Vote Early, Vote Often!

[Lisabob 13]

Well Brent (and others) I certainly never expected to convince you to agree with my own list of Democrats who make me "feel good" (or at least, who do not cause me to be horrified on a regular basis, as Pres. Bush does). That's fine. Just offering my views in response to your query, is all, and it might be worth noting that many other Americans take a similar view. No point in discounting about half of the (voting) population out of hand. But let me respond to your latest suggestion that Dems want to see the US lose the war in Iraq for purely political gain.

 

I am a Democrat. Although I have opposed the war from the start, I do not want to see us lose in Iraq. Nor do I know any other Democrats who want to see that happen. In fact to many Democrats that is the worst possible scenario. At this point the stakes are so high, even those who oppose the war tend to agree that winning, or at least, stemming the losses, matters a great deal. Most Democrats I know (and increasing #s of Republicans too), however, also agree that the war is, in fact, not going well. That losing is a very real possibility. That the execution of the war has been bungled at best. Consequently, while Democrats are divided about how to proceed (but so are Republicans, note), none who I know are gleeful about losing.

 

When it comes to politics I always find it helpful to get out of the box a bit. Talk reasonably to people whose views differ and actually listen to what they have to say. Don't accept or perpetuate a caricature of the other side. Doesn't mean you have to agree, but "know your enemy" in an intellectually honest and meaningful way.

 

Lisa'bob

 

 

 

 

[Eagledad 2779]

>>Many studies show that people without insurance are therefore more likely to postpone medical care until their problem becomes severe, because they want to avoid the 100% out of pocket expense. This ends up being economically inefficient in the long run, both for individuals and for society as a whole

[Gonzo1 10]

Hunt,

You said ...haven't we been told repeatedly that the insurgents killing US troops on an almost daily basis in Iraq and Afghanistan are terrorists?

 

Indeed, we have been told on a daily basis, but what the media hasn't told us is how many terrorist have been sent to allah.

 

Lisa,

I agree, the progress is slower in Iraq and Afganistan than most of us would like. Too bad they didn't ask me for tactical or strategic advice. I'd have our guys locate the strong hold and bomb the living daylights out of them instead of trying to snipe them. Problem is, the enemy like to break the "rule of war" by shooting at us from hospitals, cemeteries, museums and places of worship.

 

Ed,

You have good point, the best candidate is always best.

 

News Flash......News Flash......

I'm actually voting for one democrat today, because he is the better candidate and an incumbent.

 

[OldGreyEagle 5]

Ah Healthcare, the favorite whipping boy because it's easier to blame an institution than a single person, well usually.

 

To understand the ferderal government's role in healthcare, we have to go back to 1965 and Lyndon B Johnson's "Great Society". One of the parts of the great society was that old people shouldnt have to die in their homes, that is, wouldn't it be a better idea if old people could die with dignity in an ultramodern medical surrounding that best fits the greatest country on earth. Thus Medicare was born, a federal government program to pay the hospital bills of the elderly, or so it would seem. Today of course, Medicare and hospitals want to discharge patients home or to Hospice facilities where they can die in dignity surrounded by the ones they love. The point that is often missed is that hospitals don't get paid that they bill to Medicare. Medicare started the concept of paying accoding to diagnosis for Inpatients. When a Medicare patient goes into the hospital for a total hip and its uncomplicated, the hospital gets $x regardless of what they charge. When a Medicare patient goes for an outpatient chest xray, the hospital will get a predetermined amount of money set by a national number and manipulated by local variations of cost. It doesnt matter what a hospital charges, they get paid what Medicare decides. The same thing happens with most Insurances. Hospitals have a list price like most car dealers, its a starting point, nothing more.

 

Interestingly enough, healthcare is one of the few industries where it gets penalized for increasing efficiency.

[Trevorum 24]

"Talk reasonably to people whose views differ and actually listen to what they have to say. Don't accept or perpetuate a caricature of the other side."

 

Spoken like a true Democrat.

 

We had an interesting thread along these lines some while back (maybe election 04?) Anyways, one observation was that people on the right side of the political spectrum tend to see issues in absolute terms, while people on the left side tend to see things in shades of gray. A vast oversimplification of course, but with some truth perhaps. I do believe that people on the right are more inclined to accept information on faith alone while people on the left are more inclined to doubt and question the wisdom of others.

[BrentAllen 10]

Lisa,

John Murtha doesn't want us to win, he only wants us to leave. There are plenty of Democrats who agree with him.

 

Want more evidence Democrats want us to lose?

 

"Democrats to benefit from Iraq quagmire: Opinion poll

 

NEW YORK: A new poll has confirmed that widespread dissatisfaction over Iraq could spell the end of the Republican dominance of Congress, with voters saying they expect the Democrats to cut US involvement in Iraq.

 

The final New York Times/CBS News poll before next Tuesday's midterm elections showed a significant majority of Americans expect Democrats to reduce or end US military involvement in Iraq if they win control of Congress.

 

By contrast, they believe President George W. Bush's Republicans would maintain or increase troop levels to try to win the war if they maintain power, the Times said in its online edition."

