Obama is the presumptive democratic nominee
- Thread starter N1ghtmare
- Start date
-
Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.
Yes, my ancestors faith was filled with animism and hunting Gods, to make up for that I pollute as much as I can in the name of the Lord.
Agree, religion and politics should never be mixed together. Where religion goes in, reason goes out.
You're gobbling up those DNC one-liners.
Most of those bills have little or nothing to do with the stuff you just mentioned and some of the bills were even co-sponsored by McCain and other Democrats.
I'm no fan of McCain, but I'm really troubled by the amount of people jumping on the Obama bandwagon because of a dislike for Bush. I urge everyone to really look into the policies each of the candidates espouse (not just listen to their stump speeches) and understand the course it will lead our country. Some of the stuff Obama says sounds great because he says it so well, but if you get down to it, there's an awful lot of socialism in the agenda.
I don't know who I'm going to vote for, but it's looking less likely that it's going to be for either of the two "incumbent parties".
To say that McCain has voted with Bush 95% of the time is waaay over simplifying things. First off McCain wrote or sponsored most of these bills in the first place. If anything it's Bush that has been voting with McCain recently. This also doesn't count all the bills that get shot down before they ever get to the president. For Bush and McCain to even have the chance to both vote on an issue it has to pass through congress. Maybe you should blame the pathetic democratic led congress for even passing these laws in the first place. Like hal said it's just a DNC one-liner.
Maybe if people actually started looking at real issues they'd see past all the BS. Is the oil price really all George Bush's fault? Can you provide me with even one shred of evidence linking him to the high prices? All the senate has done the past few weeks has been "investigating" big oil. Did it ever occur to anyone that it's the free market, high demand, and low supplies driving the price up? Why doesn't anyone ever realize that on McCain's more hated and controversial votes that Obama and Clinton were right beside him (IE Immigration). The only place that these accusations are anywhere near legit is in the case of Iraq and national security, and this is an issue that the nation is still very divided on.
Last edited:
You answered your own question there. The Iraq war reduced the amount of barrels exported from that region, and the continued instability has dropped oil production by more than a million barrels per day. There are certainly other factors involved besides Iraq, and they don't have anything to do with President Bush, but the Iraq war is something the President has been involved in which has contributed to the current price of oil.
On topic, I think both McCain and Obama would be more willing to reach across the aisle in order to get things done, but I have some doubts about both of them also. I'll have to wait and see who's going to be in their cabinet.
True. I formally retract my previous statement.
No, no it's not. He deserves to die for his war crimes, just like the good ole' UN says. Or at least have one of his limbs removed, preferably his writing arm.
He's going to leave the presidency to retire on a ranch with an endless supply of cash and not a care in the world, at the very least he'll live very comfortably. Meanwhile the men and women he sent to fight a war that should never have been, on false premises no less, are either dead, dying, amputees or crippled some other way and the ones who live all seem to be suffering PTSD with not enough resources being applied to help them.
This faggot not only has the nerve to declare MISSION ACCOMPLISHED when it's nowhere near but he can't give a single speech without finding a reason to smirk or look happy in general. No other president thats has ever been would be so hair-brained as to show the slightest bit of swagger while addressing the nation behind the sort of circumstances that have come to be under his office.
It's sick and I wish someone would shoot him in his ear. No scratch that, he doesn't deserve to even die the way Abraham Lincoln did. Better put that lead between the eyes.
Last edited:
What war crimes has the UN charged him with?
Regardless, your solution is extreme.
I like the thread tag "americans misunderstand socialism." So, what's not to understand? Real Americans don't want anything to disrupt their free enterprise, and socialism threatens to do just that. As much as we need health care to be made more affordable for those who cannot afford it, there is no need to force it on those who do not want it. Nor should able taxpayers pick up the slack for those who will not or cannot pay for it. There are existing avenues for those who need insurance and cannot afford it, at least for their children. I don't mind so much if my taxes pay for the children, but why should I be forced to pay extra taxes to pay for a bunch of a-hole slackers who can't or won't pay?
Looking at Canada, eh, for socialized health care, and I see a system that works well in theory but not in practice. From what I understand, actual care is hard to get in Canada. In the US, if you have any insurance at all, you generally have your pick of just about any doctor in your area. And that is the crux of the issue, if you have insurance. I just don't see the Federal Gov't being able to effectively manage a health insurance plan that covers all Americans in any similar fashion that we are already accustomed to. Does this mean we are at times too staunch for our own good? Perhaps. But change for the sake of change isn't always the better solution.
Sincerely speaking, if the Gov't wants to make health care affordable, they should look at subsidizing care for those who qualify as low-income or those who fit in other brackets in which the household may not be low-income but are in an area where they still need a little break from the rising health care costs.
