kapkomet Posted September 4, 2007 Share Posted September 4, 2007 QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Sep 4, 2007 -> 04:04 AM) Edwards is into the whoel nanny-state thing it seems. He wants to force you to go to the doctor. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070903/ap_on_el_pr/edwards The appropriate paragraph: This guy just scares the s*** out of me. But so does Mrs. Bill Clinton - and she's going to win anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reddy Posted September 4, 2007 Share Posted September 4, 2007 QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Sep 3, 2007 -> 11:04 PM) Edwards is into the whoel nanny-state thing it seems. He wants to force you to go to the doctor. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070903/ap_on_el_pr/edwards The appropriate paragraph: it's not as bad as everyone thinks. it just means that it's mandatory to get vaccinations and PREVENTIVE care like that. plus you wouldn't have to pay for it so... who cares? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted September 4, 2007 Share Posted September 4, 2007 You can't force people to go to the doctor, but if everyone in this country received proper preventitive care, the amount of money we spend on health care would go way down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted September 4, 2007 Author Share Posted September 4, 2007 QUOTE(Reddy @ Sep 4, 2007 -> 08:26 AM) plus you wouldn't have to pay for it so... who cares? Newsflash - you still have to pay. Do you think Doctors are just going to donate their time? We'd all pay - just a matter of how and when. This is one of the reasons Edwards has a following, and why he would be an awful President - the guy convinces people that there is some mystical pile of gold waiting for the "working class" in America, that the mean rich people are unlawfully withholding. Its just not there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted September 4, 2007 Share Posted September 4, 2007 QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 4, 2007 -> 01:52 PM) Newsflash - you still have to pay. Do you think Doctors are just going to donate their time? We'd all pay - just a matter of how and when. This is one of the reasons Edwards has a following, and why he would be an awful President - the guy convinces people that there is some mystical pile of gold waiting for the "working class" in America, that the mean rich people are unlawfully withholding. Its just not there. Exactly right. And so does Mrs. Bill Clinton, which is why she is just as scary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted September 4, 2007 Author Share Posted September 4, 2007 QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Sep 4, 2007 -> 08:46 AM) You can't force people to go to the doctor, but if everyone in this country received proper preventitive care, the amount of money we spend on health care would go way down. That is very true. That can be accomplished in many ways, but you can't FORCE people to go to the Doctor. You can make preventative care cheaper and easier to get, and I hope we do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted September 4, 2007 Share Posted September 4, 2007 QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 4, 2007 -> 07:01 AM) That is very true. That can be accomplished in many ways, but you can't FORCE people to go to the Doctor. You can make preventative care cheaper and easier to get, and I hope we do that. If the uninsured don't go bankrupt when they get sick, God kills a kitten. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted September 4, 2007 Share Posted September 4, 2007 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 4, 2007 -> 03:43 PM) If the uninsured don't go bankrupt when they get sick, God kills a kitten. Again, people have choices. It's all up to the individuals. Healthcare (a high level policy) is available to most who choose to get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted September 4, 2007 Share Posted September 4, 2007 QUOTE(kapkomet @ Sep 4, 2007 -> 08:58 AM) Exactly right. And so does Mrs. Bill Clinton, which is why she is just as scary. Really? She seems awful pro bidness to my eyes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted September 4, 2007 Share Posted September 4, 2007 QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Sep 4, 2007 -> 07:02 PM) Really? She seems awful pro bidness to my eyes. Yea, Chinese bidness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted September 4, 2007 Share Posted September 4, 2007 QUOTE(kapkomet @ Sep 4, 2007 -> 02:22 PM) Yea, Chinese bidness. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0WD..._16/ai_66471950 When China joins the WTO, Clinton said, ''it will open its market to American products...and our companies will be far more able to sell goods without moving factories or investments there.'' Who knew that meant American political influence, and not an actual good? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reddy Posted September 7, 2007 Share Posted September 7, 2007 QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 4, 2007 -> 08:52 AM) Newsflash - you still have to pay. Do you think Doctors are just going to donate their time? We'd all pay - just a matter of how and when. This is one of the reasons Edwards has a following, and why he would be an awful President - the guy convinces people that there is some mystical pile of gold waiting for the "working class" in America, that the mean rich people are unlawfully withholding. Its just not there. wrong. repealing GWB's tax cuts for the rich puts money right back into the system and that's the money he plans to use for this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted September 7, 2007 Author Share Posted September 7, 2007 QUOTE(Reddy @ Sep 6, 2007 -> 07:21 PM) wrong. repealing GWB's tax cuts for the rich puts money right back into the system and that's the money he plans to use for this. You are missing the point. Its still NOT free. It still costs money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted September 7, 2007 Share Posted September 7, 2007 QUOTE(Reddy @ Sep 7, 2007 -> 12:21 AM) wrong. repealing GWB's tax cuts for the rich puts money right back into the system and that's the money he plans to use for this. Ignorance is bliss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted September 7, 2007 Share Posted