What would you ask Howard Dean?

[Rocket Fan]

First off, I listened to Ann Coulter and Al Sharpton last night, and went to a pretty small reception.

I am a conservative, and actually took a picture of me and Coulter.. but I think I best not post it on here lol...

But anyways, I'm listening to Howard Dean tonight and going to a small gathering with him afterwards.

I'll probably get to talk to him some... anyone have any good ideas of things to ask him.. if I get the chance?

[MadMax]

boxers or briefs?

[RocketMan Tex]

Ask him how much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood.

After all, the man is from Vermont...he ought to have an answer to that one.

[Rocket Fan]

LOL.. vermont.. don't think I've ever even met someone from that state... who knew it really existed :)

[Batman Jones]

Tell him you're a conservative voter and he's got two minutes to convince you to vote for a Democrat and see what he says.

Dean's strategy as DNC chair is to simplify the party's message, to boil it down to its core values, so that it will be as easily understood as the GOP's. See how his version of that plays with you and report back to let us know what he said and what you thought of it.

[Rocket Fan]

batman jones.. that is a good one. I figured, if i was taking pictures with Ann Coulter last night.. it's only fair that I go to see Dean as well.

Coulter actually I thought made some good points regarding the democratic party and if the message you are putting out isn't working.. may need to try something else as well... instead of claiming you were just unable to get your message out.

Sharpton spent a lot of time last night talking about Bush changing the subject etc.. so they weren't talking about real issues during election... it's the DNC chairman's job I think to make sure they talk about the issues he wants to talk about so some changes in the way you do things might be needed.

[FranchiseBlade]

batman's question is a good one. I can't think of anything better.

[basso]

Originally posted by Rocket Fan

Coulter actually I thought made some good points regarding the democratic party and if the message you are putting out isn't working.. may need to try something else as well... instead of claiming you were just unable to get your message out.


i think this is an excellent point- ask him, was the problem in 2004 the messenger, the delivery, or the message itself? if he answers either of the first two it'll be a good indication that he lacks the self-awareness the democrats will need if they ever hope to reclaim some of the voters they've lost.

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by basso
i think this is an excellent point- ask him, was the problem in 2004 the messenger, the delivery, or the message itself? if he answers either of the first two it'll be a good indication that he lacks the self-awareness the democrats will need if they ever hope to reclaim some of the voters they've lost. It isn't surprising that a GOP votere would think that. But it is also unobjective, and has room for disagreement.

Because one side loses doesn't mean they should abandon their message. When Clinton was winning his second term did the GOP start adopting the messages of the Democratic party?

Of course not, but after Dole got beat people could have said if the GOP doesn't change their message it shows they lack the self awareness to ever win the whitehouse back.

The GOP squeaked by in the last two elections. The Democrats may be justified if they feel they shouldn't overhaul the whole message.

[MadMax]

ask him which was his favorite Ghostbuster.

[Rocket Fan]

franchise.. I think her point was something along the lines of.

is the majoirty of america doesn't support gay marriage for instance.. . .. do you change the message at least slightly so you have a chance to win election?

or the same for abortion...

If you think losing the election had to do wtih christian voters etc. 4 years later.. no matter who is running. I dont think those voters are going to switch to supporting abortion etc.. the complaint of sharpton was that this turned into a "morals" election.. those voters will have the same morals in 4 years mostly

[Deckard]

I would ask him what the Democratic Party position is if China invades Taiwan, whether we should reinforce the 7th Fleet, and it's position on Tibet. ;)

A far better question would be Batman's, however. Dean should have a succinct answer.



Keep D&D Civil!!

[Batman Jones]

Originally posted by basso
i think this is an excellent point- ask him, was the problem in 2004 the messenger, the delivery, or the message itself? if he answers either of the first two it'll be a good indication that he lacks the self-awareness the democrats will need if they ever hope to reclaim some of the voters they've lost.

Rocket Fan:

What use is politics if it doesn't reflect our values as Americans? basso's question is horserace, strategy stuff. Worse, his question is nothing more than a self-satisfied trap. No matter what Dean answers to his question, he gets to smirk and say 'I told you so.' If Dean doesn't agree that the Dem's core principles are fundamentally flawed, he's out of touch. If he does, even better. You've said you were going to listen to Dean in fairness to see what he has to say, so do that.

basso and Coulter suggest that the results of Kerry-Bush signify that the message itself is a loser, leaving out the fact that presidential races (especially close ones) turn at least as much on personality, character, likeability, believability and the ability to deliver a clear message in a short time as the issues, the values or the message itself. And, of course, Kerry is hardly the master when it comes to clarity of message. It's convenient for the GOP and their agents to indict the party's core principles after winning a close race, but it's bogus.

Bush's approval rating is currently under 50%. His approval on SS is considerably lower. And most Americans now believe the Iraq war was a mistake. Does that prove the GOP needs to fundamentally change their message? Bush would tell you he hasn't done a good enough job of explaining his position on SS, but apparently the messenger/message theory doesn't work in reverse. He would also tell you that he was elected to do the right thing in Iraq, regardless of polls. Are the polls proof that he's wrong? No, not any more than the previous polls were proof that he was right. And the election results are an indication of many things, but no simple, clear rejection of a party's ideology can be divined from them, particularly when, even while more Americans call themselves conservatives than liberals, more Americans self-identify as D's than R's. This is complex stuff. basso's (and Coulter's) thesis is a perfect example of oversimplified spin.

You said you're going to hear Dean to be fair so do that. Ask him why you should give the Dem's another look. If he doesn't make you think twice, fine. But at least give him a listen.

[Rocket Fan]

batman .. I'll listen to what he has to say.

My point on the other thing was for instance..

If the election was lost because of christian voters.. no matter who the candidate is.. is the message is in support of abortion for instance than they are not going to get those christian voters to vote democrat..

I don't think changing the candidate will win them the "moral" voters as some call them. Whether or not it's worth changing the message to get those voters is up to the party, but I don't think its possible to get the majority of christian voters if the party has a message that allows for abortion etc..

[Batman Jones]

Originally posted by Rocket Fan
franchise.. I think her point was something along the lines of.

is the majoirty of america doesn't support gay marriage for instance.. . .. do you change the message at least slightly so you have a chance to win election?

or the same for abortion...

If you think losing the election had to do wtih christian voters etc. 4 years later.. no matter who is running. I dont think those voters are going to switch to supporting abortion etc.. the complaint of sharpton was that this turned into a "morals" election.. those voters will have the same morals in 4 years mostly

At one time the majority of Americans opposed equal rights for women and minorities. Were the politicians who softened their support for civil rights for the purpose of political expediency right to do that? Or do we owe more to the ones who spent the time and political capital to explain the importance of equal rights for all people? You make a good point on abortion. The GOP did not change their stance when the pro-life position was exceedingly unpopular -- they worked hard on selling their message and changing the minds of American voters. That's working and Bush has been a big part of that. He didn't say, well, most Americans are pro-choice so I will be too. He said he would use the bully pulpit to explain his values to Americans and that he hoped that would result in people rethinking the issue.

Popular opinion on gay rights (including marriage) is extremely changeable. Support for equal rights for gays is overwhelmingly higher among young people than among the old, so this will eventually shift just as rights for women, blacks and other minorities did. It's also significant that Dean's position (and the D party's position) on gay marriage is identical to Dick Cheney's, so we have another good example here of a failure to communicate rather than a fundamentally flawed principle.

Specifically on the two issues you mentioned here, the electorate is very nearly divided and popular opinion on both issues is changeable. But rather than ask Dean what to do about those two issues, pan back and ask him to convince you that the core values of the Democrats are closer to yours than the core values of the Republicans.

[Rocket Fan]

In other words..

People said the christian voters were the difference this year. I don't think it's possible to switch that group from republican or democrat without a change in the actual message.

Not saying they necessary should change the message. if that is what they stand for. Just saying I don't think the candidate can get those voters to change their views if using a pro abortion and gay marriage stance.

[Rocket Fan]

I should probably take out the gay marriage part of my argument.

I think that opinion you may have some luck with. Even if they don't support it, I could see having some people decide the government shouldn't control it.

The abortion thing though.. I don't see being able to change the opinion of most that are against it. Personally, that is a big issue for me for instance.

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by Rocket Fan
I should probably take out the gay marriage part of my argument.

I think that opinion you may have some luck with. Even if they don't support it, I could see having some people decide the government shouldn't control it.

The abortion thing though.. I don't see being able to change the opinion of most that are against it. Personally, that is a big issue for me for instance. Ok that is fair enough. But when Clinton won his elections did the GOP have to adopt a pro-choice stance in order to win again?

I think the election comes down to more than message. The GOP managed to get out enough voters that saw things there way. If the Democras had delivered their message in a way that had gotten more voters out they would have won. That could have been done without having to change.

It worked for the GOP last time. They didn't adopt the democratic position on abortion, but they did deliver a message and got enough people out to support them that they won.

It is isn't always about changing the message. That is especially true in close elections.

[Rocket Fan]

And yes. I won't ask him about those issues.. I'm going mainly to see what he has to say about the core issues etc.


The topic of this talk is visions of america. He is supposed to speak on his visions of america. He has been given a stage with the very specified topic of his visions of america.. seems to me like a PERFECT opportunity for him to say exactly what the parties visions are.

[Batman Jones]

Originally posted by Rocket Fan
batman .. I'll listen to what he has to say.

My point on the other thing was for instance..

If the election was lost because of christian voters.. no matter who the candidate is.. is the message is in support of abortion for instance than they are not going to get those christian voters to vote democrat..

I don't think changing the candidate will win them the "moral" voters as some call them. Whether or not it's worth changing the message to get those voters is up to the party, but I don't think its possible to get the majority of christian voters if the party has a message that allows for abortion etc..

Cool that you're going in with an open mind.

I agree with you that there are voters for whom abortion is the most important issue and for whom that issue will decide their vote. There are voters like that on both sides. Right now, there are about 30-something percent that favor abortion in most cases and virtually the same percent that oppose it in most cases. Under 20% favor keeping abortion legal in all cases and under 20% favor banning it in all cases. But most Americans recognize it as a complicated issue in which neither side is entirely right. I am conflicted about this issue myself.

What Democrats need to do (and what Dean is attempting to do) is to explain that neither party has a monopoly on values. Democrats have very strong values which, like the GOP's, largely find their roots in religious principles. Democrats stand for fairness, equality, helping those who are less fortunate, protecting the earth and its resources over profit, etc. But in recent years, they have virtually ceded "values" to the religious right.

I'll assume for a moment (and it doesn't matter if it's true or not) that you're not only conservative but religious and suggest an amendment to the Dean question. Tell him that you're a religious conservative that votes Republican because of your core values and ask him why you should believe the core values of the Democratic party are a closer match with yours. And, again, please report back to let us know if his answer is persuasive.

[Trader_Jorge]

Good to see you are back on Dean's bandwagon, Batman. You were a fish out of water in the Kerry camp.

[Rocket Fan]

franchise .. true..

I do think its easier to get a pro abortion person to go along with anti abortion...

than a anti abortion to go along with pro abortion...

just because in the first case you are going towards the side of life.. the other one . going towards the side of death...

I think its a lot easier to convince someone that abortions are not a good thing.. than convince someone that abortions are...

But that is probably just my personal view.

[Rocket Fan]

batman. yes I'd say I'm religious.

Sharpton did make a good point last night.. about if you are voting on moral issues make sure you are looking at ALL moral issues. Abortion isn't the only religious values.. and you have to look at the other core values and morals. not just abortion.

I'll be accompanied to this event by a new jersey liberal lol....

He was told to give his vision of america.. hope that is what he does instead of spending all his time on bashing bush etc... I want to hear the core values of democrats.. not just why republicans are bad.

[Batman Jones]

Originally posted by Rocket Fan
I think its a lot easier to convince someone that abortions are not a good thing.. than convince someone that abortions are...

Another great example of the Dem's failure to communicate their message in the past.

Abortion in America went down in the Clinton years and up in the Bush years. Most Americans don't know that.

NOBODY believes abortions are a good thing. NOBODY. Everybody agrees that it would be better to have less of them. The true debate is not who is for or against abortion -- nobody is for abortion. Nobody hopes abortions will increase. Hillary Clinton recently called abortion a tragic act and said we should do whatever we can to have as few of them as possible. The real debate is how we do that. Democrats favor sex education and making contraception available. Republicans favor an abstinence-only approach to sex ed and oppose making contraception more available. Which is a better approach to reducing the number of abortions in this country? As a pro-life voter, which of these approaches do you believe will reduce abortions in this country?

[Batman Jones]

Originally posted by Rocket Fan
He was told to give his vision of america.. hope that is what he does instead of spending all his time on bashing bush etc... I want to hear the core values of democrats.. not just why republicans are bad.

I hope you get your wish -- not just for this event but for the forseeable future.

[No Worries]

Originally posted by Rocket Fan
People said the christian voters were the difference this year. I don't think it's possible to switch that group from republican or democrat without a change in the actual message.
Democrats are one wedge issue away from making the rainy day christians stay at home. Bush not going hard after the constitutional ammendment to ban gay marriages would be a candidate for the wedge issue.

[Rocket Fan]

batman jones.. what did trouble me was the fact that.. when asked to give a vision for america speech...

sharpton for instance was still talking about the election. bashing bush etc.

Bush can't run for president again.... and Kerry I dont think is going to be running in 2008..

It would seem like at least for these few years both sides would concentrate on the positives of their message.. since there isnt even another candidate to bash yet...

Bashing Bush isn't going to help much since Bush isn't going to be running. until we have canidiates.. it would seem to be in both sides interest to stick to talking about their own messages.. or the differences between the parties instead of specific people..

if I ask someone why I should vote democrat and they start talking about bush.. that isnt going to convince me since bush wont be running again

[bigtexxx]

I'd engage him in a SHOUTING MATCH, Anchorman-style.

I DON'T KNOW WHY I'M SCREAMING!!!

[Rocket Fan]

bigtexx.. lol... shouting match would be interesting

[Batman Jones]

Originally posted by Rocket Fan
if I ask someone why I should vote democrat and they start talking about bush.. that isnt going to convince me since bush wont be running again

That's reasonable. I think you're going to hear a lot more about vision for the future and Dem values over the next years, but you'll hear criticism of the other party too. On issues like Social Security, Iraq, the rest of the Middle East, N. Korea, budget deficits, judicial appointments, the environment, alternative energy, campaign finance, diplomatic relations with our allies, the Mid East peace process, taxes, health care and on and on, decisions are being made now that will have a very, very long term impact. It is the job of the opposition party to oppose, in as meaningful a way as is possible, moves that they believe will have a long term negative impact. But I certainly agree the D party needs to do a much better job of defining itself as more than an opposition party.

On abortion, I think you're going to hear more about the culture of life in general. At least, I hope so. I talked about this some in giddyup's abortion thread to little avail, but there is more to a culture of life than that one issue. It is reasonable to ask those who value a culture of life whether or not an elective, pre-emptive war was a good idea. Do pro-life people (and I'm defining this in a macro sense now) favor the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive wars? How do pro-lifers feel about the death penalty? What message does it send that we value the life of a woman whose doctors say she will always be a vegetable but we take people off life support when they can no longer pay their bills? How do we feel about executing retarded people? And beyond the fact of living, what about the quality of life? Shouldn't those who value life also support broader access to health care? Shouldn't they place a premium on eliminating hunger and even starvation in our own country? Shouldn't they do everything they can to eliminate homelessness? I applaud the interest in preserving the lives of the unborn, but does the concern end there? What about the people dying from starvation, those who are freezing to death or dying of heatstroke from living on the street, from lack of medical attention? And aren't there cases where a strict pro-life policy might endanger efforts to save and extend lives in the future? Supporters of stem cell research, which comprise the majority of our country, would say yes. I personally extend valuing life to the lives of animals, too. Do those who value life only value the lives of humans (and, to a lesser degree, housepets)? Or do they also value the lives of cows, birds, pigs, fish? Shouldn't valuing life include valuing our environment, doing what we can to preserve the ozone layer and combat global warming? And on abortion itself, if we really want to meaningfully reduce abortion in this country, shouldn't we start with reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies? If it is truly important to do everything we can to reduce abortions, shouldn't we encourage sex education even for those who do not and will not choose abstinence? Shouldn't we make contraception more available rather than less available?

I don't suggest I have the answers to these questions, but I do suggest we have a national dialogue about them -- about the value we place on life in this country. There's much more to this issue than whether or not we should jail women for choosing abortion. And, in fact, banning abortion, jailing women for having them, will not eliminate abortion. That's a known fact. Rich women who want abortions will travel overseas to have them and poor women will use coat hangers as they did before Roe. I agree a change in the law would reduce abortions, but it would not eliminate them. The question we should ask when we talk about abortion then is how best to reduce abortions in this country. The GOP may be the preferred party of pro-lifers, but I think it is a fallacy to believe they are doing everything they can to reduce abortions in this country. Let's have this debate for real.

[Deckard]

Originally posted by Batman Jones
That's reasonable. I think you're going to hear a lot more about vision for the future and Dem values over the next years, but you'll hear criticism of the other party too. On issues like Social Security, Iraq, the rest of the Middle East, N. Korea, budget deficits, judicial appointments, the environment, alternative energy, campaign finance, diplomatic relations with our allies, the Mid East peace process, taxes, health care and on and on, decisions are being made now that will have a very, very long term impact. It is the job of the opposition party to oppose, in as meaningful a way as is possible, moves that they believe will have a long term negative impact. But I certainly agree the D party needs to do a much better job of defining itself as more than an opposition party.

On abortion, I think you're going to hear more about the culture of life in general. At least, I hope so. I talked about this some in giddyup's abortion thread to little avail, but there is more to a culture of life than that one issue. It is reasonable to ask those who value a culture of life whether or not an elective, pre-emptive war was a good idea. Do pro-life people (and I'm defining this in a macro sense now) favor the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive wars? How do pro-lifers feel about the death penalty? What message does it send that we value the life of a woman whose doctors say she will always be a vegetable but we take people off life support when they can no longer pay their bills? How do we feel about executing retarded people? And beyond the fact of living, what about the quality of life? Shouldn't those who value life also support broader access to health care? Shouldn't they place a premium on eliminating hunger and even starvation in our own country? Shouldn't they do everything they can to eliminate homelessness? I applaud the interest in preserving the lives of the unborn, but does the concern end there? What about the people dying from starvation, those who are freezing to death or dying of heatstroke from living on the street, from lack of medical attention? And aren't there cases where a strict pro-life policy might endanger efforts to save and extend lives in the future? Supporters of stem cell research, which comprise the majority of our country, would say yes. I personally extend valuing life to the lives of animals, too. Do those who value life only value the lives of humans (and, to a lesser degree, housepets)? Or do they also value the lives of cows, birds, pigs, fish? Shouldn't valuing life include valuing our environment, doing what we can to preserve the ozone layer and combat global warming? And on abortion itself, if we really want to meaningfully reduce abortion in this country, shouldn't we start with reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies? If it is truly important to do everything we can to reduce abortions, shouldn't we encourage sex education even for those who do not and will not choose abstinence? Shouldn't we make contraception more available rather than less available?
...............

Batman, you should be a speech writer for the Democratic Party. Seriously. The only thing I would change would be the reference to the lives of animals when making your argument. It's not that I disagree, but that it's exactly the sort of thing the Rove Crew would seize on to muddy the rest of your points, and to alter the context of the message to suit their strategy of belittling anything that is clearly a Democratic position that could have traction.


Keep D&D Civil!!

[Batman Jones]

Thanks, Deckard. I said in the "desired profession" thread in the Hangout that I was already doing what I wanted to do, albeit for too little money, but helping to explain core Democratic principles to the American people would be a dream job. Anybody know who's hiring? Unfortunately, I fear a few more years of school and a long trip up the party ladder would be required and at 36 years old less a week that seems a bit much. Anybody knows a fast track, I'm there.

[Batman Jones]

p.s. I love Kucinich, but unless I was writing his speeches (and I expect he writes his own), I'd leave out the vegan stuff. I include it here because I value life deeply and my diet is one of the ways I 'live my faith.' And because, although I'm sure the Dept. of Justice (and by extension the administration, including Rove) is lurking here as everywhere, they're not posting. Yet.

[Rocket Fan]

batman.. you make good points.

I think leaving off the part about abortions will stil happen would be better for the democrats... it comes across as saying. people will do it anyways so lets just keep it legal.

As a pro lifer.. some of those things you stated I think would be shot down. We don't equate killing a baby who has done nothing to be the same as executing a murderer etc.

Just a few things that I don't think would play well with the swing voters.

We should always be looking for ways to help people etc though... as long as at the same time we are making sure that people arent taking advantage of the system to get food without working etc..

... random but.. and this may be unpopular to say

another issue that is starting to worry me is immigration. If we somehow kept all of mexico.. IN mexico I think we'd save enough money to build all the homeless mansions. The numbers of how much we spend on illegal immigrant healthcare etc are pretty staggering..

[Batman Jones]

Rocket Fan:

I appreciate where you're coming from, but I prefer a sincere discussion of the actual issues to handicapping the reactions of swing voters. Abortions will continue, so let's agree to focus on reducing them rather than eliminating them. One way they might be reduced is by the threat of prosecution. That's on the table. Another is through sex ed. Another is contraception. What else could we do? Rather than limiting the debate over a complicated issue to black and white solutions (abortion should be illegal; abortion should be legal), let's try and work together to improve the situation. I'll listen to the arguments for overturning Roe (and I have), but we'll have a more productive national debate if the other stuff's out there too.

When I talk about the death penalty, I don't seek to equate an innocent with a criminal -- I seek to identify the depth of the value those who count themselves among the 'culture of life' place on life. But when we talk about innocents, I don't feel I hear enough from pro-lifers about the lives of Iraqi civilians. I hear it from the Pope (as I hear about his opposition to the death penalty), but not enough from the Americans who count themselves among the religious right.

As for your point about immigration, I guarantee you the money spent on illegals is dwarfed by the amount of money spent on caring for Americans who, as a result of lacking health insurance, did not get preventative care. It is likewise fair to talk about how we should combat people who might seek to cheat the system with regard to assistance, but what about their children? Will those who value life continue to value the lives of homeless children and children living in poverty? Will they continue to value those lives when they are adults?

[Rocket Fan]

batman.. im running late and have to get ready for dean etc..

for now ill just respond to the qucikest thing. the immigration thing...

is it really dwarfed? i know in america as a whole. but in houston.. I wonder what % of the uninsured etc are illegal immigrants.



I'm all for helping innocent homeless children ... it's not their fault. I'm all for helping homeless in general. just make sure they are doing everything possible to get a job. or to get training to get a job

[Rocket Fan]

batman. as for the abortion thing.. yeah contraception would help a great deal...

the thing is. I dont know what to do about these people. most of the 17 year olds etc.. know good and well the chances of getting pregnant.

[FranchiseBlade]

Rocket Fan, please post more about conservative issues. You have raised the standard of discussion from what it often becomes on this board. It would be great to discuss more topics you.

[Rocket Fan]

franchise.. thanks. I appreciate that comment.

I had a thing all typed up, but accidentally closed it when transferring pictures from tonight! I'll retype my summary later or tomorrow.

Got some good pics. Got to talk to Dean one on one. Even got picture with Tipper Gore. She showed up tonight, not a big surprise though since she did go to Vandy and all.

[basso]

Originally posted by Batman Jones
But when we talk about innocents, I don't feel I hear enough from pro-lifers about the lives of Iraqi civilians.

you raise many good issues, but the emphasis i've heard during this anniversary week on iraqi civilian deaths due to the war troubles me. where was your concern during the years the husseins were murduring their country men? i didn't see marches in the streets, demanding the genocide stop. where were you then? why does your concern only surface when a premptive war is being waged by a republican president? where was it during the bombing of the serbs? did no innocent serb civilians die?

Originally posted by Batman Jones
As for your point about immigration, I guarantee you the money spent on illegals is dwarfed by the amount of money spent on caring for Americans who, as a result of lacking health insurance, did not get preventative care. It is likewise fair to talk about how we should combat people who might seek to cheat the system with regard to assistance, but what about their children? Will those who value life continue to value the lives of homeless children and children living in poverty? Will they continue to value those lives when they are adults?

given your concern about the homeless and their children, why are you against faith-based groups receiving federal monies to provide assistance to the very people you identify as in need? why must only the governement provide assistance directly? doesn't your ideology get in the way of one of the most direct and practical ways of getting assistance to those who are suffering the most?

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by basso
you raise many good issues, but the emphasis i've heard during this anniversary week on iraqi civilian deaths due to the war troubles me. where was your concern during the years the husseins were murduring their country men?

I'm guessing like most liberals it was opposing the conservatives and Reagan and Bush I administrations which were supplying, and supporting Saddam. The Republican president's ambassador to the UN even vetoed UN actions against Saddam for his atrocities. The marches and protest wasn't as strong in the U.S., because the U.S. wasn't as directly respsonsible for those deaths. But anyone who opposed Reagan and Bush I was opposing a president that supported Saddam Hussein, and even covered for the murders you are talking about by keeping measures against them out of the UN. What about you? Were you concerned then? Were you against the Republican administration's support of Saddam?

Originally posted by basso

given your concern about the homeless and their children, why are you against faith-based groups receiving federal monies to provide assistance to the very people you identify as in need? why must only the governement provide assistance directly? doesn't your ideology get in the way of one of the most direct and practical ways of getting assistance to those who are suffering the most? It works both ways. Why can't the faith based programs do good deeds without attaching it to a religion? Why can't they provide the same services to the needy, but keep the religion portion out of it. That way they would be able to qualify for more governement monies to carry on their good work, and wouldn't put any of the funding in jeopardy because a conflict between church and state.

[rimbaud]

Originally posted by basso
you raise many good issues, but the emphasis i've heard during this anniversary week on iraqi civilian deaths due to the war troubles me. where was your concern during the years the husseins were murduring their country men? i didn't see marches in the streets, demanding the genocide stop. where were you then? why does your concern only surface when a premptive war is being waged by a republican president? where was it during the bombing of the serbs? did no innocent serb civilians die?


I don't want to speak for Batman, but this is a bit of an odd argument. Of course it is different when your country is doing something as opposed to another. If President Bush personally went to somebody's house in DC and punched them in the face, breaking their nose, there would be much more outrage here than if Hussein had gone to somebody's house in Bagdad and killed them with his bare hands, laughing all of the time and shouting obscenities to passersby. Stupid example, obviously, but you get the idea.

[basso]

Originally posted by rimbaud
I don't want to speak for Batman, but this is a bit of an odd argument. Of course it is different when your country is doing something as opposed to another. If President Bush personally went to somebody's house in DC and punched them in the face, breaking their nose, there would be much more outrage here than if Hussein had gone to somebody's house in Bagdad and killed them with his bare hands, laughing all of the time and shouting obscenities to passersby. Stupid example, obviously, but you get the idea.

even if i accept your agruement, that still leaves the serb example unadressed.

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by basso
even if i accept your agruement, that still leaves the serb example unadressed. In Serbia there was on ongoing genocide that was being stopped. It was a more urgent and ongoing situation. It wasn't a war where the U.S. would be occupying and running a sovereign nation. In Iraq there was no ongoing genocide, the U.S. would be the ones in control and respsonsible. In Serbia the Serbs own neighbors were responsible for 80% of that coalition. They were taking care of their own neighborhood.

[Batman Jones]

Originally posted by Rocket Fan
batman.. im running late and have to get ready for dean etc..

for now ill just respond to the qucikest thing. the immigration thing...

is it really dwarfed? i know in america as a whole. but in houston.. I wonder what % of the uninsured etc are illegal immigrants.

I'm all for helping innocent homeless children ... it's not their fault. I'm all for helping homeless in general. just make sure they are doing everything possible to get a job. or to get training to get a job

RF:

I don't know the actual numbers of uninsured American citizens vs. illegals. Was just responding to that to say that the great many uninsured (citizens or not) is the real problem. It's funny to me to worry about the cost of illegals receiving health care when we have the same problem with legals. I'm for America joining every other civilized Western country and adopting universal health care.

I agree with you about the homeless.

[Batman Jones]

Originally posted by Rocket Fan
batman. as for the abortion thing.. yeah contraception would help a great deal...

the thing is. I dont know what to do about these people. most of the 17 year olds etc.. know good and well the chances of getting pregnant.

I'm not saying sex ed or condoms are a magic bullet -- just that they would help. I would like the Republican leadership to explain why they oppose methods of curbing abortion that we know for a fact work.

I'd also like to echo FranchiseBlade's sentiment. You're a great addition to this forum. Post more.

[Batman Jones]

Originally posted by basso
you raise many good issues, but the emphasis i've heard during this anniversary week on iraqi civilian deaths due to the war troubles me. where was your concern during the years the husseins were murduring their country men? i didn't see marches in the streets, demanding the genocide stop. where were you then? why does your concern only surface when a premptive war is being waged by a republican president? where was it during the bombing of the serbs? did no innocent serb civilians die?

given your concern about the homeless and their children, why are you against faith-based groups receiving federal monies to provide assistance to the very people you identify as in need? why must only the governement provide assistance directly? doesn't your ideology get in the way of one of the most direct and practical ways of getting assistance to those who are suffering the most?

basso:

Serbia was not a preemptive war. It was waged to stop an urgent situation and was explained to us as such. Iraq was not.

Of course I was concerned with civilian deaths there. I think war is a horrible thing and we ought to avoid it wherever possible. I was conflicted about Serbia but I supported it because the situation there was so awful. I might have been persuaded to support an Iraq war too if it was presented as a means to stop genocide. Saddam is a horrible, murderous man. There are lots of those out there and many lead countries. We have not expressed an interest in going after all of them. Why not? Ironically, one of the few things Bush said in the 2000 campaign that I liked was the idea that we should not be a country of nation builders -- that we should have a more humble foreign policy.

As for the other thing, I am for any and all assistance to any and all needy people. I am against that assistance coming with a requirement that the assisted be proselityzed to in any way. Freedom of religion includes freedom from religion. It's a tricky, touchy subject, but it's an important part of our national character and it's worth preserving. I'm all for churches of any sort living their faith by helping those who need it. I am against the government being in the church business. I've never said that the government must only provide assistance directly so I don't know why you implied I had (you do that a lot). The government provides assistance through many third party providers, but I am leery of any proposal that seems to play fast and loose with the separation of church and state.

[Batman Jones]

Originally posted by rimbaud
I don't want to speak for Batman, but this is a bit of an odd argument. Of course it is different when your country is doing something as opposed to another. If President Bush personally went to somebody's house in DC and punched them in the face, breaking their nose, there would be much more outrage here than if Hussein had gone to somebody's house in Bagdad and killed them with his bare hands, laughing all of the time and shouting obscenities to passersby. Stupid example, obviously, but you get the idea.

That's exactly right. And you can speak for me any time.

[giddyup]

Originally posted by FranchiseBlade
Why can't the faith based programs do good deeds without attaching it to a religion? Why can't they provide the same services to the needy, but keep the religion portion out of it. That way they would be able to qualify for more governement monies to carry on their good work, and wouldn't put any of the funding in jeopardy because a conflict between church and state.
Isn't that the framework out of which their motivation arises?

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by giddyup
Isn't that the framework out of which their motivation arises? Some believe that is so, but others don't. There are also non-religious folks that do many good deeds.

[basso]

interesting to put dean's comments
last night (http://www.tennessean.com/government/archives/05/03/67294794.shtml?Element_ID=67294794) :

The party allowed its opponents too often to define debates and control issues, such as faith and family values, Dean said.

''We need to talk about values and not be afraid of them,'' he said, going on to make two biblical references.

In the first he said Jesus' directive to ''love thy neighbor'' didn't mean one could choose which ones to love. He then remarked that Republicans never brought up the scriptural verse saying it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven.

''We should never let anybody tell us we don't respect faith,'' he said.

alongside some he made last year (http://www.christiansfordean.info/commentary/BostonGlobeNeighbor.html) :


Ungerer called on the Democrats to heed the biblical maxim of "love thy neighbor," adding: "Please tone down the garbage, the mean-mouthing, of tearing down your neighbor, and being so pompous."

Dean, who listened quietly, immediately replied, "George Bush is not my neighbor." When Ungerer tried to interrupt, the former governor shouted: "You sit down! You had your say, and now I'm going to have my say."

[Rocket Fan]

Last night was interesting, first I went to the speech he gave in front of probably 2000 people... but afterwards I got to go to the private reception of about 25-30 people and get a chance to talk to him..

Some things that stood out to me in his speech

-he spent the first part of his speech talking about how they didn't get their message out right. They need to go to all the states.... because by not going places you look like you don't care etc... and that hurts the lower level races as well not just presidential election.. . he talked about how they need more soundbites etc that fit into 20 seconds etc.....

- he specifically noted that he isn't saying to change their mesage at all

- he said there is room for people who are against abortion in the democratic party..

He was very well spoken and I was actually impressed by his speech, even if it wasn't what I believe. As a republican the thing that catches my attention is the fact that he was just in an election. If they didn't do all the things right to get the message out in the election he was just in... what makes them they think will be able to next time? It is easier said than done, as I'm sure he learned.

He also talked about improving education. Once again, every candidate wants to improve education, but it is easier said than done.

Moving on, I met Tipper Gore as I was leaving... not a big surprise since she is a Vandy alum and comes to some things I know.. but it was cool to get a pic with her.

Afterwards, I went to the reception with Dean.. with the members of the board who brought Dean there as well as their guests. Probably about 25-30 of us there. I was introduced to him as a Texas conservative by by new jersey friend, and asked him how he would convince me to be a democrat in under 2 minutes...

He more or less just said a (not exact quote)... you cant trust republicans with your money. They spend and spend and don't pay. it will be bad for your generation...

He was a pretty good guy, that talked to us each for quite a while (while eating chocolate chip cookies).. then again if I was getting big money to come speak I'd be nice too :)

I was joking with a democratic friend last night though that.. if the DNC head can't convince me to be a democrat, you might as well give up.

I'll post more later if I think of anything.. maybe I can get ahead of a transcript of speech, but i dunno

.

[Rocket Fan]

oh he also talked about the d emocrats need to stop letting the republicans tell people what the democrats believe in. and get their own message out.

[Rocket Fan]

oh one last thing.. in the reception afterwards someone was talking to him about his own campaign... dean felt that if he had advanced to the election his problem would have been national defense. they would have tried to tear him apart like they did kerry .

[Batman Jones]

Originally posted by Rocket Fan
He was very well spoken and I was actually impressed by his speech, even if it wasn't what I believe.

Thanks for the recap, RF. Pretty cool that you got to go to the smaller reception.

Can you speak to what, specifically, Dean said that wasn't in line with what you believe? I'd be more interested in issues/values stuff than political strategy stuff.

[Rocket Fan]

batman..

sadly, much of his speech seemed like he was talking to an all democratic rally or something.. he seemed to be speaking mostly about political strategy and what we need to do better.. seemed like he had it geared a little too much towards the whole crowd being democrat..

but some things.. I brought up the abortion thing with him afterwards.. and he said there is room for someone that is pro life in the democratic party. I myself can't see that. If I'm anti abortion I'm not just going to go along with the democratic party.

Also he just didn't say anything that would convince me that the democrats would be better at national defense.

He wants to make education better. I'm all for that, but so is everyone else. I need to know how, and where the money is going to come from.

Personally I think the new social security moves could be a good thing.

Also I believe vouchers can be a good thing instead of just pumping money into schools. We're actually studying it in one of my courses right now... making schools compete with each other and how it makes them more efficient.

Many studies I've read show that pumping money into poor schools does not make a difference. The inner city schools, often times the problem is the students and the family and environment they were raised in. A lot of studies show that pumping money into a poor school does not increase performance.

Lastly as an economics major, I actually believe in the econ policies of the repubicans. I believe a tax cut can help stimulate the economy.. etc. Then again I also have classes with the son of the guy who invented the Laffer Curve of economics :)

One last note. he made one comment about if the bush econoimc policy was a company it would be enron or something..... hope he doesn't use that in the future. .. I don't think calling them enron is fair.

[Batman Jones]

Thanks for the response, RF.

Originally posted by Rocket Fan
but some things.. I brought up the abortion thing with him afterwards.. and he said there is room for someone that is pro life in the democratic party. I myself can't see that. If I'm anti abortion I'm not just going to go along with the democratic party.

I'm glad you raised that with him. Being a pro-life Republican, I hope you'll work to encourage the Republican party to allow for a sex ed policy that would include more than an abstinence only approach and to allow for increased access to contraception. I'm also curious as to how you square your party ID with the fact that abortions were down under Clinton and up under Bush.

Personally I think the new social security moves could be a good thing.

The SS proposal is one of the reasons Dean compares the Bush admin to Enron. SS was created as an insurance policy for our seniors. That insurance policy is significantly less valuable if a young person makes a wrong move with his SS money in the stock market. The comedian David Cross likens it to betting money on a horse ("Have you seen the stock market lately? It's like betting all your money on Papa's Moustache in the third."). I'd be in favor of studying other investment options for SS funds, but the stock market is too volatile to rely on when it comes to monies that are specifically earmarked for insurance. You've spoken before about Coulter's (and basso's) thesis that when the majority rejects a message the cause may be the message itself. Bush's SS proposal is increasingly unpopular. Gallup has Americans rejecting the plan 53-40 (http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/03/22/pollsoc.sec/index.html) and Time has it at 54-37 (http://realclearpolitics.com/RCP_PDF/Time_0328%20Bush%20Poll%20results.pdf). In this case, is it the message or the messenger that's flawed?

Also I believe vouchers can be a good thing instead of just pumping money into schools. We're actually studying it in one of my courses right now... making schools compete with each other and how it makes them more efficient.

Many studies I've read show that pumping money into poor schools does not make a difference. The inner city schools, often times the problem is the students and the family and environment they were raised in. A lot of studies show that pumping money into a poor school does not increase performance.

Interesting since Dean once said vouchers were worthy of study. If the family and/or the environment a poor child is raised in is the problem though, I'm not sure I understand how vouchers are the solution.

Lastly as an economics major, I actually believe in the econ policies of the repubicans. I believe a tax cut can help stimulate the economy.. etc. Then again I also have classes with the son of the guy who invented the Laffer Curve of economics :)

One last note. he made one comment about if the bush econoimc policy was a company it would be enron or something..... hope he doesn't use that in the future. .. I don't think calling them enron is fair.

How do you feel about truth in advertising when it comes to proposed budgets and deficit forecasts? How do you feel about the Bush admin submitting a budget that doesn't include the majority of the costs of the Iraq war? The Republican party was until recently the party of fiscal responsibility, balanced budgets and smaller government. What do you believe has changed such that we now have the biggest government and the largest deficit in the history of the country and how do you feel about those changes?

[Rocket Fan]

batman.. I should have specified. I don't think dean specifically said vouchers.. but after listening to sharpton etc I thought most democrats were against vouchers.

I should have seperated the two issues..

!) Many times it's not the school thats the problem, it's the background of the students in it.. in these cases pumping money into them doesn't help.. pumping money into inner city schools for instance often times isn't the solution.. someway needs to be developed to figure out how to solve the real issues behind why so many people in inner city schools etc drop out..

and when money does help, often times the schools don't use the money the way it should be used.

2) when the school is the problem, I prefer the students get a chance to leave the school.

Really, I think the problems with a lot of schools is how they are ran.. the method in which teacher salaries are decided etc etc... they need to become more effiecent and the threat of having to compete to keep students may help that.

I could make a whole thread on my issues with pubilc education.

[Rocket Fan]

batman..

abortion...
I think the fact that abortion went up during the last 4 years doesn't necessarily reflect poorly on Bush. Abortions were made legal before Bush, I don't think he has done things to increase abortions.

It could be because of all kinds of factors.. even including the fact that we are in a recession and more people thought they couldn't afford to keep a kid.. I'll have to look at numbers later, don't want to comment further on something I'm not quite sure about.


economy...
I think we were put in a tough situation because of the fact that when Bush took office we were at the beginning of a recession.

I think the tax cuts were needed to help restart the economy.

I also supported the war, and the costs associated with it. Tax cuts and war together, will create deficits.

Normally I probably wouldn't be cutting taxes during a war, but I think because of the recession it was needed.

I will need to look at some numbers before I comment further on past republican administrations. I'm only 21, so don't remember very far back.

I need to run and work on something for a class, but I will comment again later. I also need to further examine the social security issue. I like the idea in general, but I haven't looked at it enough in detail to know everything about it. I just like the general idea of it.. but I need to examine it further.

[Rocket Fan]

I should note that I say that I support the ideas of Republicans.

They might not always be implemented perfectly, I recognize that.

When done correctly though, I think they are best. There is always room for improving the way they are done though.

When I'm president, I'll make sure they are ran perfectly :)

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by Rocket Fan
2) when the school is the problem, I prefer the students get a chance to leave the school.

Really, I think the problems with a lot of schools is how they are ran.. the method in which teacher salaries are decided etc etc... they need to become more effiecent and the threat of having to compete to keep students may help that.

One of my issues with vouchers is what happens to the students who stay behind at the inner city school? Should they just be abandoned? If not money that would have gone to that school has gone to vouchers and those students are still left at an underperforming school with even less funding than before?

The other thing about funding is that middle class schools usually have it the worst, at least in CA. They don't get the govt. help that the poorer schools have, nor do they have the parents pouring in money like kids in the richer schools. With that being said, I know that the poorest schools really don't have enough money. There aren't enough text books for kids, there isn't enough supervision for students, and there is a lack of support staff for the teachers.

[basso]

Originally posted by Batman Jones
You've spoken before about Coulter's (and basso's) thesis that when the majority rejects a message the cause may be the message itself. Bush's SS proposal is increasingly unpopular. Gallup has Americans rejecting the plan 53-40 (http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/03/22/pollsoc.sec/index.html) and Time has it at 54-37 (http://realclearpolitics.com/RCP_PDF/Time_0328%20Bush%20Poll%20results.pdf). In this case, is it the message or the messenger that's flawed?

there's another poll you left out, one conducted november 2nd. Bush did pretty well in that one.

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by basso
there's another poll you left out, one conducted november 2nd. Bush did pretty well in that one. That poll only proves the point. People disagree with Bush's message (SS in this case) but the person, and the way he delivered that message got the job done.

[Trader_Jorge]

The fact that Dean is now leading the DNC just confirms that the Democrats learned nothing from last November's election. Good move Dems, pick a guy to lead the DNC who was too liberal for the Democratic primaries. Fantastic choice.

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by Trader_Jorge
The fact that Dean is now leading the DNC just confirms that the Democrats learned nothing from last November's election. Good move Dems, pick a guy to lead the DNC who was too liberal for the Democratic primaries. Fantastic choice. This post only shows that you don't understand Dean's positions and record since he was less liberal than the person who won the Democratic primary.

Fantastic post.

[Rocket Fan]

One more comment on Dean, it was a little odd to meet him. After talking to him he seemed like a nice guy and all, it's so hard to get a view of anyone when your only way is thru the media.

I'd post pics of me with these people, but I'm not quite that crazy :)

franchiseblade...

Those are good things to point out. There is an argument that the fact that schools are losing students forces them to find new ways to be efficent and they end up better off. The threat of competition forces schools to organize themselves better.

A problem is though, if the students who stay at the school are the lowest level students... those students are actually the ones who cost the most to educate..

I think I will be better able to make a statement on this in a week or so. This is the current topic in my education and economic development course. Actually have a speaker on it tomorrow, so I will probably be better informed of it when we finish studying the issue. Of course it is taught as an upper level econ course so a lot of the things I'm looking at about education are from economical standpoints etc, but try to look at all sides of it.

I like the idea of vouchers in theory, but I need to finish examining some things before I can say exactly what I think is the best way to do it. The fact that I'm reading the stuff for a class already gives me the opportunity.

[Rocket Fan]

To clear one other issue up. Earlier, I wasn't necessarily saying people should change their message. My point was that I don't think it was the delivery, but the message that cost votes.

Sometimes I think it requires a change in the message if you expect to win, but someone has to decide if its worth changing their message just to win.

I think the average person got their message plenty of times, just didn't support it. The social security thing is a little more complex because I'm not sure the average american understands exactly what they are trying to do yet. If america understands the issue, and still rejects it then I guess I'd take that as america rejecting their message on social security. At that point they have to decide if they should stick to their message or not.

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by Rocket Fan
One more comment on Dean, it was a little odd to meet him. After talking to him he seemed like a nice guy and all, it's so hard to get a view of anyone when your only way is thru the media.

I'd post pics of me with these people, but I'm not quite that crazy :)

franchiseblade...

Those are good things to point out. There is an argument that the fact that schools are losing students forces them to find new ways to be efficent and they end up better off. The threat of competition forces schools to organize themselves better.

A problem is though, if the students who stay at the school are the lowest level students... those students are actually the ones who cost the most to educate..

I think I will be better able to make a statement on this in a week or so. This is the current topic in my education and economic development course. Actually have a speaker on it tomorrow, so I will probably be better informed of it when we finish studying the issue. Of course it is taught as an upper level econ course so a lot of the things I'm looking at about education are from economical standpoints etc, but try to look at all sides of it.

I like the idea of vouchers in theory, but I need to finish examining some things before I can say exactly what I think is the best way to do it. The fact that I'm reading the stuff for a class already gives me the opportunity. Thanks for the reply. I'd be interested in any more information and your insight as you cover the topic more.

I'm leaning towards being against vouchers for the reasons I mentioned earlier, but I'm not dead set 100% against them. I know of some cases where they were used and were beneficial to the students who received them, and some cases where they weren't. I couldn't find studies on the schools that were left behind.

I will say stripping a needy school of more money in hopes that that will force it to become more efficient and better will be a hard sell. Schools like that will be have an incredibly difficult time attracting highly qualified teachers to go there. Teachers aren't going to want to stay for a any time and definitely for a long time at a school under those situations. As is there isn't enough for textbooks, copies, repairs, experienced teachers etc. Taking more money away from these schools may not help it.

[Fatty FatBastard]

Batman, et al:

My two cents:

First, it's Catholic's that preach abstinence. There is a difference. I'm pro-life, myself, but I've been down the pro-choice road. I see this as middle ground for the vast majority of young American's. ie. non-issue.

On Healthcare:

There's no two ways about it. In Utopia, we'd all get free health care subsidized by our government. And if we all want to go to Ben Taub's from now on, we can have it, although it will get progressively worse.

The problem is we are the ONLY Country that is consistently creating new vaccines and cures. Why? Capitalism. We get the best and the brightest that know they can get rich by coming up with the next best thing. Canada and Europe take our research on our drugs and replicate it. Unfortunately, it wouldn't even exist without Capitalism. At least not now. Maybe in 100 years, socialism will make its natural shift. But Society is not ready. And y'all need to realize that.

Social Security: I don't even know where to start with y'all. In the 60's, Social Security was in the Trillions. Our Government had statistical experts verify that SS wouldn't even scratch the surface of SS for well over two generations. So the Gov. decided to dip into SS for other "needs" crap. Within ten years, it was wiped out.

Pardon me, but I'm not looking forward to the Gov. ever touching my money again.

Also, Since its inception, the S&P 500 has earned an average of 8.62%/year. That means your initial investment will double every 8 1/3 years. With dollar cost averaging, it is significantly higher.

That is one fund every citizen can easily invest in, no matter how stupid.

Beats the return SS ever did.

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by Fatty FatBastard
Batman, et al:

The problem is we are the ONLY Country that is consistently creating new vaccines and cures. Why? Capitalism. We get the best and the brightest that know they can get rich by coming up with the next best thing. Canada and Europe take our research on our drugs and replicate it. Unfortunately, it wouldn't even exist without Capitalism. At least not now. Maybe in 100 years, socialism will make its natural shift. But Society is not ready. And y'all need to realize that.
Health care provided to all of America's citizens is not the same thing as abandoning capitalism. We'd just be a capitalist society that also provided health benefits to all of its citizens.

FDR wanted to have nationalized healthcare, but couldn't make any more enemies than he already had. The doctors had already tried to stop medicare, and medicaid. Truman was then in favor of nationalized healthcare as well, but that was the start of the cold war. The Doctors were able to convince folks that it was akin to communism, or a slide towards a socialist U.S. Sadly that label has stuck since then, and we've gone generations without nationalized health care.

[rimbaud]

Originally posted by Fatty FatBastard

First, it's Catholic's that preach abstinence. There is a difference.

Only Catholics promote abstinence?

[Fatty FatBastard]

Originally posted by FranchiseBlade
Health care provided to all of America's citizens is not the same thing as abandoning capitalism. We'd just be a capitalist society that also provided health benefits to all of its citizens.

FDR wanted to have nationalized healthcare, but couldn't make any more enemies than he already had. The doctors had already tried to stop medicare, and medicaid. Truman was then in favor of nationalized healthcare as well, but that was the start of the cold war. The Doctors were able to convince folks that it was akin to communism, or a slide towards a socialist U.S. Sadly that label has stuck since then, and we've gone generations without nationalized health care.

Capitalism is needed so that we get the best and the brightest to be Doctors. If we nationalize it, you lose the innovations that Capitalism creates.

During WWII, there was a salary freeze. Companies couldn't attract competing workers by giving them a raise, because it wasn't allowed.

Due to this, companies started giving other benefits, such as health care and retirement plans.

I'm not sure why FDR would want nationalized health care at a time when companies were giving it away.

The largest problem has become drug advertising in health care. Making drug advertising illegal would solve a lot of the rising health care costs.

[andymoon]

Originally posted by Fatty FatBastard

The largest problem has become drug advertising in health care. Making drug advertising illegal would solve a lot of the rising health care costs.

Agreed. It is disgusting that we now have commercials on TV that tell people to go talk to their doctors about drugs that doctors should be recommending.

[Fatty FatBastard]

Originally posted by rimbaud
Only Catholics promote abstinence?

As a group? Yes. Most conservatives don't have any problem with birth-control.

As far as giving condoms to high school kids, I'm against it. If you're too stupid to buy a condom before sex, having a condom at hand probably isn't going to help much.

I'm OK with condom machines in high school bathrooms, though.

[rimbaud]

Originally posted by Fatty FatBastard
As a group? Yes. Most conservatives don't have any problem with birth-control.

I'm confused.

Conservative Christians are only allright with certain birth control methods after marriage. Catholics believe in the "Catholic Method" for birth control after marriage. So I don't understand your point.

Pretty much every major conservative Christian organization I know preaches abstinence with the "no sex until marriage" mantra.

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by Fatty FatBastard
Capitalism is needed so that we get the best and the brightest to be Doctors. If we nationalize it, you lose the innovations that Capitalism creates.

During WWII, there was a salary freeze. Companies couldn't attract competing workers by giving them a raise, because it wasn't allowed.

Due to this, companies started giving other benefits, such as health care and retirement plans.

I'm not sure why FDR would want nationalized health care at a time when companies were giving it away.

The largest problem has become drug advertising in health care. Making drug advertising illegal would solve a lot of the rising health care costs. If capitalism gave us the best medical system in the world I would buy your argument. Instead we are 7th or 8th. I can't remember which.

But as I said it isn't about doing away with capitalism. It is about having national health care plans for everyone. That doesn't mean that we would no longer be a capitalist country.

[Fatty FatBastard]

Originally posted by FranchiseBlade
If capitalism gave us the best medical system in the world I would buy your argument. Instead we are 7th or 8th. I can't remember which.

But as I said it isn't about doing away with capitalism. It is about having national health care plans for everyone. That doesn't mean that we would no longer be a capitalist country.

Capitalism gives us the best doctors. It gives us the best hospitals. It gives us the best research and medicine.

You're judging our system as a whole. I'm assuming Ben Taub is around 7th or 8th in the world.

I'd rather go to Memorial Hermann or St. Jude's or UTMB over any of the so-called 6 other countries with "better" health care.

In America, if you can afford it, you are going to get the best physicians in the world.

[Fatty FatBastard]

Originally posted by rimbaud
I'm confused.

Conservative Christians are only allright with certain birth control methods after marriage. Catholics believe in the "Catholic Method" for birth control after marriage. So I don't understand your point.

Pretty much every major conservative Christian organization I know preaches abstinence with the "no sex until marriage" mantra.

OK, I'll help you with this analogy:

Conservative Christians who promote abstinance as the only form of birth control is to Conservatives as PETA is to liberals.

They're both on the far end.

[andymoon]

Originally posted by Fatty FatBastard

In America, if you can afford it, you are going to get the best physicians in the world.

And if you can't afford it, you are completely screwed.

[andymoon]

Originally posted by Fatty FatBastard
OK, I'll help you with this analogy:

Conservative Christians who promote abstinance as the only form of birth control is to Conservatives as PETA is to liberals.

They're both on the far end.

Unfortunately, it doesn't seem that way when GWB and Co. promote "abstinance only" as the only types of programs they will fund, not just in the US, but around the world as well.

[hz10]

Originally posted by Deckard
I would ask him what the Democratic Party position is if China invades Taiwan, whether we should reinforce the 7th Fleet, and it's position on Tibet. ;)

A far better question would be Batman's, however. Dean should have a succinct answer.


Yeh, good luck. The reply may be short. But, somehow, I don't think you will get an answer.;)

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by Fatty FatBastard
Capitalism gives us the best doctors. It gives us the best hospitals. It gives us the best research and medicine.

You're judging our system as a whole. I'm assuming Ben Taub is around 7th or 8th in the world.

I'd rather go to Memorial Hermann or St. Jude's or UTMB over any of the so-called 6 other countries with "better" health care.

In America, if you can afford it, you are going to get the best physicians in the world. Yes as a whole our health care is 7th or 8th. I'm talking about more than just Ben Taub. I'm talking about average life expectancy rate, infant mortality rate etc.

We don't judge nations on the wealthiest individuals we judge a nation as a whole. As a whole Sweeden has a better health care system. The average citizen in other some of the other western nations have a longer life expectancy than the average citizen of the U.S.

[Refman]

Ask him two questions:

1. How did an adult human make that famous scream of his?
2. How would he spell that if posting it on a BBS?

:D