Are you registered to vote in the USA?

[diane]

In honor of Jeff’s request, I started this thread. Different states have different deadlines to register but the earliest is October 4th (South Carolina and Rhode Island) so there is still plenty of time. I included links to help make it easier to find out your state’s deadline, register and even research some of the issues.

Many states even allow for absentee ballots that you can mail in without having an excuse or anything. Voting has become very easy. And when you stop and think how important it is it boggles the mind why anyone wouldn’t vote.

And before someone replies that they don’t like this position or that both candidates don’t live up to what they want I just want to point out you to http://www.drury.edu/ess/Logic/Informal/overview.html It goes over the usual fallacies people, and especially politicians, use.

And please don’t say how pointless it is to vote because of the "it is choosing the lesser of two evils" argument. That is the false dilemma argument and just points out your ignorance on both logic and the issues. Just because a person doesn’t agree with you on everything doesn’t mean he would do a bad job. No one is perfect. One could make the argument to not vote if it wasn't going to impact you in anyway, but who we choose to lead this country, serve as our representatives in congress, heck even be our town's sheriff does impact us.

So please register to vote. Heck, sign up for a blog or podcast and learn a few things about the candidates and the issues. You might find that there is something you care about you can help with, there will be more on the ballot besides who is running for president (all of Congress is up and half the senators plus a ton of local issues and elections).

Deadlines for each state:
http://www.rockthevote.com/voting-is-easy/important-dates/

Safe secure non-partisan website to register:
http://www.declareyourself.com/

Obama’s Website and issue stances:
http://www.barackobama.com/index.php

Mc Cain’s website and issue stances:
http://www.johnmccain.com/

So see you at the polls!

[owlboy]

Registering was my gift to myself on my 18th birthday

[geeksunny]

I intend on registering... but I realized that I don't know how you go about doing that.

[diane]

I intend on registering... but I realized that I don't know how you go about doing that.

just click on the link above under safe secure link to register and you can do it right there online. That is it. You will be mailed a card telling you where you can physically go to vote, or you can pick up an absentee ballot vote at a post office, or even request it online. There are different ways to apply for absentee registering, so I would recommend googling your state absentee ballot to get the info.

If anyone needs help, feel free to pm me.

[quorumcall]

"It doesn't matter who you vote for, just vote."

One of the worst cliches in America. In other words, if performing a certain action doesn't matter, do it anyway.

Don't vote for the lesser of two, three, four, or a millions evils, because you'll still just get more and more evil. Don't vote against people, vote for people. Vote for someone who you feel in your heart you truly support. In the last election, everyone I knew was voting against Bush, or against Kerry, which is an extremely cynical way to live.


Caution: Political Statement
And while your at it, vote third party. Really the only question you need to ask when you vote for Republicans or Democrats is who will deliver us to a communistic police state slightly quicker?

[masherscf]

I've voted in every election, local, primary, school budget or whatever for the last 22 years. Of course, I'm registered.

[diane]

Don't vote against people, vote for people.


What a beautiful statement. People seem to always be talking about why not to vote for someone instead of actually talking about why they will vote for a specific person.

As for the "it doesn't matter, just vote" statement, yes cliche. But it is the nice way of motivating people to actually vote. I support Obama, and yes I would like people to vote for Obama, but what I really care about is that more people actually participate and care about voting. You mentioned a communism state (and I would argue that with the current administration we are really talking more Facism boarding on dictorship than communism) but that wouldn't happen if people participated in our Republic and held those to account.

It is a jaded world view, just as bad as voting against people, if you assume that voting will not have any impact. I have seen were voting does come into play and has true implications. I have seen it in my own State Supreme Court and the decisions that they handled that directly impacted myself and the education of my child. In So does my vote have an impact, oh hell yes it does.

People need to understand that politics isn't that hard to follow. Politicians and more importantly, pundits, make it come across that it is too hard and that we need to purely trust them. Trusting politicians is important, but quote an often used Russian phrase by Ronald Reagan, "Trust, but Verify". That is how any good patriot thinks.

[deporitaz]

"It doesn't matter who you vote for, just vote."

One of the worst cliches in America. In other words, if performing a certain action doesn't matter, do it anyway.

That's not exactly what he means. "It doesn't matter who you vote for," I take it, means there are no strings attached to which candidate you vote for -- we won't judge you if you vote Obama or McCain. But as long as you're exercising your civil right to vote (intelligently), that's all anyone should ask.

The way I see it, if you don't vote, you give up your right to bitch about anything.