Looking at Canada, eh, for socialized health care, and I see a system that works well in theory but not in practice. From what I understand, actual care is hard to get in Canada. In the US, if you have any insurance at all, you generally have your pick of just about any doctor in your area. And that is the crux of the issue, if you have insurance. I just don't see the Federal Gov't being able to effectively manage a health insurance plan that covers all Americans in any similar fashion that we are already accustomed to. Does this mean we are at times too staunch for our own good? Perhaps. But change for the sake of change isn't always the better solution.
Sincerely speaking, if the Gov't wants to make health care affordable, they should look at subsidizing care for those who qualify as low-income or those who fit in other brackets in which the household may not be low-income but are in an area where they still need a little break from the rising health care costs.
You mean like welfare and social security?
Socialism is already here if that's how you define it. D:
All you have to do is look at where social security is at right now, and it's pretty easy to see how bad of an idea nationalized health care would be...
What do you think how subsidies are paid for? Errr... taxes?
Exactly. I don't think we need more.
I was tired when I wrote that, but yes. I don't want to pay more f*cking taxes. I'm sure there can be a way to minimize any additional taxes to help cover any subsidies, but I don't subscribe to a nationalized plan in which the Gov't manages health care "insurance." Right now, all Americans, whether they can afford it or not, have access to health care plans of their choosing. I think most that say they cannot afford health care just don't try to find reasonably priced plans, because they are out there. If the Gov't gets involved, you know there will be too much control over that sector and IMO health care access will mirror that of Canada.
I really, really try to avoid these political threads because they give me such tired-head. With that said, I do need to say something to the above statement.
Things like economy swings are rarely caused by current or even recent actions. People are losing their value in their homes due to the boom of the sub-prime market in the 90's. If you were breathing, there was a sub-prime product right for you that could get you in a home. The trouble is, no one was regulating these loans and considering the long term affects of these loans. Since everyone could afford a home, the demand for homes went up up up, which drove up the cost of homes.
Now in the 00's, costs for home have been driven up so far that, even with a sub-prime loan, lower income people couldn't afford to buy. The sub-prime dried up as the couldn't afford the inflated price tags on the homes. Since the sub-prime market was suddenly non-existent, rates went through the roof. This has caused many, many foreclosures, short-sales, and delinquencies. Suddenly, the market is full of these abandoned home which are available to buy at a cut rate. This reduces the demand for new homes, which reduces property values of all homes.
My point is, the housing market (and to a lesser extent, the economy as a whole) is NOT due to actions over the last several years under the current regime. It is due to our nation's greed from 15-20 years ago.
No matter your stance on the Bush administration, you have to admit there were some mistakes made as with any administration. If you're going to hang him, hang him for the things he can control, not on the failures of the gluttonous American people before is office.
Do you mean that everybody will have access? How terrible....
The way that Helathcare is generally handled is aweful as it give those with plenty of money an unfair advantage. Stupid, fair access Healthcare should be a human right.
gregori, the only way to make health care access truly equal is to completely remove it from the private sector in every way, shape and form. And do you know that that does? It removes incentive to research and develop new cures and technologies.
There has got to be a middle ground that provides more affordable health care for those who cannot afford it. But I do not feel that taxpayers should pay for those who are too lazy to get the coverage or care they may need.
There has got to be a middle ground that provides more affordable health care for those who cannot afford it. But I do not feel that taxpayers should pay for those who are too lazy to get the coverage or care they may need.
I don't understand why you folks are so against social security. When I grew up in Sweden we had the best health care, and it was all handled in the "common sector" funded by taxes based on income. Lately we have striven towards something that more resembles the US way, and it has really gotten worse. inefficient, expensive and unfair.
Freedom for me is to know that if I get sick or injured I will get the best health care available without having to worry about money, insurances and crap. Same thing with our pension insurance, now we have to look for the best investment funds and gamble our savings on the stock market if we want to be able to put food on the table when we are old. Thats not freedom, that is being a slave to the system and feels like a huge step back in evolution. What is the point of creating a society if we don't make use of its benefits?
No, we had no problems like that. The problems with medical research in the private sector is that it narrows the research into fields that generate money. How to make fat rich people thin or more potent is more important then curing costly 3rd world plagues etc.
/end of political rant
Last edited:
Not true. Unless you think everybody does everything soley for money. There can be ways to provide universal access to healthcare, whilst funding new research. Like what already happens in many other countries in the world.
Sorry, but thats just bull****. There are many people who simply can't afford to get coverage and the market doesn't feel like helping them out one bit. I've no problems paying more taxes if it allows everybody access to healthcare. What you don't pay taxes to do is already lining the pockets of private coporations, several times over.
It in the interest of society (and even buisness) that everybody is healthy.
EDIT: What Molgan said!!!
Last edited: