposing, and I have read her garbage on this one and heard her speak the very words, is that you are going to be forced to pay for healthcare whether or nor not you can afford to pay for it - your wages will be garnished to pay for it. That is socialism, redistribution of wealth and, Marxist theory applied. If I don't want to pay for something I don't want, why should I be forced to pay for it at all?
The reason why we have the sub-prime market problem is precisely because the government regulated the hell out of the market as a whole. The government tells you what type of lightbulb you can use in your house and now, in places like the Socialist Republic of California, they are going to remotely control your thermostat. What the hell is that? Social Fascism, that is what it is.
Any system that tells you that you have to pay for something in terms of a social program that makes the haves pay the bill of the have-nots is socialism and Marxism. Any system that uses taxation to 'modify' or 'coerce' behavioral changes is socialist and morally wrong. And that's what we have in the US today.
Look at it this way - government mandates require a certain amount of ethanol (10%) to be used in gasoline. That is essentially a subsidy for corn growers and nothing more and it is designed to pander to mid-west votes. As a result, the agricultural production is being forced from food production to fuel production and that forces the price of livestock feed and human food up. So, ethanol is just a means to provide environazis the means to starve a good portion of the world to death and let them feel good about themselves while they do it.
IF ethanol was an efficient fuel (and I can go on with the scientific details about why it is not - like the fact that it takes more petroleum based energy in terms of fuel and fertilizer to make it than you get out of it, and it is more polluting in terms of 'greenhouse gases than pure petroleum gasoline) it would have overtaken petroleum long ago if the market was allowed to be free and unregulated by socialist government mandates.
If you mandate higher MPG ratings on automobile (social fascism) the government soon realizes that reduced consumption of gasoline cuts into their tax revenues. So, they raise the taxes on gasoline yet again to compensate. Socialism. Get it? And it goes on until the whole system goes bankrupt which is what Socialist like Hillary, Obama and even McCain want - you create a crisis and the offer deliverance and then increase government control and micromanagement of everyone's lives with the real intent of consolidating and concentrating power and authority.
Let's look at it another way - you buy a TV set. It has a guarantee and a warranty. If you think that a guarantee or a warranty is designed to protect the consumer, you wrong. It is designed to protect the manufacturer and the retailer and only them. In the same way, government regulations of the free market and socialist schemes (like Hillary's 'medical coverage') is designed to screw the little guy (the consumer) and subsidize the medical profession/industry by assuring them a steady and guaranteed source of income without requiring them to actually deliver a product for the money they make.
Everyone blames the 'evil predatory lender' for sub-prime balloon payment loans. What about the responsibility of the idiot who didn't read the fine print and understand the faults of the sub-prime market? It's a matter of responsibility and everyone wants someone else to take the blame for their own stupid mistakes. My answer is that if you are stupid enough to get swindled, you deserve it. You can't con anyone who doesn't think they are conning you. If you are stupid enough to fall for it, put your name on the economic Darwin Award list.
The problem with all republics and democracies (as has been noted by economists for the last 250 years) is that once people figure out that they can vote themselves money from the public coffers, they will do so. Bankruptcy follows. And all the government regulations and socialistic schemes can't save it from collapsing in the short and long run.
I saw a bumpersticker the other day: "Work Hard - Millions on Welfare Depend Upon You!". I fail to see why anyone should have to work their asses off so that those who don't only consume without contributing should live a life of ease while you and I toil to support them. Let them go out and pick lettuce like the illegals. Or are our welfare recipients and leeches better than the illegals who work for $1.50 and hour? I think not. There's an old Southernism that should be applied all around - Root hog, or die.
If we are going to have any social programs in the US that help the poor and downtrodden, they should be programs that help people in the US and not people in some third-world sh*thole who will only turn around and but the hand that feeds them.
Screw socialism and screw the Democrats and Republicans. The only way this problem will be solved is if the whole thing collapses and starts out from the beginning like it did in 1776, or rather 1798 when the Constitution hadn't become polluted by enabling clauses and judges legislating from the bench.
Southwest Asia
TNPer
That's NOT socialist healthcare, because it requires you to buy healthcare from PRIVATE COMPANIES. This is the mixed capitalist/socialist healthcare.
And the reason that you have to pay for it is because an individual without healthcare is a risk to the whole community if you come down with some kind of serious sickness.
The REASON the government regulates the market is because if they deregulated the markets, then stuff like the subprime mortgage crisis happens. Airlines have been in a decline ever since Reagan deregulated the industry. The free market's highs and lows are too unstable for a functioning society.
Any system that expressly does not try to help its worst off is inhumane. Any system that doesn't attempt to fund itself is irresponsible and wrong.
You seem to forget that if the federal government removed its taxes, then that would just mean that local governments would have to increase their taxes to make up for the money the federal government isn't giving them. It's expensive to live in the American lifestyle you want: get used to it.
