McCain picks Palin???

[Edde]

If there is no profit in health care, then it will cease to develop at any noticeable rate. We have the most up to date health care procedures for a reason...competition. The next "better" drug for an ailment, the next new procedure that revolutionizes the field, the next trauma center that can see twice the patients in half the time, all driven by the financial need to be better than the other guy to win his business. We have the most up-to-date equipment to keep the competitive edge. When was the last time you witnessed a government employee (which is what medical staff will become under socialization) going the extra mile, staying open a little later, squeezing in a couple more "customers", just because it was the right thing to do?

Some of the wife's family are still in Europe where everyone is covered. A standard appointment is a bit more difficult than here but the difference is when you need to see a specialist. Plan on waiting months. If you have never had a problem that required someone specialized in a specific area, then consider yourself lucky. I can GUARANTEE you that if my kid had not had the option of going to specialists (note the plural term) that she would not be half as well off as she is now. Without going into the specifics, it took us 5 doctors till we got someone that had a clue. even then, it took another that specialized in her type of ailment to pinpoint the treatment necessary. This would not have happened in socialized medicine. She would have had an unnecessary operation at less than a year old, leaving behind lasting complications, for something that just took the proper understanding and treatment. As it is now, traces of this condition are all but gone.

 

It is sad that there are so many uninsured, so many that cannot afford or do not have an employer that can justify medical insurance. Do realize this tho...as evil as these insurance companies seem, they help regulate the rising costs. If you doubt me, just compare the amount of compensation a Dr. gets from an insured person and an uninsured one. The uninsured will pay more every time. Everyone needs some kind of coverage. Perhaps State or Federal coverage limits need to be revised. Perhaps procedural costs should be regulated more. There are more viable solutions than knee-jerking to one extreme or the other. Unfortunately, I have yet to hear anything close from anyone.

 

 

[/threadjack]

 

I fully understand - this is not black and white as an issue. The facts are still the facts.

 

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single_payer_resources.php

 

We can do this - and do it better than anyone else. We are the USA, right?

[jolyrgr]

I had to chuckle a little bit when I read the article. Here is why:

 

The major supporters of this article seemed to be doctors. They want to eliminate the "bureaucracy overhead" by eliminating all but one provider, whether it be the government( which cannot even manage to make medicare/medicaid worthwhile) or a single private provider (can we revisit your monopoly article?). The only person that comes out ahead or even in this plan is the doctor. Good hospitals lose revenue to the less efficient or "profitable" ones, people lose their jobs due to staffing cuts, natural checks and balances that exist to control need costs and procedures are removed as only one point of view is expressed, the list goes on.

 

I really don't want to continue to muck up the thread with another topic, as I could go on for pages on this topic (having been on almost all sides of the argument). Suffice to say, every time a government tries to create a "cookie-cutter" plan to solve all the problems of an issue, an epic fail is bound to ensue.

 

In closing, here is my favorite part:

"Modest new taxes would replace premiums and out-of-pocket payments currently paid by individuals and business. Costs would be controlled through negotiated fees, global budgeting and bulk purchasing."

Tax increases and monopolistic budgetary tactics. Long live economic freedom.

 

JR

 

Feel free to PM or even start a new topic.

[Edde]

I had to chuckle a little bit when I read the article. Here is why:

 

The major supporters of this article seemed to be doctors. They want to eliminate the "bureaucracy overhead" by eliminating all but one provider, whether it be the government( which cannot even manage to make medicare/medicaid worthwhile) or a single private provider (can we revisit your monopoly article?). The only person that comes out ahead or even in this plan is the doctor. Good hospitals lose revenue to the less efficient or "profitable" ones, people lose their jobs due to staffing cuts, natural checks and balances that exist to control need costs and procedures are removed as only one point of view is expressed, the list goes on.

 

I really don't want to continue to muck up the thread with another topic, as I could go on for pages on this topic (having been on almost all sides of the argument). Suffice to say, every time a government tries to create a "cookie-cutter" plan to solve all the problems of an issue, an epic fail is bound to ensue.

 

In closing, here is my favorite part:

"Modest new taxes would replace premiums and out-of-pocket payments currently paid by individuals and business. Costs would be controlled through negotiated fees, global budgeting and bulk purchasing."

Tax increases and monopolistic budgetary tactics. Long live economic freedom.

 

JR

 

Feel free to PM or even start a new topic.

 

Just to clarify - I'm talking about the insurance end of this more than docs and hospitals. A single payer system, not gov't run healthcare.

 

Healthcare should be a right, not a privelage.

Edited September 3, 2008 by Edde

[Shelby]

only one game is more corupt then the health industry, and thats big oil .

no memeber of the industry wants covernment health that would mean sweeping price cuts , bartering prices hell it's done all the time , when i had my bypass the specialest bill was $30k ,i was home 1 after leaveing the hospital day and got a call from his office wanting to know if i could pay cash, if i could they would settle for $5k but if i had insurance it was still $30k , this realy piss'd me off and i was sure to tell them so,,

you don't take $5k for a $30k bill unless one of two things happen'd you were bill'd right but they did a half a**'d job or they over price their work just to screw the insurance co's , eather way it was very unethical.

just one hour before i got their call i receve'd one from the state medical aid office saying the state of florida would pick up all the bills for my operation . slightly over $110k for every thing . i was very lucky

i gave the Doc's sectratary the number i was given togive to any bill collectors that may call and said now when i get off the phn i'm gona call the state office and play back this phn conversation for them , the phone went dead silent for a good 3 minutes , then this guy came on begging me not to do that . i didn't but i should have but in the future i may have need of them again

 

it's all a game , doctors, drugs and insurance all playing with our health and life . and who sets the prices,,the same doctors, drug makers and insurance co's ,

 

self regulation works just look where it has got us

[PDX87Starion]

We pay the most and get the least amount of care for what we are paying in the world.

