Race for the presidency political discussion thread

[Raudulfr Shieldcrusher]

When given the choice between Obama, Clinton and McCain, Obama wins. I can't vote for the others. He will be the least damaging.

[Onion Knight]

While I disagree with your politics, I absolutely love your custom terrain.

[Raudulfr Shieldcrusher]

Originally Posted by Onion Knight

While I disagree with your politics, I absolutely love your custom terrain.

Cool.

I'm okay with the political thing. I try not to let it become a huge thing. Especially here. I have other outlets for political jousting and I don't want to ruin friendships over politics.

Anyway, I'm tired of having to choose the lesser of two (or three) evils. That's not what democracy should be about. But sadly it is.

Oh, and just for the record, I am a proud Liberal/Progressive.

[Onion Knight]

Come on now. Deep breath. That's right... just vote for McCain... Shhhh...

[Raudulfr Shieldcrusher]

Originally Posted by Onion Knight

Come on now. Deep breath. That's right... just vote for McCain... Shhhh...

Sorry, can't do it.

I don't even think the Obama or Clinton are the best choices either. But, like I said, the lesser of two evils.

[Snotwalker 8000]

Originally Posted by Raudulfr Shieldcrusher

When given the choice between Obama, Clinton and McCain, Obama wins. I can't vote for the others. He will be the least damaging.

I disagree, but hey, at least "we'll always have Heroscape"... the true uniter between us.

Here's a question for the libs though in terms of "damaging" our country... If both sides of the ailse are agreeing that giving money to us taxpayers in a "refund stimulus package" will HELP the economy, then how is it that people like Clinton & Obama want to take our money away from us with higher taxes, yet say they are the ones who can help the economy??

If putting more money into the hands of taxpayers HELPS the economy, then isn't it common sense that taking more money from the taxpayer HURTS the economy?

Taxing us through the roof will be very damaging to this country. When a country is in a recession cycle (and yes, it's cyclical), the last thing you'd want to do is make it worse by skyrocketing the taxes.

And hey, if our country can't even afford to cover the costs of Social Security, WHY talk now about socializing healthcare at the taxpayer's expense?.... "Gee honey, we can't afford the lease on our truck anymore.... so hey, I know! Let's go out an buy a boat too!..." (sigh).

If the libs have it their way, we won't be able to afford to buy more heroscape due to the outrageous taxes! There's reason enough to vote conservative.

Later guys! (2008.... a VERY interesting political year!)

[Raudulfr Shieldcrusher]

I don't agree with the stimulus package. It won't help as much as they think.

Taxes are a necessary part of participating in a society. I have no problem paying taxes. Do you like your garbage picked up? Or your roads kept up? Socializing health care will cost LESS in the long run, not more, by eliminating health insurance providers. They shave off at least 30% of every dollar spent. Medicare's overhead hovers around 3-5%.

The happiest places to live in the world are liberal countries like Denmark. They are taxed heavily but health care and education are automatically covered. And since these programs aren't run to make a profit, the costs stay low. A guy working as a garbage man can live a comfortable life. Or if he wants he can go to school to learn something else. The government will also subsidize orginizations, like a model railroad club, or a Heroscape club!

I believe that you've been fed a con that allows the extremely wealthy to keep the money and not let it flow back into society. Why conservative scontinue to support economic policies that take MUCH MORE of their money than social programs could ever hope to is beyond me.

[Snotwalker 8000]

Ah, a taxpayer supported Heroscape Club in every city!! A true gamer's utopia.

I have no problem paying fair taxes... when Government uses it wisely in protecting the country and constitutionally appointed responsibilities. But I'm strongly against class warfare, "wealth-redistribution", and taking from Paul (who worked for it) to give to Peter (who chose NOT to work for it, but gladly takes it).

And by the way, I agree with you that this so-called "refund check" from the government is a joke. (to start with, I wish they'd stop calling it a "refund" when a lot of it is going to people who didn't have to pay in taxes to start with! ) But the key point about this "stimulus package" is that both Obama and Clinton supported it as an actual stimulus to help the economy! This, from two candidates who want to drastically RAISE taxes and take more money away from us taxpayers. How do you reconcile that without admitting that raising taxes hurts the economy?

You think Taelord costs too much now? Wait until Clinton/Obama get done with him!

And by the way, they're happy in Denmark because of the drugs... lots and lots of drugs.

[skyknight]

Originally Posted by Raudulfr Shieldcrusher

I believe that you've been fed a con that allows the extremely wealthy to keep the money and not let it flow back into society. Why conservative scontinue to support economic policies that take MUCH MORE of their money than social programs could ever hope to is beyond me.

Yes, why would we want to let anyone keep the money they have earned when there are so many more deserving folks waiting in line to get their hands on it just because they think they deserve it.

I hope you sensed the sarcasm because I think I laid it on pretty thick. I get tired of hearing people act like they have a right to other peoples incomes just because they exist. Existance is not a prequalification for anyone to have free access to my bank account.

[Cavalier]

Originally Posted by Raudulfr Shieldcrusher

I don't agree with the stimulus package. It won't help as much as they think.

Taxes are a necessary part of participating in a society. I have no problem paying taxes. Do you like your garbage picked up? Or your roads kept up? Socializing health care will cost LESS in the long run, not more, by eliminating health insurance providers. They shave off at least 30% of every dollar spent. Medicare's overhead hovers around 3-5%.

The happiest places to live in the world are liberal countries like Denmark. They are taxed heavily but health care and education are automatically covered. And since these programs aren't run to make a profit, the costs stay low. A guy working as a garbage man can live a comfortable life. Or if he wants he can go to school to learn something else. The government will also subsidize orginizations, like a model railroad club, or a Heroscape club!

I believe that you've been fed a con that allows the extremely wealthy to keep the money and not let it flow back into society. Why conservative scontinue to support economic policies that take MUCH MORE of their money than social programs could ever hope to is beyond me.

Neither of those things are done for me. I have to pay (and why not?) to have my garbage hauled; a neighbor usually grates our road once a month...My grandfather did before he passed away and if I had the equipment, I'd do it.

[Raudulfr Shieldcrusher]

Ah yes, the "keep our money" argument. Social welfare programs help those in need. Thats the reason they were created. Before social security, the leading cause of death among the elderly was starvation in the summer and freezing in the winter. One third of those on welfare are children. And anther third are unable to work. "Welfare mothers" are a myth that started with Reagan and just won't let go. Of course you will have people who abuse the system. That will always be. But by-and-large they are a very small number.

Privatization is not the answer. A corporations only goal is to make a profit. Corportations are stealing more of "your" money than the government could ever "take" in taxes. The government isn't the enemy. Government is us. We The People.

If the government can do it for less, whatever it is, why be against that?

I'd rather have Medicare for all the the $1000+ I'm paying for health insurance now. It's almost a third of my income!

[Riptide]

Originally Posted by Raudulfr Shieldcrusher

Ah yes, the "keep our money" argument. Social welfare programs help those in need. Thats the reason they were created. Before social security, the leading cause of death among the elderly was starvation in the summer and freezing in the winter. One third of those on welfare are children. And anther third are unable to work. "Welfare mothers" are a myth that started with Reagan and just won't let go. Of course you will have people who abuse the system. That will always be. But by-and-large they are a very small number.

Welfare was initially created for the reasons you stated - now it is a broken program that keeps most of those who collect in the program. They have no drive or initiative (they keep rolling less than 5 on the d20) to go and improve thier life or the life of the family. It also encourages people to keep having children - even though they cannot afford the ones they have already - in order to collect more money from the government.

Originally Posted by Raudulfr Shieldcrusher

Privatization is not the answer. A corporations only goal is to make a profit. Corportations are stealing more of "your" money than the government could ever "take" in taxes. The government isn't the enemy. Government is us. We The People.

If the government can do it for less, whatever it is, why be against that?

I'd rather have Medicare for all the the $1000+ I'm paying for health insurance now. It's almost a third of my income!

Universal health care is also a detrimental plan. Out of all of those countries that have this type of program, which ones are the innovative leaders in the medical community as far as new inventions, technologies, and treatments? I can't think of one... America is the leader in the field because of the competition involved in the field. I work at a medical design firm, we have to compete with other companies to stay in business. If we aren't thinking up new ideas and getting them out there to the doctors then we'll fail. You may wonder what this might have to do with anything... well, let's look at which companies get government contracts now. They bid low, very low. Even if the other possible products are better made the lowest bid wins. Once a company gets a government contract for a product, that company keeps it until it messes up or the contract expires. We won't have the innovation we have now with government contracts for government provided health care - there will be a lack of it actually... then the government will look outside the U.S. looking for the technology that we used to provide because we had a chance. Those chances will go away when the health care system is government regulated.

my