Fred Thompson will become the next President of USA

[taks]

doubtful. the very thing he campaigns against is what will keep him on the fringe.

 

taks

[Sand]

We need a president that can fix the grave mistakes of Bushie so that we can focus on killing terrorists instead of occupying countries, improve foreign relations with various nations, eliminate illegal immigration and secure our borders, give us a working universal health care system, and does not dictate policies of science and scientific studies nor influence their findings based on his religious or political preferences.

[taks]

We need a president that can fix the grave mistakes of Bushie so that we can focus on killing terrorists instead of occupying countries,

tough task given that most terrorists originate in foreign countries

 

improve foreign relations with various nations,

as long as the US is the economic and military superpower, that can't happen either...

 

eliminate illegal immigration and secure our borders,

congressional law can solve all of that, not the president. congress is primarily to blame here, though certainly a history of a lack of enforcement by the executive branch shares the blame.

 

give us a working universal health care system,

the president alone cannot do this. in fact, this isn't within the president's power anyway. congress is responsible here, and constitutional problems abound to say the least. also, the last thing the rest of the socialist world wants is for the primary source of corporate profitability to follow suit. the economic impact to the _world_ economy would be staggering, as well as the impact on further medical research.

 

and does not dictate policies of science and scientific studies nor influence their findings based on his religious or political preferences.

again, not within the president's power to do so. if congress wants to mandate scientific policy, it is up to them to pass laws to do so. the concept of any politician not basing decisions on religious or political preferences is, well, naive at best, ludicrous at worst.

 

taks

[Sand]

So, what we need is a president that can work well with congress without any of this conservative neocon bullcrap. Democrat controlled congress and a Democratic president for the win!

[Guard Dog]

So, what we need is a president that can work well with congress without any of this conservative neocon bullcrap. Democrat controlled congress and a Democratic president for the win!

Last time we had that we threw them out after two years of attempted socilaisim and government excess. I think the ideal make up is a 20 seat democrat majority in the House, and a 9 seat Republican majority in the Senate. Then it does not matter so much who the President is. Any intelligent American should tremble when one party holds all the cards.

[Sand]

True enough, Guard Dog, but when the house and senate are split and the President isn't the member of the majority party nothing really gets done, except useless politicking.

Edited July 17, 2007 by Sand

[Guard Dog]

True enough, Guard Dog, but when the house and senate are split and the President isn't the member of the majority party nothing really gets done, except useless politicking.

YES! That is when we are all safe from them. When they are so hleplessly deadlocked thay cannot hurt us. Jefferson said it: "The government that governs least, governs best"

[Sand]

Then why have Congress and a president at all if the whole point is not to have any governing going on? What do you want? Anarchy? The purpose of government is to govern. Without this purpose government has no reason to exist.

[Guard Dog]

Then why have Congress and a president at all if the whole point is not to have any governing going on? What do you want? Anarchy? The purpose of government is to govern. Without this purpose government has no reason to exist.

Ideally even a divided government will still do what must be done. In other words is something is important (such as defense appropriations, budget approval, etc) is usually sails through with a minimal amount of bickering.

[Sand]

Yes, the status quo may be maintained but there won't be any actual progress. While other nations move on to bigger and greater things our country will be wallowing in ineffective debate that achieves nothing.

[Guard Dog]

Yes, the status quo may be maintained but there won't be any actual progress. While other nations move on to bigger and greater things our country will be wallowing in ineffective debate that achieves nothing.

I just can not understand why in the world you think we need the federal government to get things done in this country. Right now my company is rolling out a new mobile communications system that will literally change the way people watch TV, access the Internet etc. No other country on earth has anything like it or even close. The Federal Government did not do it, we did. Right this very moment Florida is building a hybrid diesel electric bullet train between Orlando, Tampa, and Melbourne. Eventually it will connect every city in Florida. Uncle Sam did not pay one penny or lay one rail. Floridians did with a hotel bed tax. And a Florida company employing Florida workers is doing the actual construction. Not an out of state or even country company that would do it for the lowest bid as a Federal contract would require. All we need Uncle Sam to do is follow the seven articles and twenty two amendments in the Constitution. And get the heck out of our way and lives otherwise.

[Sand]

The motivation of a company or industry is to make money, greed comes first before helping people. That is true with your mobile communications company, as it is for any company. They would do whatever it takes to make profit, no mater who it harms and those without money, without funds to pay for the basic services of food, shelter, and medicine are screwed. The purpose of government is to serve the needs of those who are governed and protect those citizens from ravages of greed and corruption that private industry fosters. Not so much for telecommunications, but the medical and insurance industries are notorious of screwing people over. Without government intervening on our behalf the common person on the street would live in misery while the rich will live in luxury moreso than they do now.

[metadigital]

They should let me deal.

[Guard Dog]

The motivation of a company or industry is to make money, greed comes first before helping people. That is true with your mobile communications company, as it is for any company. They would do whatever it takes to make profit, no mater who it harms and those without money, without funds to pay for the basic services of food, shelter, and medicine are screwed. The purpose of government is to serve the needs of those who are governed and protect those citizens from ravages of greed and corruption that private industry fosters. Not so much for telecommunications, but the medical and insurance industries are notorious of screwing people over. Without government intervening on our behalf the common person on the street would live in misery while the rich will live in luxury moreso than they do now.

 

 

Hmmm. That entire post is so wrong headed I cannot even frame a reply. Congrats Sand, I am speechless.

[Sand]

What can I say? I am a socialist is some ways, especially when it comes to essential necessities one needs to live comfortably in a modern society: Medicine, Shelter, Utilities, Food. There are many things that I like to see the government just get rid of and pair down the bureaucracy, such as eliminating the I.R.S.. I would love to see that aspect of our government removed completely. In its place we have a simple federal level sales tax on all nonessential goods.

Edited July 17, 2007 by Sand

[taks]

you apparently have not read the countless posts i've made, in response to sand (esquire), that simply state: your logic defies.

 

corporate greed actually drives products, and services, that benefit man. if there were no benefit, we would not buy them, and hence, there'd be no profit motive and the product would go away. by the same token, if something needs to be done (or a product developed) that does not fall into the very limited role the government _should_ be playing, that creates demand. if there is demand, there's profit motive and hence, a product that will benefit.

 

simple econ 101. actually, at my school it was econ 110 or 111 (macro vs. micro).

 

taks

[Sand]

Of course those who cannot pay to satiate corporate greed can just die:

 

Woman Dies in California ER

 

 

Edith Isabel Rodriguez died in the Martin Luther King Jr. Harbor Hospital ER, while staff, 911 dispatchers and police refused to act, despite repeated calls. 911 dispatchers argued with callers and refused to call paramedics, claiming no emergency.

 

Police summoned by relatives and bystanders to help her instead arrested her on a parole violation. She died as they were wheeling her from the ER.

 

Rodriguez was bleeding from the mouth and writhing in pain on the ER floor as staff looked on and did nothing to help her. Callers described her situation to dispatchers who refused help. County and state authorities are now investigating her death.

 

Source: http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=63016

[taks]

affirmation of the consequent.

 

her death had nothing to do with "corporate greed," and, even it you could somehow _prove_ a connection, however minute, one case does not prove your argument. people die all the time even in socialist medical states from negligence.

 

should we post every single case in which someone is saved, minus insurance, by the very same ERs you indict with your simplistic argument?

 

taks

[Sand]

No money, no insurance, no medical care. May that be in the ER or people in need of long term care, Taks. That is how the US is in my experience.

Edited July 17, 2007 by Sand

[taks]

none of which had anything to do with why she died, hence my point. you simply assumed that "if you aren't insured, doctors don't care" then noted a case in which someone wasn't insured (actually, that's not even stated in the article nor anything i've read) then said "she, she died because she wasn't insured." it's a logical fallacy and, in this case, not even what happened.

 

as i stated, do you have any information on how many uninsured have been saved? hospitals are legally, and ethically, not allowed to deny care to someone with life threatening injuries. you have one case which isn't even a valid assertion of your entire argument, compared to the tens of thousands of cases which support mine.

 

taks

[Sand]

All you need is one death to create a tragedy.

[taks]

it's got nothing to do with "tragedy." any unnecessary loss of life is a tragedy. you made a claim that attempted to indict the whole system based on one instance (one that doesn't even support your position), ignoring the fact that it almost always works. there are problems with every system, and believe it or not, people really do die needlessly even in the vaulted european system. we just don't hear about those because sicko isn't about their system, it's about ours. sheesh.

 

taks

[metadigital]

Not to mention the complete lack of accountability inherent in a socialist system.

[Lokey]

tough task given that most terrorists originate in foreign countries

Gah, so many lies to choose from. This one is probably my favorite, please entertain us all by trying to back that up.

[taks]

you're really that stupid, right?

 

taks