35% of what we pay is going into the pockets of the insurance companies, as profit, who do nothing but move money around from us to the health care providers. The more claims they deny the more they increase their profits every year. William maguire CEO of a major insurance company retired after 10 years with a golden parachute of 1.75 BILLION. Thats for one guy! And thats a hell of a lot of denied claims of people who could actually afford health insurance.

 

The insurance companies are for profit, and profit only and they have been giving access to write their own legislation to make it even easier for them to pick and choose who they can drop coverage for, and so they can retro-actively deny payment for operations that are already done, for almost any reason. There was case recently where they canceled coverage in the middle of some ladies cancer treatment and left her with the bills. This is immoral. Specially for the USA, unless you just think "yay go capitalism" the "free" market will fix everything. (untill the gov. bails out the the big players of the free market)

 

The mindset that health care is only for those lucky enough to afford it is just wrong. Might as well make the fire department, and police "for profit" and before they save your child's life from a burning house or car wreck they could ask for a credit card, or make you sign loan documents because the CEO of the fire & police department needs a new and bigger yacht every year. Is that the conservative "privatize everything even the military" paradise that every one wants? Sure its great for the .05% who have enough in the bank to buy and sell whole towns, why should they be bothered with a tax that pays for stuff like schools, and fire departments when they can just buy their own fire truck and school. But for the other 95.5% of us this is how we do it, we all pay a little, and we all benefit, even if our house never catches fire, or we never get sick. We all benefit from a healthy productive educated work force. Call it socialism if you want, but if you hate the fact that we do have social programs like schools, fire, police, roads bridges, courts, military, health care for the military, and health care for congres, and a safty net for seniors, etc. then you hate America.

 

Health care should not a privilege, especially for kids.

 

 

 

and back on topic:

 

 

Tonight is Sarah Pork Barrel Palins’ big night!

 

Will she tout her record as Governor? While Alaska is seeing soaring revenues from ridiculously high oil prices (Alaska is due to have a $9 billion surplus) Sarah Palin as governor cut spending on fire stations, emergency services and needed road improvement projects.

http://www.adn.com/legislature/story/415749.html

 

Alaska’s Governor has a line item veto and Sarah used it to reduce the amount of money that Covenant House a charity that gives pregnant teens a place to live, rehabs drug addicted teens etc needed to expand.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail...ml?hpid=artslot

 

 

Do you think she’ll include the title her little town won? “METH CAPITAL OF ALASKA†That’s right, in 2003 the Mat-Su area (Wasilla Alaska) authorities uncovered 9 Meth labs. By 2004 the number of meth labs in Wasilla jumped to 42! http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/030805...050308002.shtml

 

 

Meanwhile the Wasilla police were conducting raids with automatic weapons on POKER GAMES?

McGregor knew many of the people arrested in the Wasilla raid two weeks ago. He said he's been told that there were as many as 20 police officers - armed with automatic weapons - involved in the bust. He said he can't understand why police are using valuable resources to arrest otherwise law-abiding citizens for gambling with their own money. Aren't we the meth capital of Alaska?†he asks. “Why are we busting poker games? No one is going to Gestapo-style raid your house on Super Bowl Sunday†'

http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2007/.../news/news6.txt

And Sarah was BANNING BOOKS in the Wasilla library.

 

 

 

Mayor/Dictator

Sarah Palin brought Rovian tactics to a small town Mayor's race. Once in office, she governed with an iron...far right, Christian conservative....fist. Right down to the books she wanted banned from the Wasilla library

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/...8,00.html?imw=Y

 

 

OR THAT SHE REFUSES TO PAY HER TAXES??

Palin failed to declare a business she owned. The business was dissolved by the state for non payment of fees owed. She also started a failed Marketing Company named Rouge Cou. Translated from THE FRENCH it means “Red neckâ€

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail...g_car_wash.html

 

 

The letter advising her that she failed to pay States fees owed on her business (a car wash) was written on her own letterhead?

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/pol...ter20070211.pdf

 

 

Even John McCain criticized Sarah Palin’s addiction to PORK

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/f...,0,284198.story

 

 

Frozen Pork Barrel: $27 Million in Fed Funds For a Town Of 5,000

Despite their oil wealth, Alaskan pols are experts at dipping into federal funding. Ted Stevens mastered it. His protégé' Sarah Palin was getting good too.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...ml?hpid=topnews

 

 

3 Degrees of Separation: Sarah Palin-Steven Silver-Jack Abramoff

In addition to being Ted Stevens' chief of staff, Mayor Palin's lobbyist Steven Silver was an Abramoff confidant

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/..._abramoff_t.php

 

 

Alaska #3 on The Federal Spending List.......

For every buck they send in taxes, the get almost two back.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html

 

WHAT ARE THE ODDS FOR A PALIN PURGE?

According to Bloomberg Odds makers are betting McCain drops Palin from the ticket

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20080902...KspjlrUEhOs0NUE

 

Not to mention

 

She was FOR the Bridge to No Where until she was against it

She campaigned for indicted Senator Ted Stevens

She is already under investigation for abuse of power in the short term she has been in office (she had her brother in law State Trooper Wooten fired during a custody battle with her sister)

 

 

But McCain does think she's hot too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RN5xbWtNSU

 

 

Flame away. Ha ha

[silverarrow89]

A single payer system, that's not government run? Then who would run it? Maybe Fannie & Freddie will have a few extra staff sitting around, oh wait, that is government run...

 

SCARY...with a capital SCARY! Wow...we are America yes, but man when it comes to bureaucratic bull$%#& we dish it out better than anyone. I would not dare risk adopting a single payer system, government run or otherwise. The current system, for lack of a better term, is bad enough. Between Canada and Sweden we should learn our lesson:

 

I can google like the rest.

 

-------------------------------------

 

Canadians visiting the U.S. to receive health care

 

From WIKI:

 

CANADA -

 

Some residents of Canada travel to the United States in frustration with the limitations of their own health care system, as illustrated by the following examples:

 

* According to a September 14, 2007, article from CTV News, Canadian Liberal MP Belinda Stronach went to the United States for female chest appendage cancer surgery in June 2007. Stronach's spokesperson Greg MacEachern was quoted in the article saying that the US was the best place to have this type of surgery done. Stronach paid for the surgery out of her own pocket.[38] Prior to this incident, Stronach had stated in an interview that she was against two-tiered health care.[39]

* When Robert Bourassa, the premier of Quebec, needed cancer treatment, he went to the US to get it.[40]

* In 2007, it was reported that Canada sent scores of pregnant women to the US to give birth.[41] In 2007 a woman from Calgary who was pregnant with quadruplets was sent to Great Falls, Montana to give birth. An article on this incident states, "There was no room at any other Canadian neonatal intensive care unit."[42]

* Champion figure skater Audrey Williams needed a hip replacement. Even though she waited two years and suffered in pain, she still did not get the surgery, because the waiting list was so long. So she went to the US and spent her own money to get the surgery.[43]

* A January 19, 2008, article in The Globe And Mail states, "More than 150 critically ill Canadians – many with life-threatening cerebral hemorrhages – have been rushed to the United States since the spring of 2006 because they could not obtain intensive-care beds here. Before patients with bleeding in or outside the brain have been whisked through U.S. operating-room doors, some have languished for as long as eight hours in Canadian emergency wards while health-care workers scrambled to locate care." [44]

 

------------------------------------

 

Why do they come to the US? We have readily (a relative term here) available care.

 

That's just the tip of the iceberg, you can google for hours, mind you the source of where you're reading from makes a difference as well, usually bias is some respect.

 

-------------------------------------

 

SWEDEN:

 

Taken from http://www.thelocal.se

 

How does the Swedish healthcare system work?

 

Published: 22 Aug 08 17:11 CET

Online: http://www.thelocal.se/13882/

 

Ask The Local: Every week we will be answering readers' questions about Sweden. This week, Janey in Stockholm wants to know how the healthcare system works.

 

* Dramatic increase in women alcoholics (30 Aug 08)

* Sex ed group: 'Fetishism is not a disease' (27 Aug 08)

* 'Allergy-free' restaurants to aid Swedish sufferers (15 Aug 08)

 

I’ve been in Sweden five years, and still haven’t needed to visit a doctor. But it occurred to me the other day that I’ve got no idea how the healthcare system works. Where do I go if I fall ill, and what will it cost me?

 

Janey, Stockholm

 

The Swedish healthcare system is run by the counties (‘landsting’). They provide heavily subsidised care, although a small fee is charged for most services.

 

In an emergency, the procedure is straightforward: call 112 and ask for an ambulance, or get yourself to a hospital emergency room (‘Akuten’).

 

For non-emergency situations, the way healthcare is organized differs from county to county, so the best way to get initial advice is to call your county health department directly.

 

Many counties have a dedicated phone line to answer questions about healthcare. Some such phone lines simply give basic information such as where to find your nearest health centre or hospital. Other phone lines, such as Stockholm County’s ‘VÃ¥rdguiden’ service (08-320 100), are staffed by nurses and offer basic medical advice as well as practical information. Like most public services in Sweden, the staff answering the phones should be able to advise you in English.

 

In non-emergency situations, your first port of call will be a doctor’s surgery (‘husläkarmottagning’) at a local health centre (‘vÃ¥rdcentral’). VÃ¥rdguiden or your local equivalent will be able to direct you to your nearest facility. It is usually necessary to be registered with the doctor and to book an appointment in order to be seen.

 

To ensure you receive the best possible care when you need it, you should register with a doctor at the first opportunity – and before you actually need it. At some surgeries you may be put on a waiting list before being registered with a doctor, but all doctors are obliged to see you in an emergency – whether you are registered or not.

 

Getting an appointment at a doctor’s surgery can be a tricky business in some areas. Many surgeries only answer the phones for restricted periods – say, between 8am and 9am. Anders Fridell, spokesman for Stockholm County Council, says this is a problem of which the authorities are aware and which they are trying to solve.

 

If you have difficulty getting through to your surgery on the phone, the advice is to turn up in person and ask for an appointment. Some surgeries also have open surgery times, when patients can turn up without an appointment and wait in turn to be seen.

 

In some areas, local health centres are complemented by local emergency rooms (‘närakuten’), where you can turn up with problems that need urgent attention, but which are not serious enough to warrant going to the emergency room. This system is being phased out in Stockholm, according to Anders Fridell, but some such local emergency rooms still exist.

 

Foreigners legally resident in Sweden are entitled to healthcare on the same terms as Swedes. Illegal residents and visitors have to pay for the full cost of their care, however, so if you are in Sweden temporarily ensure that you have proper travel insurance (or, if you are from another EU country, that you are carrying a European Health Insurance Card).

 

Those legally resident in Sweden have to pay fees when accessing healthcare. These range from 140 kronor for a visit to a doctor to 200 kronor for an x-ray. Costs are capped at 900 kronor a year for doctor’s visits, and similar low amounts for other medical care. Patients are issued with ‘high cost cards’, which help ensure they don’t cough up more than they have to.

 

-------------------------------------

 

I don't even want to begin to imagine how the US would fair under these circumstances. It will not be good.

 

-------------------------------------

 

Two hours till Sarah...I'd say "keep an open mind", but for some I don't know if that's possible.

Edited September 4, 2008 by silverarrow89

[JustinD23]

I personally don't care who she is. McCain would be the president if elected, and he lost my vote when he started shoving his head up GWB's rear. Maverick? Change? Only after getting caught up in the "Keating 5" scandal.

On another note, I listened to her speech at the convention, and it further convinced me that she needs to stay in Alaska. Nothing but a bunch of attacks, and didn't prove in anyway she has the qualifications for the office of vice-president, unless being an obnoxious prick is a qualification. Wait, being Cheney is VP now I guess that might be in the job description.

[Edde]

A single payer system, that's not government run? Then who would run it? Maybe Fannie & Freddie will have a few extra staff sitting around, oh wait, that is government run...

 

SCARY...with a capital SCARY! Wow...we are America yes, but man when it comes to bureaucratic bull$%#& we dish it out better than anyone. I would not dare risk adopting a single payer system, government run or otherwise. The current system, for lack of a better term, is bad enough. Between Canada and Sweden we should learn our lesson:

 

I can google like the rest.

 

-------------------------------------

 

Canadians visiting the U.S. to receive health care

 

From WIKI:

 

CANADA -

 

Some residents of Canada travel to the United States in frustration with the limitations of their own health care system, as illustrated by the following examples:

 

* According to a September 14, 2007, article from CTV News, Canadian Liberal MP Belinda Stronach went to the United States for female chest appendage cancer surgery in June 2007. Stronach's spokesperson Greg MacEachern was quoted in the article saying that the US was the best place to have this type of surgery done. Stronach paid for the surgery out of her own pocket.[38] Prior to this incident, Stronach had stated in an interview that she was against two-tiered health care.[39]

* When Robert Bourassa, the premier of Quebec, needed cancer treatment, he went to the US to get it.[40]

* In 2007, it was reported that Canada sent scores of pregnant women to the US to give birth.[41] In 2007 a woman from Calgary who was pregnant with quadruplets was sent to Great Falls, Montana to give birth. An article on this incident states, "There was no room at any other Canadian neonatal intensive care unit."[42]

* Champion figure skater Audrey Williams needed a hip replacement. Even though she waited two years and suffered in pain, she still did not get the surgery, because the waiting list was so long. So she went to the US and spent her own money to get the surgery.[43]

* A January 19, 2008, article in The Globe And Mail states, "More than 150 critically ill Canadians – many with life-threatening cerebral hemorrhages – have been rushed to the United States since the spring of 2006 because they could not obtain intensive-care beds here. Before patients with bleeding in or outside the brain have been whisked through U.S. operating-room doors, some have languished for as long as eight hours in Canadian emergency wards while health-care workers scrambled to locate care." [44]

 

------------------------------------

 

Why do they come to the US? We have readily (a relative term here) available care.

 

That's just the tip of the iceberg, you can google for hours, mind you the source of where you're reading from makes a difference as well, usually bias is some respect.

 

-------------------------------------

 

SWEDEN:

 

Taken from http://www.thelocal.se

 

How does the Swedish healthcare system work?

 

Published: 22 Aug 08 17:11 CET

Online: http://www.thelocal.se/13882/

 

Ask The Local: Every week we will be answering readers' questions about Sweden. This week, Janey in Stockholm wants to know how the healthcare system works.

 

* Dramatic increase in women alcoholics (30 Aug 08)

* Sex ed group: 'Fetishism is not a disease' (27 Aug 08)

* 'Allergy-free' restaurants to aid Swedish sufferers (15 Aug 08)

 

I’ve been in Sweden five years, and still haven’t needed to visit a doctor. But it occurred to me the other day that I’ve got no idea how the healthcare system works. Where do I go if I fall ill, and what will it cost me?

 

Janey, Stockholm

 

The Swedish healthcare system is run by the counties (‘landsting’). They provide heavily subsidised care, although a small fee is charged for most services.

 

In an emergency, the procedure is straightforward: call 112 and ask for an ambulance, or get yourself to a hospital emergency room (‘Akuten’).

 

For non-emergency situations, the way healthcare is organized differs from county to county, so the best way to get initial advice is to call your county health department directly.

 

Many counties have a dedicated phone line to answer questions about healthcare. Some such phone lines simply give basic information such as where to find your nearest health centre or hospital. Other phone lines, such as Stockholm County’s ‘Vårdguiden’ service (08-320 100), are staffed by nurses and offer basic medical advice as well as practical information. Like most public services in Sweden, the staff answering the phones should be able to advise you in English.

 

In non-emergency situations, your first port of call will be a doctor’s surgery (‘husläkarmottagning’) at a local health centre (‘vårdcentral’). Vårdguiden or your local equivalent will be able to direct you to your nearest facility. It is usually necessary to be registered with the doctor and to book an appointment in order to be seen.

 

To ensure you receive the best possible care when you need it, you should register with a doctor at the first opportunity – and before you actually need it. At some surgeries you may be put on a waiting list before being registered with a doctor, but all doctors are obliged to see you in an emergency – whether you are registered or not.

 

Getting an appointment at a doctor’s surgery can be a tricky business in some areas. Many surgeries only answer the phones for restricted periods – say, between 8am and 9am. Anders Fridell, spokesman for Stockholm County Council, says this is a problem of which the authorities are aware and which they are trying to solve.

 

If you have difficulty getting through to your surgery on the phone, the advice is to turn up in person and ask for an appointment. Some surgeries also have open surgery times, when patients can turn up without an appointment and wait in turn to be seen.

 

In some areas, local health centres are complemented by local emergency rooms (‘närakuten’), where you can turn up with problems that need urgent attention, but which are not serious enough to warrant going to the emergency room. This system is being phased out in Stockholm, according to Anders Fridell, but some such local emergency rooms still exist.

 

Foreigners legally resident in Sweden are entitled to healthcare on the same terms as Swedes. Illegal residents and visitors have to pay for the full cost of their care, however, so if you are in Sweden temporarily ensure that you have proper travel insurance (or, if you are from another EU country, that you are carrying a European Health Insurance Card).

 

Those legally resident in Sweden have to pay fees when accessing healthcare. These range from 140 kronor for a visit to a doctor to 200 kronor for an x-ray. Costs are capped at 900 kronor a year for doctor’s visits, and similar low amounts for other medical care. Patients are issued with ‘high cost cards’, which help ensure they don’t cough up more than they have to.

 

-------------------------------------

 

I don't even want to begin to imagine how the US would fair under these circumstances. It will not be good.

 

-------------------------------------

 

Two hours till Sarah...I'd say "keep an open mind", but for some I don't know if that's possible.

 

Man I don't want individual stories. For every story you come up with I'll get you one at least.

 

You want spin? Hows this? This is the Report to Congress as of 2007 from Congressional Research Service. Go to the summary beginning page 63 if you don't have time to read it all.

 

http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34175_20070917.pdf

 

The people who have a vested interest in the way things are - are out to destroy this country, period. And they want more. They have NO soul, they are Corporations. In order to get you to side with them they spend a teeny amount on a wordsmith to make you sign a petition to your reps, pay your reps, and game over. "Socialized Medicine" "Tax and spend" "Gov't run healthcare". "Drill here, drill now" (in this case they just had to jack oil to $145).

 

Every member of Congress is covered by a plan YOU can have, paid for from the commons we're all obligated to as citizens. We are a community. We are all Americans. WTH is wrong with that? You, I, and every other person is already paying for it, twice. We can do better than that.

 

I repeat: Healthcare should be a right, not a privilege. And these guys will spend millions to make sure you don't agree with that.

 

So either you have a better solution, or there is no problem. Which is it and why?

[Mazarin]

On another note, I listened to her speech at the convention, and it further convinced me that she needs to stay in Alaska. Nothing but a bunch of attacks, and didn't prove in anyway she has the qualifications for the office of vice-president, unless being an obnoxious prick is a qualification. Wait, being Cheney is VP now I guess that might be in the job description.

 

Sounds like someone was fapping and not listening. She outlined EXACTLY why she's more qualified than either Obama OR Biden.

 

But obviously, your post show's your mind's already made up.

[Technology]

I'm voting for Obama and Biden.

 

I read a little of Just Paus' stuff up a few posts where he quoted some people who recognize that the government really is somewhat, if not almost completely, controlled by a small group of terrifyingly elite men such as David Rockefeller. The Rockefellers are seriously - and I mean dead serious - trying to control people. Dude wants to put RFID pills in every 'merican. This is not a conspiracy theory post, it's just here to add to the point that some things are nearly beyond the reach of regular people, no matter how many get behind the cause for changing that control.

 

Without a major shift in the way things are going, there will eventually be a world so mired in this form of control that even trying to change it will simply be no more than a waste of time. Do it now, while it's still possible; get this joint back on track and get some of the fundamentals back.

[Dcrasta]

http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/stadium.weblogsinc.com/tmz/images/2008/09/0903_palin_07_full.jpg

[JustPaus_88TSi]

I'm voting for Obama and Biden.

 

I read a little of Just Paus' stuff up a few posts where he quoted some people who recognize that the government really is somewhat, if not almost completely, controlled by a small group of terrifyingly elite men such as David Rockefeller. The Rockefellers are seriously - and I mean dead serious - trying to control people. Dude wants to put RFID pills in every 'merican. This is not a conspiracy theory post, it's just here to add to the point that some things are nearly beyond the reach of regular people, no matter how many get behind the cause for changing that control.

 

Without a major shift in the way things are going, there will eventually be a world so mired in this form of control that even trying to change it will simply be no more than a waste of time. Do it now, while it's still possible; get this joint back on track and get some of the fundamentals back.

 

 

While I understand exactly where you're coming from and know your frustration all too well, all I can do is shake my head here.

 

This country has been ran by the same two parties since its inception. How will the continuation of selecting between the two help anything at all? The road to this nations demise is already paved, and we're sitting here arguing about which idiot gets to drive. We are a nation of plagued victims of our own excesses and decadence. Once a country founded on the concept of individual freedom and liberty, supposedly governed by one of the greatest documents ever written, now blithely ignores both its heritage and its Constitution; including its Bill of Rights. Both sides of the fence have monetary gains to be secured by a nation of sheep in conflict over which blade the herder should use to slaughter them. The dull one or the sharp one?

 

Why are we content with the knowledge that corporations fuel political agendas and run this country from the shadows, rather than thinking of ways to bring it back to the way it was originally designed? Why are we so freaking complacent?

 

"That's just the way it is."

 

Mother-F that.

 

 

What do corporations need if they desire to continue this path of money lined handshakes and backroom "good ole' boy" agreements?

 

A government large enough to make it happen. Strip this bloated psuedo-government of its self appointed responsibilities back to the operational levels in which it was originally designed, and rightfully bring the power back to the indiivual states. What will the companies do then? Perhaps they'd have to actually offer justifiable products while in competition with others who offer the same thing with a different name and a lower price. No longer will they have the ability to lobby and put people in powerful positions. As it stands now, we have to hope that the government official chooses correctly, instead of stripping his ability to favor a company and its interests entirely.

 

Want socialized healthcare? Fine. I'm not opposed to the concept one bit, but jumping in and going full bore right away is ridiculous. If it fails, it's a nation wide failure and a burden to us all. If it starts off in one or two states, then the damage is vastly diminished. If it works, then we can implement it throughout the country safely. It should be the responsibility of the individual states, not another self imposed arm of the central government. as we invest more power in the government, we not only get used to less freedom, but the government itself has more power to enhance and entrench itself. The result is that we have less control over it and it is less and less responsive to us.

 

Our civil liberties are slowly being eroded, due to our own inner tyrant imposing our beliefs on how others should live and behave. We all want to be free, but we want to dictate to our neighbors. There’s always something our neighbors do that we don’t like and that we think there should be a law against. I’m not talking about murder or robbery where there’s a victim and upon which we can get almost universal agreement that it’s wrong. I’m talking about gambling, prostitution, drug use, putting additions on your house, wearing seat belts, how children are educated, etc. I think there should be a law against something you’re doing or not doing and you, in turn, think someone should make a law against something I’m doing, and there’s always a politician trying to curry both of our votes. So he’ll try to get the laws enacted, laws you want imposed on me and laws I want imposed on you. So we get drug laws, zoning laws, laws about politically correct speech, guns laws, restrictions on businesses. You name it and somebody wants it outlawed or regulated and there’s a politician somewhere listening. But you can’t blame him. He’s just doing what both you and I and all of our neighbors are trying to do to each other. The net result is that we are imposing tyranny on each other, often in defiance of the Constitution and the guarantees in the Bill of Rights, and we create bureaucracies to manage and enforce our rules and these bureaucracies benefit from the existence of these new rules, these new laws. And, no matter how unconstitutional they may be, soon the bureaucrats themselves will fight to keep bad laws in place, even when you and I have seen the light and want those laws repealed.

 

The Constitution’s being trampled on but we the people don’t complain about it. We make no noise when the safeguards are breached. We don’t protect our rights from the very entity our Constitution is meant to protect us from, our government itself. If we don’t stop them, then it’s our fault. The Constitution isn’t there to tell us, the citizens, how to behave; it’s there to set limits on government. We’ve got to hold them to it. For the first 150 years or so of this country, it worked pretty well. But now the government ignores the Constitution whenever it’s convenient for them to do so. And I mean government at all levels; federal, state, and the local level. Sure, the government could change, but it won't because the American electorate doesn’t want them to change. We expect the so-called average citizen to obey the law, even when it’s absurd or unfair, but we don’t want our politicians or bureaucrats to have to obey it if we figure there’s a payoff for us. And every time we allow exceptions to the Constitution, we do it because we expect some kind of payoff. The worst enemy of liberty is not the tyrant without, it’s the tyrant within us all.

 

We, as citizens, will ensure the downfall of the greatest nation this world has ever known.

 

 

 

Want to create drastic change in society for the better?

 

Legalize drugs and overturn tens, if not hundreds of thousands of drug offenses. No longer will drugs cost as much, and the tax burden to house, feed, and care for these people won't exist. To the tune of 75% of the prison population. There would be less crime, due to lower costs and a direct relation to a larger amount of functional addicts. That's crazy! Right? Let's look at a few things here.

 

Drug laws started out as tax laws not long after the turn of the century. Fast forward to 1934, when Prohibition was repealed. When Prohibition ended, there was the question of what the government was going to do with all the agents it had hired to run down the bootleggers, speakeasy owners, and rumrunners. The obvious answer was to send them home. But FDR was too kind hearted to throw anyone out of work once they were living off the largess of the taxpayers, even though, in his election campaign, he had sworn he was going to cut the size of government. So he set this crew off to chase drug users. It was a practical decision. Prohibition had failed because it had been imposed on whites; whites wanted to drink so whites ended it. But whites didn’t do drugs. Only blacks and Mexicans did. So Roosevelt turned the otherwise idle agents of the war on alcohol to pursuing drugs, and the rest was history. Blatant racism, yet no one foresaw the 1960s when white kids would start smoking pot, dropping acid, and snortin’ coke the way their parents and grandparents had been swilling beer, wine, and bathtub gin. But suddenly, white America found itself throwing its own children and grandchildren in jails. Drug laws are unconstitutional, the federal government has no authority to make such laws. The 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution make it pretty clear that we can do with our bodies as we wish. The 14th Amendment says the states have to leave us alone aswell.

 

Now, before someone asks, “what about the general welfare clause in the Constitution?â€

The general welfare clause is in the preamble to the Constitution. James Madison, the man most responsible for the Constitution and the author of the general welfare clause, said it is merely a statement of the intent of the Constitution and that the rules the government has to follow to carry out that intent, as well as prohibitions which apply to how the government is allowed to operate, are contained in the Articles and the Amendments. If the general welfare can be used to justify exceptions to the Articles and Amendments, and many Congressmen and their constituents believe it can be used to do exactly that, then it’s the only thing that matters in the Constitution. Freedom of speech? Freedom of religion? Right to bear arms? Congress can then disregard them by invoking the general welfare clause. Want to be President for life? Invoke the general welfare clause and you never have to leave the White House.

 

 

By the 1960s the antidrug campaign had become a huge industry. There were people who benefitted from it despite the fact that it is illegal and was ruining millions of lives. The livelihoods of police, bureaucrats, judges, lawyers, and many others depend on drugs being illegal and remaining illegal. And, like many other industries, the drug prohibition industry is a growth industry; it grows by making more and more laws which are increasingly pervasive and harsher and have less constitutional basis. Look at the RICO Act, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. When RICO was passed, it became legal, despite the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution, for the police to deprive citizens of property without due process. They can do this simply on the suspicion alone that the property is linked to a crime. They don’t have to have a warrant, they don’t even have to prove their accusations. RICO is not only unconstitutional, it abrogates the body of common law and tradition our legal system rests on. The state no longer has to prove citizens are guilty of anything to seize their belongings; the citizens must prove they are innocent through an almost impossible and expensive process which includes posting bonds which, in theory, the government can also seize. The value of many of the seized goods, including cars, homes, boats, guns, land, jewelry, and other hard goods, as well as cash, were supposed to be added to the budgets of various law enforcement agencies to help fight the War on Drugs. But politicians and other bureaucrats aren’t stupid. Once they saw the vast amounts of extra money going into law enforcement, they weren’t going to sit by without getting a slice of the pie. However, they couldn’t just take it. They could, on the other hand, cut the budgets of law enforcement by the dollar amount of the goods seized, and thus be heralded for saving money while also producing results.

 

And what we have now are the police departments of America with an economic stake in keeping these unconstitutional laws on the books and enforcing them. Today the United States imprisons a greater percentage of its own citizens than any other country in the world, aren’t you? So what would all the prison guards currently employed to do this do? Where would the wardens get their next jobs? What would happen to all those communities in the middle of nowhere whose main industry is the prison? As prisons closed, real estate would plummet in those communities and people would lose their life savings. Do you think someone with $100,000 into a house, in one of these backwater towns, wants the illegal War on Drugs stopped? Think about it. How do you think lawyers would fare if drug laws went away? Have you ever stopped to think of how much of the legal system is employed prosecuting or defending people in drug cases? Even court appointed lawyers are on the payroll. How many lawyers would suddenly discover they can’t afford to feed their kids if all the laws concerning drug and other victimless crimes disappeared? The economics reaches even beyond them. It goes all the way to corporate America which manufactures drug detection chemicals and equipment, builds prisons, even makes uniforms. Many livelihoods depend on these laws, and the amount of money involved runs into the hundred of billions. It’s more money than goes through any of the corporate giants in America today. People are going to prison, losing their property, having their lives destroyed, and sometimes they are dying because of these unconstitutional laws. And we all have blood on our hands. The War on Drugs is nothing more than a Full Employment Act for lawyers, judges, policemen, prison systems, corporations, and their attendant bureaucracies.

 

 

 

Democrat or Republican, it matters not. Everyone has a stake in something, and they're comfortable.

 

That was just a taste.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/stadium.weblogsinc.com/tmz/images/2008/09/0903_palin_07_full.jpg

 

That's relevant.

Edited September 4, 2008 by JustPaus_88TSi

[Star_V8_Quest]

I personally don't care who she is. McCain would be the president if elected, and he lost my vote when he started shoving his head up GWB's rear. Maverick? Change? Only after getting caught up in the "Keating 5" scandal.

On another note, I listened to her speech at the convention, and it further convinced me that she needs to stay in Alaska. Nothing but a bunch of attacks, and didn't prove in anyway she has the qualifications for the office of vice-president, unless being an obnoxious prick is a qualification. Wait, being Cheney is VP now I guess that might be in the job description.

lets see..she is more qualified to be Vice President that Obama is being President.

:hmm3grin2orange:

[Star_V8_Quest]

I'm voting for Obama and Biden.

 

I read a little of Just Paus' stuff up a few posts where he quoted some people who recognize that the government really is somewhat, if not almost completely, controlled by a small group of terrifyingly elite men such as David Rockefeller. The Rockefellers are seriously - and I mean dead serious - trying to control people. Dude wants to put RFID pills in every 'merican. This is not a conspiracy theory post, it's just here to add to the point that some things are nearly beyond the reach of regular people, no matter how many get behind the cause for changing that control.

 

Without a major shift in the way things are going, there will eventually be a world so mired in this form of control that even trying to change it will simply be no more than a waste of time. Do it now, while it's still possible; get this joint back on track and get some of the fundamentals back.

you really need to read up on the rockefeller family.

obama and his platform of change isn't going to change them :eek1bluegreen:

[Dcrasta]

This woman seems to be an evangelistic religious extremist kook. She has her own version of Rev. Wright.

 

If you dont believe it troll You tube for some video .

 

 

(is just one of the assembly of her statements over the past 2 years.) .

I wonder how will she back up this line of thinking. The Will of God? How does she know what Gods will is? I don't care what your faith is, but when you start using God to justify policies of violence she might as well be an islamic jihadist.

 

This Pair (McCain and Palin) will just cause more opposition against the US and lack of cooperation (like the last 8 years of Bush/Cheney has).

 

Those interested in reading some more information

 

http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archiv...ers-commission/

[PDX87Starion]

She gave a good speech.

 

But more "executive" experience. Ha Ha yeah. 20 months and already under investigation for abuse of power. And mayor for a town of 5000. I guess every single mayor and every single governor is "more" qualified to be president then anyone in congress. Might as well vote for Nagin since he has more "executive" experience. LOL

 

And since she doesn't know what a VP does, who do you suppose will be her chief of staff? $20 bucks says its Cheney or one of his cronies.

Plus there is a very good chance McCain will not endure another 4 years, so there's a much bigger chance she would be pres.

 

If its all about her "executive" experience, what about Huckabee, Romney, Rudy or the thousands of other conservative "executives" with 20+ more years experience? I think its kind of a gimmicky choice because shes a woman, not because shes would be the best VP or pres. Kind of shows a little desperation to get some Hillary votes or just any kind of excitement or energy going.

[JustinD23]

Sounds like someone was fapping and not listening. She outlined EXACTLY why she's more qualified than either Obama OR Biden.

 

But obviously, your post show's your mind's already made up.

 

Not even close to made up until last night. Might want to work on your observational skills there friend

 

To those that think she's more qualified than Obama, you might want to do some serious fact checking. She was mayor of city of 7025 people, Wasillia Alaska. 7025 people? Carl Rove said himself, while trying to show why Virginia Governor Tim Kaine wasn't a qualified pick for Obama's VP, that Kaine had only been governor for three years, and was only Mayor of a city of 200,000 (Richmond Virginia). "not a big town", in Roves own words. He then went to say that a choice of someone like Kaine would be political, and not based on merit, due to his experience, or lack of it. Well, let's see...how long has Palin been governor? 1 year, and in a state with a little over 600,000 people? And again, how large of a city did she manage? 7025? Yeah, I guess if you buy into the idea that because she's is governor of a state with an international boarder, she has foreign policy experience. On that logic, Jesse "the Body" Ventura would have mounds of foreign policy experience after governing a state on the boarded with Canada. Back to Palin though. How many times has she left the country? Twice. To Germany, and Kuwait. Wow.

 

What really bothered me about her though, all came to light for me durning her speech last night. When she said that as a mayor of that HUGE 7025 person city, she actually had responsibilities, where as "Community Organizers" don't. I saw her for what she's worth, with that comment that she found so humorous. Grass roots, or community organizers are what gave this nation it's freedom from the Revolutionary War to the Civil Rights Movement, or even better in my mind "Woman Suffrage". How ignorant, and malicious she must be to make such a statement. I, personally, am tired of all the smack talk in politics. Speeches like Palin's that do nothing but try to tear people down, and in the process they tear down this great nation.

[Dcrasta]

:iagree: Justin D23 for Pres! Funny, not once did she mention what she plans to do as VP. I just think its typical negative politics. I dont care to know about what she thinks about Barak Obama, I care to hear about what she thinks about her responsibilities as VP , but then that would give away the 'ebil planz to conqurez the worldz'

[Mazarin]

Interesting that the Obama campaign has decided that it has a winner in pointing out that Palin “cheated†by having a speechwriter. Of course, a pliant media did its job last night in spreading this supremely lame talking point. The funhouse at MSNBC was all over it, and even half the panel at Fox saw it as a nugget of information requiring dissemination. One can only wonder why media analysts didn’t feel it necessary to point out that Joe Biden’s oratory also received the ministrations of speechwriting pros (all appearances to the contrary). Could it be that Biden’s speech was so dreadful, no one felt the provenance of the speech required clarification?

 

Of course, this weak return of serve is unlikely to have its desired effect of dismissing Palin’s performance. Once again, Palin spoke directly to the American people last night – they’ll make up their own minds about her. It must really concern the Democrats that Palin will have many similar opportunities in the future.

 

A couple of final points on this matter – if giving a great speech is so darn easy, how come Joe Biden, John Kerry and Chris Dodd with a combined 340 years in politics have never been able to pull it off? And if it’s such an irrelevant skill, why again exactly is Barack Obama the Democrats’ nominee?

 

In the race to date, Obama surrogates have ridiculed John McCain as senile, belittled his military service and serially called him a liar. Sarah Palin for her part hasn’t exactly been spared the left’s bile. And yet mocking Barack Obama’s history as a community organizer is suddenly unspeakably cruel? The thin skin of Obama and his minions never ceases to impress.

[FlattopMike]

At least she is a better shot than our current VP! :gun:

[PDX87Starion]

In the race to date, Obama surrogates have ridiculed John McCain as senile, belittled his military service and serially called him a liar. Sarah Palin for her part hasn’t exactly been spared the left’s bile. And yet mocking Barack Obama’s history as a community organizer is suddenly unspeakably cruel? The thin skin of Obama and his minions never ceases to impress.

 

Hold on there sparky. Belittled his military service??

 

In case you have forgotten 4 years ago the GOP said that Kerry's purple hart from two tours in Nam was self inflicted and was just a scrape. And to mock him they all had purple band-aids on their fingers AT THE OFFICIAL REPUBLICAN CONVENTION. That was F'n low.

 

Absolutely no one belittled McCain's service at the Democratic convention. But actually praised it.

 

I can only imagine "family values" stuff that would be flying out of the conservatives mouths (specially hannity, oreily, and rush) if the Dems VP had a pregnant 17 year old daughter. Nothing is off limits when it comes to winning for the GOP. Hypocrisy as its worst.

Edited September 4, 2008 by PDX87Starion

[patra_is_here]

i dont recall hearing an official obama comment badmouthing the other candidates, let alone mccain's service history. palin was openly talking trash as her main political stance

[Mazarin]

That was F'n low.

Oh, not as low as throwing his medals or ribbons or whatever @ the White House? Being psychological fodder for torturers who showed video of Kerry denouncing his country to POWs? Or as low as the book he authored and denying several entries in that book during his Presidential campaign?

 

And just because no one really covered anyone going after McCain's Service @ the DNC, what about Carter talking about McCain "milking" his POW experience?

 

Or going after a 17 year old - in the SAME EXACT SITUATION the Democrats are supposedly fighting for in young, unwed mothers? Here's the Dems chance to ULTIMATELY show their compassion and fortify their belief that these people made unfortunate mistakes and should not be looked down upon - yet they mercilessly berate and chastise that very woman and her mother who fit the exact model of who they're supposedly fighting for - and just to win an election?

 

And I can say that without any remorse because the Dems are supposed to be the people don't judge - regardless of race, religion, status, or creed. But here we are in a strikingly similar situation. Bristol will be 18(i believe) when her child is born. Isn't there some politician who's being pushed as God's gift to Politics who was born of an 18 year old mother - and that woman is being touted as a hero while Palin and her daughter are being vilified?

 

That's F'n low.

[patra_is_here]

here's where you made your error

 

Dems are supposed to be the people don't judge

 

who says the dems don't judge? thats not in the democratic national mission statement.

 

all people are judgmental. the democrats just have a different idea for social and economic and military structure.

 

sounds like you're getting caught up in the rhetoric yourself. did someone tell you that democrats are suppose to be super humans who don't make mistakes and who contain no flaws? who perpetuated that idea towards you?

[Mazarin]

who says the dems don't judge? thats not in the democratic national mission statement.

 

sounds like you're getting caught up in the rhetoric yourself. did someone tell you that democrats are suppose to be super humans who don't make mistakes and who contain no flaws?

Not in the least - I never stated that I believed that. But that's how they portray themselves. That's how the Dems sell their views and ideas for the "downtrodden and forgotten." They say they don't judge these people. They say it's not their place to judge a woman who chooses an abortion, or that they don't judge the families who didn't make a budget to be able to properly afford a home.

 

Yet it's their place to say Palin's not a fit VP because her daughter's pregnant? If that's the case, why do we look @ Obama's family and story with such grandeur?

Edited September 4, 2008 by Mazarin