September 7, 2007 QUOTE(kapkomet @ Sep 6, 2007 -> 10:45 PM) Ignorance is bliss. It certainly helped this President get elected, twice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted September 7, 2007 Share Posted September 7, 2007 QUOTE(Reddy @ Sep 6, 2007 -> 07:21 PM) wrong. repealing GWB's tax cuts for the rich puts money right back into the system and that's the money he plans to use for this. Google the multiplier rule of economics and get back to me on that, check out supply and demand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted September 7, 2007 Share Posted September 7, 2007 And while I am a big fan of soft science, economics is inexact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted September 7, 2007 Share Posted September 7, 2007 QUOTE(Texsox @ Sep 7, 2007 -> 09:33 AM) And while I am a big fan of soft science, economics is inexact. Some things are pretty common sense. If you lose more of your paycheck you spend less money. If everyone spends less money, the economy contracts. It isn't rocket science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted September 7, 2007 Share Posted September 7, 2007 QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 7, 2007 -> 09:41 AM) Some things are pretty common sense. If you lose more of your paycheck you spend less money. If everyone spends less money, the economy contracts. It isn't rocket science. If spending money is the key, then it doesn't matter who spends it, public or private. The government at least has restrictions and usually has to buy American. Of course, it doesn't buy votes, whcih is why some politicans love tax cuts. And common sense also tells us that those loans have to be paid back, with interest. An economy based on borrowed money, is at risk. Why you are in favor of giving yourself a dollar today, so that your daughter has to pay back $5 later, doesn't make sense. If we can't afford it today, what makes you think we can afford the bigger price tag later? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted September 7, 2007 Share Posted September 7, 2007 QUOTE(Texsox @ Sep 7, 2007 -> 04:07 PM) If spending money is the key, then it doesn't matter who spends it, public or private. The government at least has restrictions and usually has to buy American. Of course, it doesn't buy votes, whcih is why some politicans love tax cuts. And common sense also tells us that those loans have to be paid back, with interest. An economy based on borrowed money, is at risk. Why you are in favor of giving yourself a dollar today, so that your daughter has to pay back $5 later, doesn't make sense. If we can't afford it today, what makes you think we can afford the bigger price tag later? Which is exactly why we don't need governmental health care, and other huge expenditures in the government's hands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted September 7, 2007 Share Posted September 7, 2007 QUOTE(kapkomet @ Sep 7, 2007 -> 11:10 AM) Which is exactly why we don't need governmental health care, and other huge expenditures in the government's hands. That is a very good point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted September 9, 2007 Share Posted September 9, 2007 Fresh off a couple statements in the past week or so that have just made him look foolish, Bill Richardson goes back to the issue where he may well be the strongest candidate: Iraq, and the fact that he's the only major candidate to say "get every U.S. soldier out". Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards have suggested that there is little difference among us on Iraq. This is not true: I am the only leading Democratic candidate committed to getting all our troops out and doing so quickly. In the most recent debate, I asked the other candidates how many troops they would leave in Iraq and for what purposes. I got no answers. The American people need answers. If we elect a president who thinks that troops should stay in Iraq for years, they will stay for years -- a tragic mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted September 9, 2007 Author Share Posted September 9, 2007 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 9, 2007 -> 03:47 PM) Fresh off a couple statements in the past week or so that have just made him look foolish, Bill Richardson goes back to the issue where he may well be the strongest candidate: Iraq, and the fact that he's the only major candidate to say "get every U.S. soldier out". I don't know if that is his strongest issue. But just curious, what statements are you referring to that were foolish? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted September 9, 2007 Share Posted September 9, 2007 QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 9, 2007 -> 01:52 PM) I don't know if that is his strongest issue. But just curious, what statements are you referring to that were foolish? Well, the one from this week was him saying something along the lines of Iowa was first in the caucus and primary season... "Iowa, for good reason, for constitutional reasons, for reasons related to the Lord, should be the first caucus and primary." And to top that off...his defense of those remarks when he was asked later what he meant...he didn't even go with the "Botched joke" one...he just came out and said "oh that was just pandering". "That was an off-the-cuff comment about the importance of Iowa. This was an Iowa crowd — I'm trying to score points, I'm moving up in the polls. So I don't consider that a mistake — that was an off-the-cuff comment, and I stand very strongly behind the fact that Iowa and New Hampshire should be first."Not the biggest gaffe in history, but certainly something that would have gotten him laughed at had he been higher in the polls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted September 9, 2007 Author Share Posted September 9, 2007 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 9, 2007 -> 04:44 PM) Well, the one from this week was him saying something along the lines of Iowa was first in the caucus and primary season... And to top that off...his defense of those remarks when he was asked later what he meant...he didn't even go with the "Botched joke" one...he just came out and said "oh that was just pandering". Not the biggest gaffe in history, but certainly something that would have gotten him laughed at had he been higher in the polls. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts