Be prepared for the "FEAR FACTOR"

[Robsdad]

Can it be true? Has 4 more years passed us by?
That can only mean one thing. Its time for the campaign manager of another sub par candidate to start the charade. As it was in the past election, the candidate presented is not what the conservative base would like, but what the he**. We'll just start up the fear adds again and they won't notice all the blunders he has made in the past. We'll sell a new bill of goods. The towel heads are coming. Maybe that will get their minds off the ailing economy, the fact that there are 47 million citizens without health care insurance and that our country is Trillions in debt to the likes of communists China and we are spending billions per week to fight a useless war. Yea that will work. It worked last time when we put the current failure on the stump. It'll work again.
What you have read is exactly what our elected officials believe. Will you follow suit and step in line and vote for more of the same or will you vote for the betterment of this country? The choice is yours and mine. For one, I am not buying into the fear factor, Defense starts at home if you are concerned about being invaded by terrorists.
My Opinion and I overwhelmingly approve it.

 

[groinster]

Oh good, maybe you can answer a question that has haunted me for 8 years. The popular vote elected a democrat both times, but the electoral college is how Bush won both times. Does the popular vote really mean anything? It doesn't seem like my vote means a damn, if the electoral college is what they need to get elected.

 

[Robsdad]

Sadly, I must agree. That is the way the parties leaders want it. They have total control. We, whether we would like to believe it or not are living in an imperialistic society. The rich want to rule the nation. And they basically do. They have most of the money and not an ounce of common sense.

 

[greg334]

Robsdad,
I got to agree with you on the fear factor issue.

Someone out there in radio land has been saying that one of the worst groups of people who can vote is single white females because they want security over everything else. I, in a way agree but not to sound or be sexist it has to do with the physiology make up of the different voters and the drive to focus of the campaigns and the candidates targeting their audience with some degree of success. The dems are depending on the women to vote for Hillary because of her stand on bigger government, health care and other social programs and ignoring her rhetoric, and the same goes for Obama – it is a win win for the dems between the two when you come down to it.

One reason I am against the primaries is voter fatigue and this is amplified by the parties driving the points of fear home to the voter long before any election can take place. The purpose of a primary is not to select a candidate but to expose the party to the public with a candidate or a couple of candidates and make them stick in the voters mind when they enter the booth to vote. If you don’t believe me, can you name one independent candidate without looking? Also there is some theory that a large percentage of voters make up their mind on who to vote for when they get a ballot, not before.

It is not the issues that they talk about in debates and on the campaign trail but the rhetoric used in driving the fear home to the voter who hears it all from November of 2007 to the Election Day on how bad things are and the candidate’s response to a solution for those fears – make sense?

It all has to do with mass psychology and the use of issues manipulate the public’s mindset.

For example, I find it rather sad that we have a group of people in this country that have less of a clue on what is going on – 18 to 21 year old voter. They have been told that it is their vote that matters but in reality it does not stop at the vote, it does not stop at all.

Why?

Well listening to a few complaints from a few ‘kids’ about the time it takes for them to vote and how they can’t understand why the polls use old people as volunteers triggered a thought about civic involvement and if you see a problem, get involved to solve it. Volunteer to work at a polling place and to get others your age to be involved with the process – engage yourself!


As for voting for the president, we DON’T have the right to vote for the president, and we should not.
See the way it works all depends on you, the voter to be involved with the political process and with your representative. If you are vocal, involved and they don’t vote the way you and a lot of others want them to vote, it is simply a matter of either removing them from office (which here in Michigan a petition with something like 30% of the registered voters that they received at the last election that will trigger a recall and remove the representative) or vote against them in the next election.

See the problem is that many don’t think that their vote don’t count, well it does and it would more if you all would be more involved with the process. I know many of you do write, call or visit but a lot of you don’t and it is those who don’t who need to understand that their vote puts these people in power at your level, not at the president’s level and it is your vote that reelects them. You give them that power and you can take it away. And if you don’t believe me, look at the comments from congress when the McCain-Kennedy bill was defeated – a lot of senators were mad at our response to the bill and even a few said we need to solve this problem with the voters by shutting them up.

The other thing that really floors me is that nothing happens without Congress’s approval. The war, the economy the spending all depend on both parts of congress to be involved and it is them, not the president that needs to be blames for the debt and other issue that concern you.

 

[LDB]

Here's the problem with this thread. It's based on koolaid. While I can agree with the implied but not stated thesis that McCain is a poor choice I run into a problem respecting the point because it fails to acknowledge that neither of the democrats are worth spit either. The last worthwhile democrat to make a bid and speak on a national level was Lieberman and they ran him out of the party. Robsdad, you need to empty yourself of the koolaid.

The rich do want to run things. Let's see, we've got Hilary in her mansion loaning millions of dollars to herself. We've got Edwards in his half acre house, yes, that's a half an acre inside his house. We've got Gore, also with a half acre of house and he even tells us all about being responsible caretakers of the planet while flying around in a private jet. Groinster, I'm afraid you've got a pull and it's cerebral if you in any way believe the dems aren't part of the rich.

The problem isn't any stolen election or rich vs. poor or intelligence issue or anything else. The problem is that both sides are worthless. If you guys can stay away from the koolaid long enough to detox and acknowledge all the facts rather than just part of them you'll be a lot more believable.

My opinion and I approve it, mainly because it accurately portrays both sides.

 

[Pilgrim]

Fact: Bush won the 2004 popular vote by 51% to 48%. The final tally was 62,040,606 for Bush, 59,028,109 for Kerry. Bush carried 30 States, the vast majority of the continental US. Kerry won the highly populated areas of West Coast, the Great Lakes states and the Northeast.

Regarding the 2000 election - Bush also carried 30 states in that election, although he lost the popular vote by 453,895 votes. That margin equals 1/2 of one percent. Everyone seems to forget that in spite of the circus that went on in Florida, if Gore had won his home state of TN it wouldn't have mattered what happened in Florida. In fact, he didn't even win his old congressional district near Carthage. That in itself tells us something about Gore - the people that were familiar with him and his family voted for Bush.

There are numerous reasons that the Founding Fathers set up the electoral college system, not the least of which was to allow reasonable representation for states like Maine, South Dakota and West Virginia. If the popular vote were the sole deciding factor, states like California, New York and Florida would elect the president and the good people of places like Helena, Montana might as well stay at home.

 

[Jayman]

Maybe that will get their minds off the ailing economy...

Here is something that can do that, it will may be a good substitute for your desire for a fear factor. How about universal health care that will tax the beejesus out of you and me? We all know the rich wont pay the whole tab, and they shouldnt. A health care plan that will keep good physicians from making the money they need to pay for medical malpractice insurance. Basically driving a lot of good doctors out of business and reducing the quality of health care that we enjoy now... Now, that is scary!

 

[Moot]

Excellent civics lesson Pilgrim!

 

[arkjarhead]

Well I personally think that behind the scenes the Democrats and the Republicans are all good buddies. They have this all figured out. One side let's the other side be in control for a little while and then they swap out and take turns with the power. Either way they are all sitting in Washington getting rich. I guess I shouldn't complain I got a letter in the mail yesterday. Congress and the President decided to work together and give us disabled vets a raise. We will be getting 59 dollars more a month. I'm not complaining. I just wonder if this is part of the economic stimulus package? j/k

 

[greg334]

Ark,
I think that the Vets should get increases in their benefits on a regular basis and take it out of the money that goes to Berkeley.

Yes you are right on the individuals working together, there is no real hatred, there is rhetoric of hatred there as a show to the voter. They all know they need one another and they all know that 20% of their needs are met somehow, so why not play ball.

But see here is the real problem, there is no longer a real differences between the two parties. The repubs are lost, they are having serious internal problems with McCain, even today I read that Bush said McCain is a conservative but what is Bush? He is no where near what people call a conservative, so how are we voters supposed to react to that bit of news? The repubs are losing their base, people seem to see them now as the same as the dems, 1994 is in the past and they must either come up with strong values or go away.

 

[Robsdad]

Sorry LDB. Not Koolaid. Green Tea and common sense. I did not say the Repubs were the only rich people in this world, although there are probably more in that party based on conservatism. We do however agree (odd as it may seem) that both parties are worthless. I do however believe that the rich want the power to rule as dictators in this country and someday they will. But mark my word the scare tactics are coming to influence the undecided to vote for the war machine McCain.
And Jayman. Would you rather pay a little more tax for health care or borrow billions a week from China or wherever to fund a battle in the sand over nothing but oil? Thousands dead and injured fighting over oil. You may believe its about democracy, not me, we have too little of that at home.
We all want to hold highly and rightfully so our quality of health care in the country. But it is about the money. A person without health care insurance in this country that ends up with cancer has a survival rate much lower than the person with it. The one without insurance cannot afford the chemotherapy thus a slow death. I do not want to pay more taxes either but I would much rather pay it for a benefit than an Iraq liability.
Vote with your head not your heart on this one. I think thats all any of us can do.

 

[OntarioVanMan]

Who gets the delegates that Romney won?????

 

[Turtle]

Romney officially "suspended" his campaign. A suspended campaign means that Romney holds all of his delegates until he releases them or they request to be released from their pledge. So those delegates are pledged to Romney, and they stay with him until he releases them. He might resume his campaign. OK, probably not, but, they're still all his until he changes from "suspended" to "withdrawn".

The two parties are different, but in the Republican party, if Romney "withdraws," the individual state parties will reallocate their delegates however they see fit, usually by a caucus of the delegates within each state themselves. The delegates huddle up and make a decision, almost always eventually a unanimous one, so that they all end up committing to a single candidate (wet finger, stick in air, there ya go).

In some states, like Michigan, if Romney officially withdraws, his delegates will go to the convention as officially uncommitted, and they can cast their convention votes for whomever they wish.

If he doesn't withdraw, they are all pledged to him, and he can hand them over to another candidate, not that it's gonna matter. I suppose there is some back room deal McCain could work out to get Romney's delegates in exchange for this or that, but McCain's gonna get enough delegates, regardless.

In the Democratic party, even if a candidate drops out of the race, he's still considered a candidate, and retains his delegates. I assume that's to ensure the candidate doesn't lose any self-esteem. There are no luzers in Liberal Land, where they play musical chairs with the same number of chairs as people, and dodge ball is not allowed.

 

[Pilgrim]

In his anticipation of the 2012 race, Romney will probably wind up endorsing McCain and release his delegates accordingly.

Regarding universal health care: it's hard to blame anyone for being attracted to this pie-in-the-sky promise, especially considering the standards of care to which we've become accustomed here in the US. However, to think that the government would maintain that standard is totally unrealistic. Because of it's very nature, govt. doesn't do anything with the same quality and efficiency as the private sector. If either Hillary or Obama gets elected and forces this plan on us it will be one of the biggest disasters in the history of the country. And remember (especially with Hillary), it WILL be forced on us all. She's not going to give us a choice to opt out for a private plan that might be better suited to our particular family's needs. Furthermore, if you harken back to the original HillaryCare you'll remember that the government would have control over all aspects of the industry - for instance, prospective medical students might no longer have a choice in their field of specialization. The bureaucrats would determine how many orthopedists are needed in a particular region, and the medical schools would respond in sync with govt. demands. Prices would also be controlled, and as a consequence so would physician incomes. The result would be the logical brain drain from the field as the best and brightest take their talents to other fields. One could go on forever about this subject, but the bottom line is this: with universal health care the costs (taxes) would go up and the quality of care would go down.

 

[LDB]

If anyone needs more clarification then call your personal physician and ask if he/she will remain in medicine if/when Hilama is elected and forces socialized medicine on everyone. There's been a call for socialized medicine for a long time. From the first time it was proposed until his retirement my father always said the day it came in was the day he quit to do something else. Of all his doctor friends who ever spoke about it the number that said they'd quit was ALL HIS DOCTOR FRIENDS. The next time you're at the fast food counter picture the clerk in a white lab coat. Once Obamily is elected that's no longer your burger slinger that's your future cardiologist.

 

[OntarioVanMan]

I don't think universal healthcare would work for you guys....it'd be a nightmare to administer and then there the individual states as well....
The simplier method would be to scrap everything now and subsidize the low to middle income IF they really want to spend taxpayers money that badly.
Your correct about the brain drain....Canada has suffered from this nurses and doctors coming here, but the trend is starting to reverse itself as HMO's are controlling thier paychecks and states administer more medicaid. In the future there'll be a shortage here as well.

 

[greg334]

Now be really honest with yourself in answering these questions.

Are you all happy with Medicare or Medicaid?

You all think that our veterans get the absolute best of care?

Do you all think that having the government involved with the medical industry will help us out by stifling research, limiting care based on age and gender or limiting options for treatment?

Do you know that regardless what the politicians are saying, this has to do with power, money and control of us - not a think to do with health care?

In comparison to other countries, like the UK, do you really think that it is right to go from a week or less wait for say an MRI to an 18 week wait?

You do know that when you really examine health care systems in the UK and France, the person is covered for emergencies and still has to pay out of pocket for other things?

You do know in the UK they are actually cutting back on ancillary care, like dentistry services and even closed a bunch of clinics in the rural areas?

As robsdad said "I do however believe that the rich want the power to rule as dictators in this country and someday they will." but he and others like him don't realize that the dictators in this country are the people who want to put social programs in place, like the present Democrat candidates.

And robsdad, there are more millionaires/billionaires in the democratic party than in the republican party.

Here is why we don’t need any move toward socialized medicine.

In our country we have two things going right for us, we have the political system and we have our culture. Between the two our quality of life is still the highest in the world when you factor in our ability to change things and to move forward - I know many of you don't get that.

AND between the two we spend more money on the medical industry than any other country in the world by a large margin. The issue for many is a lack of coverage, IT IS NOT A LACK OF MEDICAL CARE and this is where people like Hillary and Obama will trot out the poor guy who lost his job and has no insurance and has some sort of medical problem to illustrate the need to have the government control health care. With the amount of money being spent in the medical industry, which is by the way 13.9% of our GDP, there is a lot at stake and for the politician who can control that amount of money; they and their party can control the country without much opposition. To put this in numbers, the medical industry as a whole as part of the GDP is $1,835,052,841,000 or one Trillion, eight hundred and thirty five Billion, fifty two Million, eight hundred and forty one Thousand dollars.

Imagine for a moment that Hillary gets a hold of an industry that she now can dictate to on every level and capture a lot of that money – you only need to have a glimpse what bureaucracy is like in Soviet Union to know what it will be like here. No privacy, no way to pay for things – All treatment decisions will be made for you by someone who is not a medical professional or even met you. If you don’t believe me, well read two books, We by Yevgeny Zamyatin and Brave New World by Aldous Huxley– these will show you the shape of things to come because it starts with health care and then it will lead to the involvement of government in all of our lives.

If we really want to change things, then it has to start with the Tax system and how we handle money at the federal level.

 

[OntarioVanMan]

Greg said.."In comparison to other countries, like the UK, do you really think that it is right to go from a week or less wait for say an MRI to an 18 week wait?

You do know that when you really examine health care systems in the UK and France, the person is covered for emergencies and still has to pay out of pocket for other things?

You do know in the UK they are actually cutting back on ancillary care, like dentistry services and even closed a bunch of clinics in the rural areas?"

Canada has those same problems cutting back services that were once covered. Long wait times. In Ontario you can't get a family doctor without being on a waiting list. However they have finally realized that letting the private sector in and letting those with money go the private directon is a good thing. It's cutting wait time for vital tests and services.

 

[Pilgrim]

While we're on Health Care, here's a short but interesting article:

The Return of Hillarycare?

For additional conversation about govt controlled health care, talk to someone from the great state of Tennessee about TennCare, the brainchild of former Democrat Governor Ned McWhorter. Or, just google the subject - lots of articles that show just how badly the TN state govt mismanaged what was previously Medicaid, and the unintended consequences that the state is still dealing with.

 

[greg334]

Canada has those same problems cutting back services that were once covered. Long wait times. In Ontario you can't get a family doctor without being on a waiting list. However they have finally realized that letting the private sector in and letting those with money go the private directon is a good thing. It's cutting wait time for vital tests and services.

OVM,

I didn't want to offend you with the Canada 'bash' but I am astonded by the attitude some have with medical care in Canada. It is a great country but this is one thing that I am thanking God I don't have to deal with here.

I have a lot of relatives who live in Windsor and one who grew up with my dad just died the other day. He had the same cancer that my cousin who also lived in Windsor had in the 80's and the same result, the quality of care was such he died. When he got sick he was in the UK working for the Canadian government, they ran a few tests and pretty much did nothing for him there so he came home to get into the docs. They delayed him with rescheduled appointments to the point he had so much pain that he ended up in the hospital. Even then they knew it was cancer but did nothing because of his age and they put him on a waiting list for 3 weeks for a cat scan and then reschedule it for another 4 weeks because of some stupid rule of how many hours one can work per year over there. Well needless to say he decided to come here to get properly diagnosis and ended up with some treatment but the doctors were clear that if they discovered it in the UK by running some simple tests and started Chemo there, then it would not have progressed far enough that all hope was lost.

Remember that many countries look at your age because they have a limited amount of resources to treat people with. In the eyes of the government, would you be say 65 more likely to be put on a recepiants list for a kidney or liver in comparison to say a 35 year old drug addict who needs it to make to 45? Of course they put the 35 year old drug addict on the list before you. You, they will prop you up in the corner and let you live out your life looking out the window.