 

Gee, how many times have I heard a Democrat use the term "quagmire" when describing Iraq? Democrats see these polls, and know if we are winning in Iraq, their chances of winning at the polls are greatly reduced. So yes, they are pulling for us to lose, just so they can get elected to office. Paint a bleak picture, never report any of the successes, give encouragement to the enemy that he is winning. That is just sickening.

 

More evidence? The California State Democratic Party Convention in April, the largest gathering of state-party Democrats in the nation, passed a resolution calling for the termination of the occupation of Iraq and withdrawal of American troops from that country. They aren't interested in winning, only in cutting and running.

As you said, that is the worst scenario possible, but it is what they want.

 

[CalicoPenn 729]

I have yet to find anyone who could clearly articulate how withdrawing our troops from Iraq and losing is one and the same thing. The closest I've seen is someone who stated that leaving is giving up - but the argument seems to fall apart when countered that we could declare that our objectives have been met, tell the Iraqi's the balls back in their court, and leave Iraq - not as losers or giving up, but as winners who have succeeded in doing what we set out to do (whatever that is - there've been so many iterations, I don't think anyone knows anymore).

 

Seems simple to me - declare victory and leave - that satisfies everyone - the folks who insist that we must win, and the folks who are saying lets stop getting our kids killed in a foreign land where we have outstayed our welcome/mission.

 

Calico

[Gonzo1 10]

Calico,

"cutting and running" is the same as surrender. Leaving before Iraq can take care of itself and before the terrorists are gone will only empower terrorists to continue attacking. Terrorists believe that the American public will tire of seeing video of IED's,burning HUMVEE's, and hearing the US death toll. Unfortunately, we don't hear about the successes in Iraq. When Clinton did a half baked mission to Somalia, we didn't plan, couldn't conduct a proper mission and left before it was finished, then empowering terrorists.

 

If we leave while claiming victory, democrats and liberals will re-write history and say that we lost. They'll claim that we should join a 'one world' type government and so on.

 

I agree with many that it's going slower than most would like. What I can't figure out is why the Saddam apologists think the world is better off with Saddam in power.

 

Put another way: The only thing between Saddam Hussein and Adolf Hitler is ...........Time.

Hitler killed 6 million Jews

Saddam killer + / - 1 million Iraqis

 

One thing is certain, we will probably be in Iraq for a long time.

WW-II ended in 1945, we still have troops in Germany and Italy

The Korean War ended in 1953, we still have troops in S. Korea

We've had troops in the Persian Gulf region for decades (I was on the USS Aubrey Fitch in the Gulf in 1986)

So, who knows when we will leave Iraq.

 

Be strong, Be all you can be.

Be vigilant without being a vigilante.

 

G

[CalicoPenn 729]

Gonzo,

 

I appreciate the answer but I'm still not buying it. Cutting and Running is just another soundbite with no real meaning behind it, similar to leaving and losing. The arguments still don't convince that leaving (or "cutting and running") means losing.

 

The "terrorists" will be no more empowered to attack us than they already are while we are in Iraq. (And I purposely quotation the word terrorist because my opinion is that we are using it too loosely with regards to the situation in Iraq - we all understand and agree that the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks were terrorists - now we're to believe and agree that the insurgents are also terrorists - but any honest review of mankinds history shows that insurgents (by definition, rebels against a government) have made considerable changes in how our world now looks - our founding fathers, rebelling against England, were insurgents, as were the Afghan Mujahadeen fighting Russia - England and Russia might very well have called those folks terrorists too - I don't think most of us would agree that our founding fathers were terrorists - or agree that the Boston Tea Party was a terrorist attack (though it could honestly be said to have been one)). Right now, those "terrorists" are in Iraq attacking US citizens and don't seem to be very anxious to come here to attack us - why insist that we keep our soldiers in harms way in the middle of a civil war - let the Iraqi people fight it out - it's their country, not ours.

 

And it is their country - I've seen no one apologizing for Saddam, no one saying the world would be a better place with him still in charge (ask the talking head pundits who made those claims to back them up - they can't - but that's beside the point). The Iraqi people didn't ask for this war, this war that has turned into a civil war in their country - and they didn't seem to be in a big hurry to get rid of the guy. They say they are happy now that he is gone but they didn't get rid of him - and, again my opinion, they should have been the people to take the initial steps.

 

Calico

[packsaddle 753]

Calico, I think the better example of domestic terrorism is any of the three manifestations of the KKK, first during reconstruction, second after WWI, and the most recent culminating with David Duke, etc. All of these originated in my home region, one very close by (Stone Mountain, GA).

 

I have puzzled over why hate seems to arise and flourish in my region. To be sure, it certainly exists elsewhere (Aryan Nation types for example) but I grew up with it all around me. I sometimes wonder if it is a sort of social inheritance from slavery times. I wish I knew. The loose assocation with fundamentalist Christianity also puzzles me. This region is so rich with contradictions - subtle deceptions as soft as our customs and as hard as our prejudices. I have sought explanations for this all my life and still am not satisfied with the answers. The best I can do is that hate seems to grounded on some kind of fear and the fear can, in turn, arise from ignorance. Not the kind of qualities I would like to associate with the South, I'm afraid.

 

But the thoughtless, black-and-white nature of hate Southern Style is perfect for a political and religious environment of blind faith. That part seems clear to me. It might apply elsewhere too.

[Gonzo1 10]

Calico,

Cutting and running is about the same as surrender.

 

No, the foundig fathers weren't terrorists, but the term was coined by Reagan. I'm sure now that someone will cite a link for who actually coined the term, doesn't matter.

 

The president has said numerous times that we will leave Iraq when the job is finished, when Iraq can take care of itself and when we are not needed. I guess the pictures (from the liberal media) of Iraqis cheering the recent sentence in Saddam's trial aren't real? The Iraqis really are happy that their systems worked. The Iraqi people couldn't do anything before, they were powerless. No they have access to government, women can go to school and work, they can even be politicians.

 

As for the word terrorist, if they are shooting at us, you could say insurgent, guerilla, whatever. I kinda like coward. They kidnap people, strap bombs to them and send them out. They hide in hospitals, cemeteries and mosques to shoot at us. BUT, if we shoot back Al-Jazeera will only show that, won't they? that would make us to be the bad guy.

 

Discussing politics is tough. Especially in these type written forums without hand gestures, inflection, the look into your eye, and frankly it can be down right upsetting.

 

To all,

I don't mean to offend anyone.

It's easy to arm chair quarterback if you haven't been there, done that, right?

I really enjoy these chats and I more enjoy exchanging ideas and information about scouting.

 

Gonzo

[Fuzzy Bear 12]

I would like to think that I have an answer for the "war" in Iraq but it is now in such a mess that the terms winning and losing makes no sense to me. Cutting and running doesn't mean surrender either; it means that we just don't have a clue as to what we are doing there. We are presently getting the living dog do kicked out of us. If that means we are losing given the complexities there, then it may only be one definition of the term. Terrorism isn't a war that stops at the border either. If we stop them there, it doesn't mean we win and they lose. It means that we still have a group of people that hate us so much that they will stop at nothing to kill us even after we win whatever it is that we are trying to win.

 

I am not a Bush fan but I was for the limited war that Bush first talked about. Remember the "We are not nation builders" speech? I believed that there were WMD at that time that was headed our way. I almost believed Chaney when he said that if there was any chance of WMD that we should have gone in to Iraq also. The one that threw me the most was Saddam himself with his stay out of my country tantrums. It looked real to me from a distance. Now I find that everyone was lying about all of it. All of this is much, much bigger than the "I didn't have sex with that woman" thing that those on the Right were so enraged about just a few years ago. People are now dying for who knows what reason. Coming home will only give our guys a rest. There will be plenty more battles where this one came from.

 

Health insurance; 15.8% or more of Americans are without it. That doesn't mean that they have poor health insurance like the Canadians either. fb

(This message has been edited by Fuzzy Bear)

[BrentAllen 10]

Calico,

Using your logic, can we go back and claim we didn't lose in Vietnam? We never surrendered or signed a treaty - we just left. What about Somalia? Didn't we just decide to leave there as well? Oooops! I forgot - that action is supposedly what emboldened bin Laden.

 

Fuzzy - allow me to clarify what a lie is. When someone has sex with another person, and then claimed they didn't - that was a lie. They knew they did it, but claimed otherwise.

 

When someone makes a decision based on intelligence, and later finds the intelligence wasn't correct, that is not a lie. The person making the decision did the best he could with the information he had. If the person knew absolutely that the intelligence was false, and claimed it was true, then that would be a lie. Got it?

[packsaddle 753]

Brent, I agree with your assessment of the Clinton lie. It didn't kill anyone. But Bush lied. He said there was no doubt about WMD. I believed it. I supported Bush's decision as a result. I was wrong.

Bush's decision (and my support) was based on intelligence to which I was not allowed access. I accepted his word as truthful. Later we learned that the intelligence on which he based his statement indicated plenty of doubt about WMD. Contrary to what he said. Bush said there was no doubt. He said this while knowing there WAS doubt. He lied. People are dead as a result.

 

You are in denial, irrationally engaging in thinking errors despite evidence to the contrary. Everyone can see this. The longer you cling to this failed approach, the more difficult it will be for you to correct your thinking. I hope you can.

[Fuzzy Bear 12]

Brent,

 

I didnt and dont support Clintons infidelity or his lie about his infidelity. He lost my respect for him as a husband. There are plenty of Republicans, Democrats and Church leaders with dubious family morals. I dont understand their family/personal problems, especially when they constantly puke morals all over the public. I want my leaders to be great in every way but I know that they are just people with problems that are in office for awhile.

 

Bush said that we are not Nation Builders and now we are trying to build a nation where people dont support it. We are in the midst of a Civil War where we can only lose MORE than one time. That is a lie with bodies attached. Bush loses my respect for not backing his own words as a man. fb