Sixty-three years ago the U.S. won the war in Europe, but we would never have done this if people like Barack Hussein Obama were running the country back then.
The Citizen can be criticized for the sports department not doing an investigation of why the other teams set up their pitching rotation so the Yankees face the other teams' weakest pitchers.
People are shocked and amazed that the NAACP is offering scholarships to black children, a violation of the U.S. Constitution equal protection clause, and The Citizen helps them advertise it.
It looks like Hillary has discovered the infamous "glass ceiling."
I believe the buck stops here with the president. Republicans want to pass the buck on 9/11, Iraq, Katrina and the economy.
Two Cents will be updated online as new submissions are called or e-mailed. To contribute new Two Cents items, please call 253-5311 ext. 292 or e-mail twocents@lee.net.



The Citizens' Say
There are 57 comment(s)
karl wrote on May 11, 2008 7:11 PM:
quiveringthigh wrote on May 11, 2008 5:21 PM:
A quote from Frank Zappa.
Or a Keith Richards quote,
"Go home and Shave"
"
karl wrote on May 11, 2008 1:04 PM:
1. We are a nation of laws. Florida and Michigan broke election rues, and knew what they were doing, and the consequences, when they did it. Are you going to start defending thugs and rapists next? Next question:
2. Fetuses and zygotes are not "babies", nor "people", nor "born". They simply are not, no matter how much you want to hope or imagine it. Period. When you want to talk about the uninsured and welfare children--who are there through no fault of their own--whom the Conservatives would just as happily see out on the street with gnawing bellies, then come talk to me. Next?
What irony--race and gender have absolutely nothing to do with my vote either. Like you, I'm voting for the candidate I believe is most qualified.
And "respect" for the lowly is not the same as disrespect for lowlifes. Have a nice Mother's Day--and be thankful that your mom wasn't a welfare mother.
"
Hillbilly wrote on May 11, 2008 12:01 PM:
You then say this about "The King" "There is, in you, both a real and sincere lack of compassion for Humanity, and the realization that if ALL of Humanity is not elevated and taken care of, then it brings ALL of society down and costs ALL of us more." But, where are you when the smallest and most vulnerable are at risk? The soon to be aborted child? Oh that's right they have no rights, you would freely kill them. Then they won't need health care. I guess you don't want to save everyone either do you?
Now for your statement about a black president. You say "Seriously, whatcha gonna do when YOUR PRESIDENT is black?
I'm going to sit here, smug and satisfied!" Well, if Sen. Obama wins we will have a half black president or did you forget, his mother was white? I'm not voting in this election for race or gender. I'm voting for who I think is the best qualified and experienced to lead our country. And I am sorry to say that with only two years in congress Barack Obama does not qualify in my opinion. Now I am sure this will make you respond but, I will not see it as I am quite busy today and I have to get going. So keep spewing your hate Girllie-Man because as you imply you care about everyone, except those who disagree with you. AJ and Brew1234 sorry I couldn't disrespect you today because my time is short. But, don't let this stop you from calling me names. Later. "
Farmer's Gal wrote on May 11, 2008 11:35 AM:
Farmer's Gal wrote on May 11, 2008 11:33 AM:
I've been reading an absolutely definitive research article on the detrimental effects of industrial farming on communities, and it covers the use of cheap immigrant labor, which is no benefit to the community any way you slice it.
Start with 51 studies, done from the 1930s to the present, using 4 different methodological approaches.
Take care to define "industrial" vs. "family" farming using a combination of factors, not just scale (# of acres, # of animals, $ amount of profits), but also organizational structure -- legal status as incorporated, percentage of work done by hired hands rather than directly by family members, and the typical 3-tiered organizational structure where one groups owns the corporation, a second person or group manages operations on a daily basis, and a third group does the actual work.
Then look at the negative impacts in three categories -- socio-economic, community social fabric, and environmental. I could go into detail, but will save it unless someone shows interest.
Conclusion -- 57% of the studies showed a vast preponderance of negative effects of industrialized agriculture on communities in all three categories. Another 25% showed at least some significant portion of negative effects, making a total of 82% of 51 studies done over 7 decades showing detrimental effects of corporate agribusiness on communities in three different kinds of ways. The remaining 18% showed primarily no effect, but they were limited to studies that looked only at certain socio-economic factors and not the whole picture. Of those, only 3 studies showed significant positive effects, and when looked at more carefully, they were positive economic effects for a small portion of the population.
It couldn't be more plain or more conclusive -- corporate agribusiness is destructive, not just of the environment, and our health, but of the very fabric and well-being of our communities.
Anyone interested -- I can provide details about how bringing in low-cost immigrant labor lowers the overall economic state of the community, drives out the middle class, creating an ever bigger divide between the wealthy and the poor, requires ever more social services, increases crime, etc etc. It is not an overall indictment of individuals, some of whom are surely decent, hard-working people trying to help their families back home any way they can, but as an aggregate, it is to the detriment of our own communities. "
karl wrote on May 11, 2008 11:33 AM:
Brilliantly stated, once again! "
karl wrote on May 11, 2008 11:32 AM:
Anyway--I think I should definitely apologize to "anonymous"--I see now that YOU are the author of all these stupid racist remarks against Obama that grow like weeds here; you obviously have REAL ISSUES, and your Racism is on display for everyone to see. Hang your head, Queen Latrine!
Apologies, "anonymous"! "
theking wrote on May 11, 2008 10:54 AM:
Farmer's Gal wrote on May 11, 2008 10:01 AM:
I couldn't give a hoot about defining "liberalism" or "conservatism" -- they are both just labels, defined differently by each person who uses them.
My view is that it is all about defining your franchise then working for the best interests of that group. Communism (at the theoretical level, not in practice in the real world) defined all people as the franchise -- and that would never work, because there are too many conflicting interests within the group. National Socialists defined the franchise racially -- which is certainly not a good plan. Then there are those who cannot conceive of a franchise bigger then their own selves, or perhaps by their class (even though we like to pretend social classes don't exist in this country) -- that's what makes the world so fractious, every man for himself. I'd like to define my franchise as local community first, then as a whole country. I don't mean America, right or wrong, but rather, take care of your own first, make sure every person in this country has what s/he needs first, and only be sending off foreign aid if there is money left over. I suppose you could call me an isolationist at heart, impractical as that is in the modern world.
Thanks for the Orwell quotation, AJ -- right on the money. The English system, which still has hooks in our own, is all about protecting the "opulence of the minority" against the masses, as I believe it was James Madison put it. The most pervasive underlying problem with our world today is government by the affluent with a sole goal of continuing and increasing their affluence and power at the expense of everyone else.
I've been pulling my own weight since I was in college 20+ years ago, with a short exception when I was injured. I've told that story here too many times and naturelover will have a heart attack if I repeat it. ;-) Bottom line -- the safety net which is supposed to be there when productive members of society fall on hard times was not there for me AT ALL.
From my own painful experiences, I learned more compassion for others in need. I find on the whole that the privileged who've never really had to suffer through truly tough times tend to be the most stingy and least compassionate people, along with a handful of those who've let hard times make them bitter and selfish and have the attitude "It was hard for me, why should we make it easier for you?" Because that's how we evolve as human beings, that's how we move past Darwin and pure animalistic ways of interacting with others.
quiveringthigh -- agreed on the sociology of medications. We're encouraged in these directions by marketing firms for pharmaceutical companies. The average person does not have the time and wherewithal to pursue good answers to medical questions -- it can be very hard to be faced with difficult symptoms and go against your doctor who is saying Just take this pill, esp. when the insurance companies won't cover alternative treatments or going deeper to look for root causes.
You don't really want to trade academic qualifications, do you? Being educated can be just as much an attitude towards learning and understanding as some other measure. A person can be very good at being a student, understand the system and know how to get good grades without becoming well-educated. And vice versa. My ex is one of the best educated people I have ever known in my life -- and he never finished college. He just had a constantly active mind, always reading, thinking, probing, looking for more, analyzing and synthesizing what he learned. For those pieces of paper to be worth anything, you have to have had your heart and mind in the work and keep on using them long after the diploma and honors have yellowed from age. "
karl wrote on May 11, 2008 9:53 AM:
karl wrote on May 11, 2008 9:53 AM:
McCain may not be a true Conservative, but he sucking up to that lunatic fringe like he IS ONE! AND he's the WORST candidate out there, for all the reasons I previously stated!
quiveringLowLife, I should have expected you to sink to the level of throwing slurs against my career, but to see you moved to comment on the absolute irrelevance of "the furry boots"(?!) shows that you're out of legitimate arguments and can only resort to cheap high-schoolish insults. YOu defame yourself even more by such teenage tactics. Grow up.
Anyway, here's the problem with your--and other people who think like you--weak argument against what you see as "liberal" compassion. You see people who abuse the system, and you are comfortable to let your ignorant prejudice then slam the door on the people who REALLY need it. You would judge and condemn ALL for the sake of a few. I would suggest to you that you are NO BETTER than they who would take the last slice of bread from the basket when the person behind them in line is showing their ribs through their skin.
You know, for the life of me, I cannot fathom why people like you cannot find any empathy whatsoever for REAL VICTIMS of hardship.
I'm not talking about panderers, lazy slackers, unmotivated bums who leech off the system--is that REALLY all your puny brain can allow your selfish heart to see or imagine?
Half of those homeless people you see are mentally defective, or unable to cope for themselves. MANY OF THEM ARE VETS! SOme of them are out on the streets because they have had medical issues which have taken their last dime, or other personal catastrophes.
And yes, some of them are drug addicts.
But you're willing to slam the door in the face of all for the sins of a few. Maybe this allows you some selfish satisfaction that nobody's getting more of the share of the pie than you are, but it only shows how truly limited, stingy, and narrow your thinking and perspective is.
Honestly--how you can NOT be ashamed of admitting something so heartless and ignorant is, quite frankly, beyond my ability to understand.
One thing you said really struck me--"if members of your immediate "tribe" have defects, or flaws, then it is up to the tribe to acknowledge and act accordingly"--so like, what are you saying? SHould we just cut to the chase then and gas 'em all? Really, quiveringNazi? "
theking wrote on May 11, 2008 9:18 AM:
pentangelli wrote on May 11, 2008 7:56 AM:
you are so misled...what are you "the king" of ? The house with the half moon on the door. "
AJ wrote on May 11, 2008 1:10 AM:
quiveringthigh wrote on May 11, 2008 12:20 AM:
quiveringthigh wrote on May 11, 2008 12:02 AM:
" A conservative is one who has not yet fallen into hard times and has never had to swallow his pride and ask for help from his fellow man. But when they ever need that help, they will get it, even though they have spent their life denouncing the welfare system. That is because a liberal will help his fellow man whether he is a drunken lout, a drug addict or even a greedy conservative. In the play "Les Miserables" I am moved to tears when the priest gives the silver to Valjean. A conservative would say "what a chump". "
Well BREW, how hard of a time have you had???? Care to swap stories??? Love to hear what you have to say. Next time you open your mouth let me know, so I can grab my MUCK rake. DEAL? "
theking wrote on May 11, 2008 12:00 AM:
quiveringthigh wrote on May 10, 2008 11:56 PM:
I can see if members of your immediate "tribe" have defects, or flaws, then it is up to the tribe to acknowledge and act accordingly. Dude, I see homeless people every day. I don't feel sorry for them, they rely on society to feel sorry, so they can get a handout. "will work for food", come on those people are working for your sympathy, Ya probably fall for it. Yes, they are working. Making money off of bleeding heart liberals that think that they are just down on their luck. Well, Mr. Wilkepedia and I will help everyone, you have just got an education. Leave the Hall! "
AJ wrote on May 10, 2008 11:37 PM:
You believe lies by those who lack any credibility and have major conflicts of interest, even when the truth is staring you right in your face.
You need to learn to think for yourself, but frankly, I think you are beyond hope. "
ANGMOM3 wrote on May 10, 2008 11:35 PM:
brew1234 wrote on May 10, 2008 11:24 PM:
karl wrote on May 10, 2008 11:19 PM:
"Liberalism refers to a broad array of related ideas and theories of government that consider individual liberty to be the most important political goal.[1] Modern liberalism has its roots in the Age of Enlightenment."
DUH? That sounds an AWFUL LOT like our founding fathers' ideals and goals?
The FF's were all inspired by the ideals of the Enlightenment; I mean, it's so blatant a fact of History that I can only assume you skipped that class?
Read on, quiveringskipper--
"liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. Different forms of liberalism may propose very different policies, but they are generally united by their support for a number of principles, including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy, and a transparent system of government.[2] All liberals — as well as some adherents of other political ideologies — support some variant of the form of government known as liberal democracy, with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law."
YOU'VE JUST BEEN EDUCATED, quiveringcluelessone! "
brew1234 wrote on May 10, 2008 11:16 PM:
oldtimer wrote on May 10, 2008 10:59 PM:
Turf !!!!!!! NO---NO---NO "
karl wrote on May 10, 2008 10:57 PM:
quiveringsycophant, please get a dose of reality?
The only thing Queenie is "on to" is the same stuff you've obviously baked into your brownies.
"Liberalism" is, in a word, quite simply the antithesis of stingy and selfish Conservatism. Liberalism believes that we are all part of the same clan, the same family, the same Humanity, and sees the worth in all--unlike Queenie's and Chris's Conservatism (which may just be military brainwashing?) which says "Only the Strong survive".
Liberalism is compassionate toward they who have fallen from grace and on hard times.
Conservatism--as embodied by Q and C--condemns, and seeks to expunge.
Liberalism sees nuance and circumstances; Q+C's Conservatism sees only the cold comfort of black and white.
It's no surprise that Conservatism is also tied to so many radical religious groups who also see the World and Morality in comfortably exclusionary terms of black and white.
I believe that Human beings are, in their most primitive state, selfish and self serving; the predatory instinct that is the basal need to survive.
"NO you can't have a piece of meat"
It's MINE!"
I hunted it, therefore I'll eat it!"
The problem is, when you don't feed your tribe members, the tribe is not there to help defend YOUR cave.
And when you leave your injured, sick, or old tribe members behind when they can no longer hunt and actively contribute, then you set an example; and when the mammoth steps on YOUR leg and hobbles you, then YOU'RE the one left behind as prey for the wolves.
I sincerely hope that Queenie learns what it's like to be the one on the travail one day, and to need other people, and to learn to his shame and embarrassment what it means to have people care for him when he's unable to. That would be some small measure of justice.
"
quiveringthigh wrote on May 10, 2008 10:37 PM:
Our country was not founded on liberaliam, if it was, we would still belong to England. Come on people get a CLUE! "
theking wrote on May 10, 2008 8:57 PM:
quiveringthigh wrote on May 10, 2008 6:42 PM:
Farmer's Gal wrote on May 10, 2008 6:10 PM:
We'll let you make all the personal contributions to the military you like while we try to force our government "of the people, by the people, for the people" into something more closely resembling sanity in the way they spend our money.
Your spelling can be excused but your attitude cannot, though I'm sure you don't care.
Here's a tip -- don't ever try to run for office with an attitude towards other people such as yours. The voting public likes to think their elected officials have at least an iota of concern for their fellow human beings.
Thanks, Karl, for pointing out just a small corner of what gallows humor it is to call what we have "advancements" in medicine -- an often health-destroying drug-based approach to "health" pushed by the pharmaceutical industry treating surface symptoms, often to the detriment of deeper causes.
I've never seen "Sicko" nor even really concerned myself with its content. I figured this one out myself with the old tried-and-true, trial-n-error, school-of-hard-knocks, personal-experience-plus-research and reading-the-paper-while-thinking-critically approach. "
karl wrote on May 10, 2008 6:05 PM:
As if everyone is just master of their own world. As if predatory lending and other benefits and pension severances haven't stolen the fortunes--meager as some of them may be--from those people.
You have no perspective and no heart.
And by the way, I think military spending should be cut, the troops returned home, and apologies issued to the Middle East for the way we're just ROYALLY F***ed things up over there. "
theking wrote on May 10, 2008 5:05 PM:
karl wrote on May 10, 2008 5:00 PM:
"A modern day Neville Chamberlain"? OK then, Chris--then I'm assuming that you agree that Bush is the modern day Hitler" Cheney the modern day Boorman? Rush Limpboy the modern day Goebbels?
Glad to see we agree on something!
But seriously CHris--ypou obviously haven't a clue about History. If you think Obam would be an appeaser, that only reflects the way that troglodyte ignoramuses like you think and function. YOu know--whatever they turned you into in boot camp ("yes SIR! SEMPER FI, DO OR DIE!, THANK YOU SIR MAY I HAVE ANOTHER!")--that just shows how injured your spirit is, and how programmed you are. THAT'S downright scary! FYI< it takes a BIGGER MAN to admit a mistake, say we were wrong, and to ask for terms and communication. I know, I know--that's something you will never understand--more's the pity.
Now let's talk about your "advancements in medicine" theory...(chuckle, chuck--oh you DO amuse me!)
Let's see--in the past few years, drugs like Ritalin, Adderall, Focalin, Methylin, Metadate, Concerta and similar medications used to treat attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder have been, in some cases, pulled from shelves in Canada and face lawsuits here at home because they can cause heart attacks and other dangerous side effects.
Merc Co is being sued for Vioxx which has caused over 60,000 deaths!
Zyprexa, Risperdal and Seroquel.
Zyprexa, Risperdal and Seroquel face similar lawsuits for a whole host of probelms associated with them.
Aspartame, a deadly chemical which can drastically affect the brain and central nervous system, continues to be used as a sugar substitute!
The Ortho-Evra birth control patch has been recalled.
The new genital warts vaccine-which even I was wrong about--is now showing to have MANY MORE deadly side effects than was admitted to--and that positively FLEW onto the market!
And the list goes on--Fen Phen, Bextra, Baycol, Celebrex, Rezulin--ALL THESE "NEW" DRUGS KILL!
The reason is the damned "Profit Motive"--do you know that pharmaceutical companies spent THREE TIMES AS MUCH on advertising for new drugs as they actually did on R&D? They want you to be sick, and to write you a prescription for some new "miracle drug".
More often than not lately, that drug is WORSE than the ill it's supposed to cure!
So, sorry to disabuse you of your illusions about the "advancements in medicines and drugs", but you really should do your research, boy. "
quiveringthigh wrote on May 10, 2008 4:54 PM:
chris van note wrote on May 10, 2008 4:05 PM:
As far as health care goes, just because we don't live in a cradle-to-grave welfares state doesn't make it a bad system. Gee AJ, I wonder where most of the advancements in medicine and drugs are made? Russia..no China..no France..no Cuba..no Its right here. Funny how people with the means will leave their free health care to come to the states for treatment. Lemme guess, you watched "Sicko" and now you have an opinion. "
AJ wrote on May 10, 2008 3:14 PM:
Hagee and Parsley are complete jackas$es. Interesting the double standard the media has when it comes to this issue. But even stranger when you realize that Obama is probably just another establishment tool. I hope if he gets elected he will truly follow through on his rhetoric - he may be the best chance we have (though I'd love to see Cynthia McKinney win, or Jesse Ventura (hope he manages to get in the race)).
To all you stingy conservatives out there - ask anyone in any other country if they would trade their health care system for ours. What do you think they would say? I don't think they would touch ours with a ten foot pole.
"
Farmer's Gal wrote on May 10, 2008 1:46 PM:
I hope it gets posted, as I said nothing half as objectionable as the things I read here about Presidential candidates, and nothing Mr. Finch doesn't openly say about himself (though in less positive terms than he presents them).
I also hope folks who care will read it and take what I say there into consideration when voting in the election for the 123rd district Assemblyperson.
Mostly using the word "Change" is just rhetoric, but here's an opportunity to effect change on a locally meaningful level -- time to step away from candidates who openly support corporate interests first and foremost. "
Farmer's Gal wrote on May 10, 2008 1:40 PM:
I agree with you about needed decisions in crisis situations supposedly being made "for the good of the masses" being dangerous things. Better if we hashed out a plan before we reach that point. Trouble is, the people in power already have their plans well underway while we still debate -- and I'll be the last one to claim I have an answer. Wish I did.
"
chris van note wrote on May 10, 2008 1:24 PM:
Color has nothing to do with it. Obama is
a modern day version of Neville Chamberlain. "
karl wrote on May 10, 2008 11:03 AM:
As Farmer's Gal so astutely stated, "...the danger of having McCain elected is too great for me to mess around on pure principles and I feel I will have to vote for the Democrat, though it will really, really go against my grain if I am forced to go with Clinton."--I agree 110%!!!
Obama is not the "perfect candidate" by any means, and believe me, I'm a little too cynical to be swept along with all that "hope" rhetoric, but what I see in Obama IS a break from the past--from the Clinton/Bush years and their legacies, and from the damned warhawk attitude embodied by McCain which is currently ruining our economy and our futures.
CM--an astute observation about the "535" as well--which is also why a vote for Obama makes sense! Hillary has too many haters who will not work with her, and McCain as well has made many enemies with his temper and vindictiveness--it was well-reported in Newsweek! The last thing we need this November is a candidate who is already dragging along the baggage of old vendettas/alliances and continuing the divisiveness of Congress!
ANONYMOUS--YOu are an enstupider. YOu do everything you can to enstupid people!
NO seriously--you're the one who posts all these racist comments and you call MOI an "enflamer"?? (For the record, it's INflamer" with an "I"!)
FARMER'S GAL--excellently stated once again! YOu make some GREAT points! I can't say I DIS-agree with anything you've posted there! "
melinda@neal.us wrote on May 10, 2008 10:57 AM:
Farmer's Gal wrote on May 10, 2008 8:35 AM:
Having taxes go for things like health care or education means living in a country where there are more healthy and educated people, which benefits everyone -- some directly and some indirectly.
I get tired of hearing people whine: I don't have kids, why should I pay for those kids of welfare mothers, etc. Well, those kids are getting born anyway and wouldn't you rather they were cared for in a healthy fashion and educated when you cross paths with them in your life? Maybe if they had more attention and care and education, esp. health education, they wouldn't HAVE to many in the first place!
Everyone benefits from investments in health care and education, just the same as investing in the infrastructure of roads and bridges is beneficial even to those without cars -- goods and services still come to all people (with or without vehicles of their own) via trucks and trains and so forth.
Right now the only ones profiting from the health care racket are the pharmaceutical and insurance companies. They even get to dictate to your doctor what treatments he can prescribe for which diagnoses -- and they push doctors to prescribe pharmaceuticals even when diet, exercise, meditation, herbal supplements or holistic practices would actually work better. Drugs are usually aimed at symptoms more than causes, and masking symptoms can often lead to worse health problems -- but the pharmaceutical industry doesn't care; in fact, that just means you buy MORE drugs to cover MORE symptoms and they chuckle all the way to the bank as you get less healthy.
We need a drastic clean-sweep start-over-from-scratch approach to health care in this country. I don't know that I'd trust socialized medicine when we have a government already in the back pocket of corporate interests, but what we have does NOT WORK.
I don't like Obama any better than the other candidates. He has some positions I despise. He remains the lesser evil of the currently viable three options.
atlopinion, many years I did not vote for just the reasons to which you allude -- I could not bring myself to vote for any of the scumbags on the slate. Sometimes I'd write-in my mom's name.
But this year, the danger of having McCain elected is too great for me to mess around on pure principles and I feel I will have to vote for the Democrat, though it will really, really go against my grain if I am forced to go with Clinton.
And none of my above views have anything to do with race or gender -- no card to be played here. "
anonymous wrote on May 10, 2008 8:31 AM:
cm wrote on May 10, 2008 8:24 AM:
Karl you say McCAin is OLD so we should see who his VP is.
I wonder who will out Obama and who will be his replacement? "
pentangelli wrote on May 10, 2008 8:22 AM:
do you think that healthcare is the only reason they take your money ??
WHAT ABOUT THE MILITARY ?
What about the senior citizens that are struggling to survive the costs of medical care ??
End all this military spending and your taxes will go down AND healthcare will improve "
cm wrote on May 10, 2008 8:20 AM:
They all can give "written by somene else" speeches But the bottom line is they still need to answer to 535 others!
those OTHERS have yet to make logical decisions to benefit the country! those OTHERS are sucking our wallets dry!
No mater who is in office NOTHING will ever get done with the OTHERS one-upping their vetos. It seems to be more of a power game than actual aiding the country and its citizens!!
ALL of the 535 (congress)act like 5yr olds trying to be the "teachers pet" the teachers in this case are the oil companies/big business/or any other that gives "nice presents" to the 535!
Everyone is more worried about who to elect for Pres. and neglect whos running in their own backyard-thats moving up the ladder quietly-that will be/or is already one of the 535!!!!! "
mb wrote on May 10, 2008 7:50 AM:
brew1234 wrote on May 10, 2008 2:47 AM:
karl wrote on May 10, 2008 1:32 AM:
Because when Joe can't pat for his health care, more often than not, he can't pay for his family's health care.
