Who Should We Vote For President?

[mweiss]

Paris Hilton may have been given a fortune, but I guarantee that it was not from the government.

So? I offered Paris Hilton as evidence of "wealth ... not earned but given out to those that are luckier than the others." Given that Paris did little more than pop out of the correct woman (did she earn that???), I'm inclined to call her someone whose wealth was not earned, but rather given due to luck. If you can show how she earned the income, please do so.

The wealth she inherited was not taken, by force

Nope. Few people's wealth is taken by force. Most of it is taken by deceit, because it involves less risk to those taking it. Then there are those like Leland Stanford, who made his money by taking through force...and he didn't have to do the forcing!

Too many people rely on insurance as more of a cost sharing plan anyway.

Good point. Too many people rely on food as more of a form of sustenance, too. Honestly, do you even understand what insurance is???

Whatever happened to personal responsability.

So you believe that insurance is irresponsible? Then you really don't understand what it is and why it is, in fact, irresponsible to have a family without insurance. If you are paying cash for your family's healthcare, you are not only horribly irresponsible, but also foolishly saving pennies by spending pounds.

When I retire, I am responsble to ensure that I can pay my bills, that I have enough money to insure that what happens, I can afford it.

Good for you. So am I. And, ya know what? I intend to have insurance even then, though probably less of it (who needs a life policy once you're financially independent, for example).

See, here is the liberal mindset at work again. "If you ignore the truth, you can get away with anything."

Ahh, yes. When unable to defend a position, attack the person. The only one of the two of us ignoring the truth appears to be you. You ignore the very raison d'etre of insurance. You ignore the comment to which I supplied Paris Hilton as a counterexample. You ignore the valuable contributions to you daily life provided by the taxes you pay; contributions that you would be unable to enjoy without the government supplying them. All truths, all ignored by you.

 

[FredF]

I shall reply in reverse order. First, I did not attack anyone least of all you. There are certain functions that are governments responsability. Roads and such are paid for out of gas and other taxes. I understand that. There is national defense, fine. There are certain programs that should be enacted as safety nets, not ways of life, that I would agree are usefull expenditures of the Federal and some local governments and I pay for them. There are, however, certain items that the government has absolutely no business getting into and unfortunately healthcare is one of them.

Healthcare was so much more affordable when doctors could treat patients without having to order every single test imaginable in order to try to prevent being sued. I do not feel that you should take you child to the doctor everytime you sneeze because it only costs $15 in a co-pay. I was un-employed yet I still ensured that my children got treatment that they needed even though it cost money out of my pocket that I did not have. I talked to the providers, and guess what, we worked out a deal. They were more than happy to work with us on our situation and work out how much and how often they were going to get paid for their services. Was I entitled to their service at discounted rates, did the government OWE me healthcare?

Just one more here. I love the one about Paris Hilton. It is just too funny. Are you actually saying that if I spend 40 years of my life building a company, any company and then leave say a $20 million a year business to my children, then they just happen to be the luckiest people on earth? Luck in not a factor here. They had a father that was willing to work hard to provide for his family. True, my children may have not 'earned' that money but you know what, at one point in time it was earned not given. Where does the Government have the right to take that away from my children and give it to someone else who is perfectly happy to sit on the couch and not do a darn thing with their life. It is my money and I should be able to give it to whoever I wish.

 

[sentrido]

Actualy, heathcare was much more affordable cause the industrie was run by mostly non profit organizations. And historicaly doctors used to order more tests an procedures in the past. This practice has pretty much been ended by HMO's and such.

 

[Captain Ed]

GolllleeEEE!
http://tinyurl.com/3eszx

 

[TWAnr]

Yabba Dabba Dooooo

Oh, great, another Neanderthal has joined the fray.

🙄

 

[mweiss]

Are you actually saying that if I spend 40 years of my life building a company, any company and then leave say a $20 million a year business to my children, then they just happen to be the luckiest people on earth?

Yes I am. They never had to work hard to have the daddy they got. Paris doesn't run the company; she just gets the proceeds.

True, my children may have not 'earned' that money but you know what, at one point in time it was earned not given.

But not earned by the children.

Where does the Government have the right to take that away from my children and give it to someone else who is perfectly happy to sit on the couch and not do a darn thing with their life.

Whoa there, nelly. Where did I post anything even tangentially suggesting such a thing. I was disputing the suggestion that people who have a lot of money earned it. While many do, not all of them do. How you get from that observation to the idea that the government should take it all away when you die is beyond me.

It is my money and I should be able to give it to whoever I wish.

Within reason. I might not back up the suggestion that you should be able to give it to, say, Osama bin Laden. Or John Kerry, for that matter...it's waaaay too hard to separate the "gifts" from the "bribery."

There are, however, certain items that the government has absolutely no business getting into and unfortunately healthcare is one of them

The current system is hopelessly broken. Refusing to get health insurance doesn't solve the problem. Yes, I agree, many people abuse health insurance, and for a while the liability protections were rather expensive. However, even as the insurance companies theoretically got these expenses under control, healthcare costs rose, far faster than the CPI or GNP. It's still broken. Countries with nationalized healthcare have lower healthcare costs than the US. We're not talking about Kenya, here, we're talking about Sweden, among the wealthiest nations on the planet.

I did not attack anyone least of all you.

Well, now, given that you were replying to my post, and suggesting that I was ignoring facts in order to "get away with anything," it sure came across that way.

 

[TWAnr]

Here we go again.

Iraq became a threat barely two months in advance of the 2002 midterm elections, when it appeared as if the Democrats were going to take control of Congress on account of the state of the economy. The Bush - Cheney campaign believes that one successful diversionary tactic deserves a repeat.

BUSH COORDINATING WAR ON TERROR WITH ELECTION

In the months after the tragic attacks of 9/11, President Bush told the American people that he had "no ambition whatsoever to use [the War on Terror] as a political issue."[1] But according to a new report, the Bush Administration is now demanding that international allies coordinate the arrest of al Qaeda terrorists to coincide with key U.S. political events, so as to maximize political benefits for the President.

According to the New Republic, top Pakistani intelligence officials have confirmed that the Bush Administration is demanding the Pakistani government find as many "high value" terrorist targets specifically before Americans go to the polls in November. By contrast, no similar urgent push or "timetable" was discussed in 2002 or 2003. Even more troubling, Pakistani sources admit White House aides told the Pakistani Director of Intelligence that "it would be best if the arrest or killing of [any high value terrorist target] were announced on twenty-six, twenty-seven, or twenty-eight July" - the first three days of the Democratic National Convention in Boston.[2]

The report calls into question whether key military decisions were affected by similar political motivations during the last three years. For instance, during 2002 and 2003 when al Qaeda was regrouping along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, the Bush administration refused calls to seriously increase operations there. Only in March of 2004 - once the Presidential election campaign had begun -- did the President finally announce "stepped up efforts" in Afghanistan to find bin Laden.[3]

Sources:

1. "Republicans, Democrats seek political returns on 9/11, terror war," TwinCities.com, 4/01/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1836800&l=44445.
2. "Pakistan for Bush. July Surprise?," New Republic, 7/07/2004,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1836800&l=44446.
3. "U.S. military announces new operation in Afghanistan," USA Today,
3/13/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1836800&l=44447.

Fooled us once, shame on you; fooled us twice, shame on us.

 

[sentrido]

Or, as our president once said, "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, won't fool me again!"

 

[diogenes]

Paris Hilton may have been given a fortune, but I guarantee that it was not from the government.

OK, I'm confused.

The new dogma is "let the marketplace decide."

The marketplace decided Bill Gates was worthy of billionairehood, due to his merit.

Paris, too, is a millionaire, but on what merit, other than choosing the right daddy?

If one truly believes in pure market decisions, inheritance should be abolished, and each person rises and falls on their own merit. Why waste capital on someone who can't create it and doesn't know what to do with it?

Actually, I'm all for inheritance. I'm just pointing out that all the market zealots might not be so zealous, if you draw the line in the right places. 😉

 

[youngblood]

I'm sorry, but I agree with FredF on the Paris Hilton situation. Let me try to get this straight. Paris did not choose her daddy - her daddy chose her. She had no say so in who her parents were. If wealth were to be spread accordingly, then any money I may tuck away for my children over a certain ceiling may possibly be distributed to those who have no relation to me? Am I getting the swing of things or not? Recently I witnessed the signing of my parents will and was told in all likelyhood that even though they have paid taxes on their money and the interest earned, I would pay taxes on any inheritance. Is this what you are getting at or are you saying any one person in a certain tax bracket should not get an inheritance but distribute the wealth? Interesting position indeed. Personally, if I worked hard for my money and paid the appropriate taxes, then I should do with it how I see fit.

I grew up in an area where third and fourth generation welfare families were common. I believe in helping someone in need; however, I do not believe in giving money to someone who is just too damn lazy to get any kind of a job and looks for handouts.


Another issue. The price of insurance is out of whack for three reasons - administration costs at hospitals, malpractice suits, and insurance companies taking advantage of a luctrative business where most don't need the coverage they are paying for. On that note I will add one thing. My husband and I were both laid off at the same time. I looked into insurance costs and found that family coverage could have been found for somewhat decent rates. BTW, it takes some shopping. Bottom line is insurance becomes a benefit if you can afford it. If you can't, hospitals and doctors will accept what most call a charitable contribution to the cost of treatment. Pharmacies are the same way you just have to know where to look and how to ask. I know this first hand and if anyone needs direction then I would be happy to help. Just PM me. As a matter of fact, I was days away from completing an application with two different companies to cover the costs of my husbands drugs. Without any help it would have cost me $1,000 a month. Fortunately, I was called back to work. One more point, my mother for years paid close to $200 a month for insurance premiums for just her and my father. After doing so for ten years she became terribly ill and was hospitalized for four months. The premium she paid far outweighed the costs that were covered under her plan even after ten years.

Another issue. Iraq involvement with 9/11. Not so sure on that one but I do know that for every family member involved in a suicide bombing Suddam gave them a check for $25,000. A terrorist is a terrorist regardless of who they kill.

 

[JOEMATTERS.COM]

John Kerry is a dream. He is everything the leadership of America should be. God! I hope John Kerry wins. America's children need him so badly. The children of other countries need John Kerry as America's president too. Thank you, John Kerry. The planet needs your good leadership. America loves you, and God hopes you win.

God gave us skin for a reason, so that it could hold our blood inside our bodies, not so that it could be spilled! We, the American people are sick of seeing blood spilled! We are sick of seeing children burn! WE ARE SICK OF WAR!

WE ARE SICK OF WAR!
We, the American people want peace and love, not war!



LOVE,


http://www.joematters.com



By the way, I don't know if all of you saw this or not:


Both my grandfathers fought in the USA military and they would NOT BE HAPPY ABOUT "WHITE HOUSE WARNING" !!!!!!!

I didn't know Washington DC was
authorized to give out "WHITE HOUSE WARNING"s to
other countries! (The following article was
copied exactly as seen on www.tehrantimes.com)


http://www.tehrantimes.com/Description.asp?
Da=7/26/2004&Cat=4&Num=003


07/26/2004

http://www.tehrantimes.com/Description.asp...4&Cat=4&Num=003



Purported Threat To Italy And Australia Over Iraq


BAGHDAD (Reuters) -- A purported statement from militants linked to Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaeda threatened Italy and Australia on Saturday with attacks if they did not withdraw their troops from Iraq.

"Australian people, if your government refuses to withdraw ... we will shake the ground beneath your feet ... and columns of rigged cars will not stop," said the previously unheard-of Islamic Tawhid Group, the Al-Qaeda organization, Europe.

"Italian people, we advise you accept our offer and if you refuse you will hear columns of rigged cars shaking your cities," the group said in a statement posted on a Website.

Italy and Australia are major contributors of troops to U.S.-led forces in Iraq.

Militants have been mounting a campaign of hostage-taking and attacks to undermine the U.S.-led forces and Iraq's new interim government headed by Prime Minister Iyad Allawi.

The Philippines withdrew its troops from Iraq this month to spare the life of a Filipino hostage. It joined Spain, the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua and Honduras as countries that have pulled out of what once was a 34-nation U.S.-led coalition. WHITE HOUSE WARNING

"The terrorists have demonstrated that they want to attack those who are committed to helping the Iraqi people ... you cannot make a separate peace with terrorists," said White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan.

Iraq and Egypt tried on Saturday to secure the release of a senior Egyptian diplomat after he was snatched in a brazen kidnapping while leaving a mosque -- the first envoy to be taken hostage in the violence racking Iraq.

Allawi urged Cairo not to pander to the kidnappers, who seized Mohamed Mamdouh Qutb on Friday afternoon in Baghdad after reports Cairo might consider helping Iraq with security. Egypt said it had no plans to send troops to Iraq.

Qutb is the number three in Egypt's Embassy in Baghdad. "We are involved in intense talks to try to secure his release," said a source at the embassy. "We were so shocked. He's a very decent and religious man."

Al-Jazeera broadcast a video tape on Friday of Qutb sitting in front of six hooded and armed men from a group calling itself the Lions of God Battalions in Iraq.

The kidnapping of a well-protected diplomat outside a busy place of worship is a step up in sophistication for militants and raises the stakes in the wave of hostage-taking that has hit Iraq since April. Foreign truckers have been prime targets. TOP IRAQI BUSINESSMAN ABDUCTED

The chief of Iraq's al-Mansour Construction Company, a state-owned firm, was kidnapped on Saturday as he drove to work in Baghdad. Raad Adnan Mahmoud was also director-general of Iraq's Housing and Construction Ministry.

Militants have seized dozens of foreigners since April to push demands for foreign troops and foreign companies to leave Iraq. Several hostages have been killed.

In the latest violence in Iraq, gunmen in two cars opened fire on police at a checkpoint in southwest Baghdad, wounding seven, police at the scene said.

A U.S. soldier died from wounds sustained in fighting west of Baghdad on Friday, bringing to 666 the number of troops killed in action in Iraq since last year's U.S.-led invasion to topple Saddam Hussein.

An explosion set fire to an oil pipeline north of Baghdad.

Guerrillas frequently attack Iraq's oil infrastructure in efforts to disrupt the country's reconstruction.

Allawi met Syrian Prime Minister Naji al-Otari in Damascus on Saturday and both countries said they would form a committee to improve security along their long desert border.

U.S. officials have accused Syria of failing to do enough to keep foreign Islamic militants from crossing into Iraq. PAKISTANI SETS OUT TROOP STANCE

Pakistani Information Minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmed said his country had told the United Nations it would send troops to Iraq if Allawi's government asked for them and other Muslim nations also sent soldiers.

"(President Pervez Musharraf) made it clear that we could consider sending troops only if the request comes from the Iraqi government, other Islamic countries also do the same and our Parliament approves it," said Ahmed.

Any deployment of Pakistani troops to Iraq is likely to draw stiff opposition at home from hardline Islamic groups wary of Musharraf's support for the U.S.-led war on terror that toppled the Taliban in neighboring Afghanistan.

Allawi's government is heavily reliant on some 160,000 mostly U.S. foreign troops for security while it builds up its own forces.

 

[mweiss]

Paris did not choose her daddy - her daddy chose her.

I didn't realize she was adopted.

any money I may tuck away for my children over a certain ceiling may possibly be distributed to those who have no relation to me? Am I getting the swing of things or not?

That's not what I said. What I said is that Paris didn't earn the money. It's a windfall that she got by being lucky. Do you disagree with this?

I do not believe in giving money to someone who is just too damn lazy to get any kind of a job and looks for handouts.

Believe it or not, that's a much smaller group than the group of people on welfare who find themselves unable to get a job. But it's hard to justify killing the programs unless you focus on the lazy ones.

If you can't [afford medical insurance], hospitals and doctors will accept what most call a charitable contribution to the cost of treatment. Pharmacies are the same way you just have to know where to look and how to ask.

Did you know that the shortfalls are paid by tax dollars?

Not so sure on [Iraq's involvement in 9/11] but I do know that for every family member involved in a suicide bombing Suddam gave them a check for $25,000. A terrorist is a terrorist regardless of who they kill.

The problem isn't the invasion of Iraq. The problem is lying to the American public to get their support for the invasion of Iraq.

 

[FredF]

You are soo wrong here. You just buy into the lie that is spouted and go on about your happy life. Only in the Liberal Press is reducing the size of the expansion called a cut. Nobody wants to get rid of these programs like welfare, what they want is for better accounting, stronger requirements to try to work, and to reduce the rate at which the program is growing. It is totally silly that the dems do all the screaming about how others are trying to scare everybody into voting for them, when they are the ones doing the lying and mis-characterizations about what conservatives want to do.

Shortfalls from healthcare providers are NOT paid by the government. You got that one wrong as well.

And by the way, it has been proven time and time again, that Bush did NOT lie about going to war. But if you only beleive what the democratic party line then of course you will not know the truth again.


And JOE,

Tell me why you like sKerry and why you think he will provide great leadership.

 

[mweiss]

Nobody wants to get rid of these programs like welfare

Actually, they do. But you have to start somewhere. And the decrease in the growth is a real decrease anyway because of value erosion due to inflation.

Shortfalls from healthcare providers are NOT paid by the government.

It most certainly is, in about a dozen ways.

And by the way, it has been proven time and time again, that Bush did NOT lie about going to war.

Oh, really? That's funny, since he has changed his justification three times after the invasion. Why did he do that?

But if you only beleive what the republican party line then of course you will not know the truth again. <_<

 

[FredF]

See that is just it, I don't buy into what either party spouts. I get the information and read up on what is going on and make up my own mind. It is pretty easy to see that in a speach months ago when a person said one thing and now are claiming that they never said that that they are lying.(Slick Willie comes to mind)


When the President claimed that there were links between Iraq and Al Queida, but the papers claim that he lied when he said there were direct links between Iraq and 9/11 when he never said 9/11, it becomes clear that there is an agenda here.

When you read verified news reports talking about artillery shells loaded with sarin gas and capable of killing 20,000 people yet those seeking election keep spouting that no wmd's were found in Iraq, again they are at best distorting the true and and worst knowingly lying.

To my great disappointment, the republican party is not getting up there and publically refuting the lies coming out of the DNC like I believe they should.

When you see pictures of a man sitting right next to Hanoi Jane and then claims that they never did anything with her, what do you call that? When someone that has been a senator for all the years that sKerry has, yet about the only thing he keeps trying to run on is his service in Vietnam what is he hiding? Why is he not out there everyday telling people what he voted for or against all those years in the Senate?

Saying "I'll fight a beter war on terrorism" and then changing the subject to something else, tells me that he has no idea how he would fight that war. Saying, in a speach, that he believe that we should ask the UN for permission before we deploy our troops around the world, having a voting record of consistently voting against funding for the military and then in an election year saying how much he supports our troops is to say the least, very suspicious and disengenious.

This is not propoganda like you want to think, these are verifiable facts. Go look them up if you dare.