The "environazis" actually much prefer sugarcane (which is more efficient) or switchgrass (which wouldn't conflict with food production). Ethanol isn't a subsidy for environazis it's pork for corporations that are huge agribusinesses like ConAgra.
Firstly, whatever additional pollution is offset by the fact that the carbon is recaptured when the corn is regrown.
Secondly, the infrastructural investment already in place for oil (rigs, gas stations) prevents any other technology from overtaking it until we are literally out of oil, which is a bad situation in general.
Or they could just increase the taxes alone, which causes people to buy better cars. Their tax income doesn't change, but people are now spending less oil. No crisis created.
The warranty is also designed to protect consumers from companies that sell shoddy products, that's what a guarantee is. The medicine plan wouldn't change what doctors would have to do, they'd still have to provide a good service to get money, or else people would go to another doctor. The difference now is that people can now pay for doctors.
I wasn't aware that you needed an MBA and detailed knowledge of financial law to be allowed to own a home. Products intended for the general consumer (like the subprime loans) should be able to be understood by the general consumer. Companies exploited their ignorance shamelessly to make more money.
The alternatives are basically complete dictatorships/fascist states, which basically have a 100% taxation rate. Given the alternatives, republics and democracies are better.
If you knew the actual size of welfare payments to individuals, you realize that welfare isn't even enough to live off of. Further, not all people can work. There are people who actually physically cannot work, or have physical or mental conditions that prevent them from contributing to society. Unless you'd prefer to kill them, I'd rather support them.
Our aid policy is inconsistent. In some places we give aid to the actual people and the poor. In other places we give them to governments to prop up their regimes. The former (most african nations) appreciate our aid. The latter (most south american nations) do not.
There was no Constitution in 1776, there was only the Articles of Confederation, which created a government that couldn't actually function.
Namyeknom
TNPer
Coming as I do from the Socialist capital of the world, namely the UK, I personally am grateful that I can walk into a hospital and receive (albeit after a potential wait) treatment, without even considering that it might cost me something.
And if I don't end up getting a fair whack of what I put in, then so be it. I'd rather the government had my money over an insurance company any time.
Anyway, Thom Truelove all the way.
And if I don't end up getting a fair whack of what I put in, then so be it. I'd rather the government had my money over an insurance company any time.
Anyway, Thom Truelove all the way.
R
Romanoffia (Guest)
Guest
It's socialist no matter which way you look at it. It's even worse than that because it is a government subsidy for the medical insurance industry.
I am going to be taxed by the government and that money is going to be given to a private industry to prop it up, IOW, a subsidy.
The problem I have with that is when the government gets involved (giving tax dollars by mandating a payment system from tax payers to subsidize the insurance industry) is that it squashes competition and strips free market competition from the whole deal. In fact, in will cause the cost of medical care to rise.
First, forcing people to pay for something that they don't want or can't afford is socialism. You guarantee the medical insurance industry a steady income paid for by taxes (call it anything you want but it is still a tax). This is the problem with any government subsidy of an industry: The industry is failing, so what do these inept greedy corporations expect? They expect to be bailed out by the Government. Therefore the failing industry can eliminate competition altogether and then continue to deliver an inferior product because even if they don't do anything, the government will throw even more money at the industry to keep it afloat. Taxes rise, no product is delivered, the insurance industry grows even richer on tax dollars.
Second, any time you have the government interfering with the free market and competition, you end up with a government controlled monopoly. Socialism.
Let's put it a different way:
If you think cutting someone's taxes is somehow giving them money, you are a marxist/socialist. Anyone who thinks not stealing money from someone is somehow giving them money really needs to take a reality check. The government cannot give anything to you that it hasn't already taken from you.
The problem is that once people get trained into constantly sucking from the great nipple in the sky (the government) it is very hard to wean them from that habit. If one cannot afford to buy health insurance, then they can sell that BMW and not buy that HDTV widescreen TV for $7000 and use that money to buy health insurance, if they want to. The problem is that if you don't let people suffer the consequences for their own ineptitude and instead start rewarding them for their stupidity by redistributing wealth to them, then they will never learn to stand on their own.
Socialized medicine is a load of crap. In Canada (and yes, I have lived in Canada and I am familiar with their socialistic medical scheme) if you get diagnosed with cancer, you stand a 90% chance of dying from cancer before a slot opens up for treatment. It takes an average of 26 months before you can get an MRI, that is, of course, unless you are rich enough to get treatment in the US. God forbid that the US ever go to socialized medicine - where would the Canadians go for real health care.
Because I am in the military I am entitled to completely free medical care - at a Veterans Administration Hospital, along with my entire family. I would be a fool to get treatment at a VA hospital because I'd be waiting for two years to get an emergency procedure that needs to be done in the next two hours. I go to a private hospital because the government is incapable of offering a competitive product.
Of course there are indeed some people that need to have some kind of program because they cannot even afford the minimum, but it can be accomplished by means other than forcing everyone to buy into neo-marxist socialistic ponzy schemes.
The solution is to let the free market take care of things. If the medical industry and insurance industry is forced to stand on their own and actually compete, the prices will drop. The US has the absolutely best medical services and technology that the world has to offer - getting the government involved by subsidizing it will only eff it up totally. The biggest exploiter is government, pure and simple.
If the US government stopped harassing people with excessive income taxation, or rather *wage* taxation, people would be able to afford medical insurance. Personal income tax is about 0.2% of all federal revenues. It would well behoove the US government to abolish all personal income tax altogether.
Let me tell you what socialism is all about - I run three businesses. I have about 20 employees. I used to have 50. I have to pay half of my employees Social Security payments. Here's the deal: I get hit for about 37% of my business' gross revenue in taxes. Add to that another 6.2% for half of my employee's social security tax. Then subtract all the taxes I pay on the material I need for those businesses and all the property taxes, etc.,,,. The result is that in order to keep my businesses afloat, I have to cut costs or go bust. This required me to lay off 30 employees and then raise the salary of those employees to compensate them for the fact that they have to take of the slack of those laid off employees. The alternative is that I either shut down the business altogether because I can't make any money and no one has a job, or I lay off employees. Now am I supposed to raise my employees salary so that I can compete? Of course I am, but a Hillary styled socialized medicine program would ultimately be paid for by me, the employer. If I can't raise salary to meet this additional cost incurred by my employees, I lose those employees to someone else and/or I go bust.
As it is now, I have to earn $1000 to keep $10 after taxes and expenses. Maybe I should ask Hillary to socialize the horse industry and recording industry? Or, perhaps I can hire illegal aliens from Mexico for $1.50/hr and fire all my US citizen employees whom I pay $20-$60/hr? Then I can send my record studio over to India and avoid all the crap altogether and not have to pay for all this socialistic BS. If I can no longer afford to compete in the US market with all of my assets in the US, I'll have no choice but to move everything over-seas just stay afloat and avoid being effed up the kazoo by my own government. Hell, I could move my horse business to Mexico and avoid all that US Federal regulation entirely! Of course, 20 US citizen would lose their jobs and of course the government would raise taxes to compensate for the loss of tax revenue. Now multiply that by tens of thousands of businesses on a yearly basis. That is what socialism, in any garb, delivers.
- TNP Nation
- Blue_Wolf_II
Darth Nader FTW!
Southwest Asia
TNPer
It's capitalist because it involves private industry.
Then that private industry is just as bad as the government.
No, because the government will have buying power monopoly. The government wants to spend less on health care, so costs will go down. Your logic only works for perfectly competitive industries, but health care isn't competitive. You really only have one option, and that's the one provided by your employer.
Except this logic is dumb, because clearly the insurance isn't failing. It's exploiting people because they're not organized large enough to challenge them.
Do you even know what the free market is? The goal of government in even a perfect capitalist society is to regulate competition to make sure that it's fair. Government regulation is intrinsic to the free market.
You keep assuming that we're stealing, but we're paying the government to provide us with services (like the police, firefighters, roads). The REASON WHY YOU PAY FOR THESE THINGS IS THAT YOU CANNOT SELECTIVELY PROTECT PEOPLE IN CERTAIN SERVICES. I can't decide to not get national defense, and especially since my failing health damages everyone around me, then I cannot opt out of it. Health care is a service like national defense.
Are you fucking retarded? If you have a BMW and an HDTV, you can afford health insurance. Only the poor can't afford it. They don't have rich cars or flat screen tv's to sell for health insurance, they'll die. Your logic is just completely wrong.
You know what happens to the poor in America? If they can't afford the treatment, their death rate is 100%.
Even more so, your statistics are bullshit. The longest wait (and this is only in 1 province) is 22 hours, so you're just wrong, and besides, the Canadian government has provided funding so that they get timely care by 2010.
This is an out and out LIE.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...1376238,00.html
Low cost, best care, VA hospital. Wake up, man. This isn't 1990 anymore.
There is no alternative in a free market because given that kind of healthcare means one of two things:
1. Severe undercoverage
2. Unprofitability.
So they'll die under your alternative.
Except it's NOT COMPETITIVE. Not only can you NOT refuse health care, but your choices are almost always limited just to the plans offered by your employer. That means you have effectively 1 choice.
This is another lie.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=4985&type=0&sequence=5
These statistics show that income tax in 2004 was about $750 billion. That's definitely more than 0.2% of our budget. In fact, it's about 25% of our total budget.
If you want to get rid of $750 billion in money the government needs to pay, end the war.
Hillary care is NOT socialized medicine. Socialized medicine would come out of the incomes of your workers and not your own. This is the fault of capitalistic healthcare.
Just because you can compete better in countries without labor regulations and in countries that abuse their workers doesn't mean that it's a good thing. Hell, if you'd rather have your workers be abused and worked to death, go ahead. I'd hate having you as a boss.