When he can't pay for he or his family's health care, they will: 1; let their health problems go undiagnosed or untreated until they become advanced, requiring more expensive or radical treqtment and 2; be more than likely to use the Emergency Room for what then becomes a true emergency.
Now, if they can't pay for insurance, they damned well sure are probably not going to have money to pay for the treatment, so then three possible things happen:
1. They don't get treated--which may lead to loss of their job or death. If Joe dies, you have a family on welfare. And we know how you "Compassionate Conservatives" hate that!
Or, 2.They can't pay the hospital bill, which leads to higher medical and insurance costs for the EVERYBODY.
Or,3, they die. I am going to assume that the last option there doesn't trouble your conscience one bit, but strangely, it does, me.
See, in your typically selfish Conservative fashion, you care only about yourself--or they whom you deem "worthy". There is, in you, both a real and sincere lack of compassion for Humanity, and the realization that if ALL of Humanity is not elevated and taken care of, then it brings ALL of society down and costs ALL of us more.
Besids, Queenie, we already pay for the damned Military's Health Care, so maybe this country is a little more "Socialist" (oh BROTHER!) than you think?
Guess what, Queenie--you'd be paying for MY Health Care too, because I am COMPLETELY uninsured. "
theking wrote on May 9, 2008 10:40 PM:
quiveringthigh wrote on May 9, 2008 10:12 PM:
karl wrote on May 9, 2008 9:40 PM:
Hillary is obviously a dirty player. Her tactics which she has shown on this campaign trail have convinced me that were she to be elected, she would make even MORE enemies on the hill, and all the old rivalries and vendettas would still be there. We need NEW leadership, new ideas.
2John McCain--speaking of old ideas...privatizing Social Security? Staying at war and promising even more wars? Electing Conservative, Pro-Business, Anti-Abortion judges to the Supreme Court? OLD IDEAS. John McCain is well known to be a hothead, and NOT, IMHO, the kind of loose cannon you want in the White House. Plus, he's the OLDEST candidate EVER! If he kicks it while in office, who do we get? Some unvetted, untested VP? No thanks! McCain has already shown himself to be a flip-flopping a$$ kissing panderer, changing his views on several topics in order to sell out to Conservative voters.
Barack may be untested, but the important thing is, he is young, and offers a fresh direction and a new vision. Surely you can't say that the country is on anything approaching "the right track"? At this point, what we need is a new and fresh vision for America. I'm not voting for Obama because he's black. I'm voting for him because he's the only one of the three that will not keep the country in the same stalemated rut where it's been for the past 16 years of Clinton/Bush. And McCain is a Bush-redux.
If you can't "endorse" or get excited about a candidate, vote for Obama for the fact alone that he offers a different direction than the awful road we're on now. "
AtlOpinion wrote on May 9, 2008 7:49 PM:
quiveringthigh wrote on May 9, 2008 7:07 PM:
Farmer's Gal wrote on May 9, 2008 6:35 PM:
karl wrote on May 9, 2008 4:53 PM:
After Barack Obama wisely renounced the Rev. Wright's endorsement, John McCain has still not renounced Pastor John Hagee's endorsement.
"Mr. Hagee, who argues that the United States must join Israel in a preemptive, biblically prophesized military strike against Iran that will lead to the second coming of Christ, praised Mr. McCain for his pro-Israel views.
Mr. McCain, who has been on a steady search for support among conservative and evangelical leaders who have long distrusted him, said he was “very honored'’ by Mr. Hagee’s endorsement. Asked about Mr. Hagee’s extensive writings on Armageddon and about what one questioner said was Mr. Hagee’s belief that the anti-Christ will be the head of the European Union, Mr. McCain responded that “all I can tell you is that I am very proud to have Pastor John Hagee’s support.'.
AND YOU WANT MCCAIN IN OFFICE, SUPPORTED BY KOOKS LIKE THIS???
Talk about POOR JUDGMENT!!!! "
karl wrote on May 9, 2008 4:47 PM:
Who wants to take credit--anonymous?
Seriously, whatcha gonna do when YOUR PRESIDENT is black?
I'm going to sit here, smug and satisfied! "