Edit:
Oh, and I forgot to add: I totally agree with your "vote for, not against" statement which I don't know was really conveyed in my previous statement. People should most definitely vote no matter what, as long as they are taking the effort in researching the candidates and figuring out whether or not their stances and promises on certain issues pertains to their own beliefs. :] The whole voting "against" people is incredibly "high school" which, in this and the past election, I feel our country has stumbled into. :\

[damnedeyez]

Don't vote against people, vote for people. Vote for someone who you feel in your heart you truly support.

Very much agreed...I hate hearing people talk about voting for 'anyone but' or generally against.

That...and the hole 'two party system' argument. If we are, it's only because we keep telling ourselves that, our news and two biggest parties keep telling us that...and for some reason we believe the BS that a vote for a third party is a vote for 'the other side' or whatever.

[masherscf]

The thing about voting is that it is evolutionary not revolutionary. Your vote may or may not seem to change the outcome on a national level. But, your vote has more impact as you address races closer to home. The most important thing is to vote on important local issues and support local candidates who reflect your views. Successful local candidates eventually float upward to state-wise and national races.

[yssman]

First of all, I want to thank Jeff and Diane for doing this... It is absolutely critical that all of us (who are of age) get out there and do our part to make our democratic process work. I can't stress enough how important it is to vote, not only to make your voice heard, but to give you credibility when it comes to having a right to complain when things don't go your way. I too share the feeling with Jeff that it doesn't matter who you vote for, the fact that you're doing it is very important.

===

For those of us in Michigan...

HERE is a list of the 2008 Ballot proposals (http://inkslwc.wordpress.com/2008/04/23/a-look-at-the-michigan-ballot-for-2008-proposals-marijuana-stem-cells-the-senate-health-care-taxes-and-more/), which are just as important to understand as our Presidential and Congressional candidates.

Big things on the ballot this year include a proposal to legalize medical marijuana, a proposal to remove state income and business taxes to be replaced with a flat consumption (read sales) tax, and a proposal to make our State Legislature part-time (Michigan is one of few states that uses a full-time legislature).

Its going to be one helluva year, and as a Political Science student, this is the stuff I live for!

[straylightrise]

Dem or Republican - vote for what you believe in

I'm a political operative so of course I'm registered to vote but I do hope everyone goes out and vote.

[scoobydiesel]

I registered to vote uuh around this time last year, so i got to re vote for the gov of california and i did the primary stuff or whatever.

this will be my first presidental vote, im keeping pumped for it but in my area and for sure in my friends group seem to be the only person to care.

I dont really have a side(as far as demo/rep) go but i have looked over the main points and have picked a side in what i think works better.

so yea o_O

[diane]

Ohio Ballot Initiatives:
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Ohio_2008_ballot_measures

If you live in Ohio you have probably seen commercials for these things. These types of measures are really good to know what yes and no actually mean. Sometimes the name of the measure is purposely misleading or the language is just a bad bill.

Also, every county has a website (or least I have yet to not find a county in the state of Ohio without a website). They can then link you the the board of elections which will have a listing of everything that will be on your ballot ranging from national to local, for issues, bonds, levies and positions (from councilman to president).

Honestly, reviewing this information doesn't take a lot of time, but in the long run can save you a lot of money in wasted taxes or aggravation over something stupid in your community. Plus (for my city, we have councilmen) my councilman, Greg Holcombe, though only like 25, has gone to serious bat over issues that are important to not only myself but also my community. If people just didn't care he probably wouldn't have been elected and the position would have been taken by someone just looking for a resume builder. But people did care and we got someone in a spot who truly wants to help the community. Hopefully more people will do the same and this town, hugely impacted by the leaving of auto manufacturers and steel mills, can be turned around with a new approach.

I give this as an example of why even those choices at the end of the ballot can be important. National might get all the press, but local can have a bigger impact faster in your life. An hour spent now reviewing the issues and the candidates can truly lead to better communities later. And isn't that worth scanning online while watching tv?

[bac255]

I'm registered (since 2004), and I'll be voting in a new state now that I graduated from college in May. Unfortunately, I feel kinda bad since I moved from a "swing state" to a non "swing state". Oh well, still great to participate even if my vote does feel kind of diluted.

Hope everyone else goes out and votes!

[ohhoe]

In honor of Jeff’s request, I started this thread. Different states have different deadlines to register but the earliest is October 4th (South Carolina and Rhode Island) so there is still plenty of time. I included links to help make it easier to find out your state’s deadline, register and even research some of the issues.


THANK YOU SO MUCH, I completely forgot. I just moved to Philadelphia and I need to register for my new address.

[trsjeff]

That's not exactly what he means. "It doesn't matter who you vote for," I take it, means there are no strings attached to which candidate you vote for -- we won't judge you if you vote Obama or McCain. But as long as you're exercising your civil right to vote (intelligently), that's all anyone should ask.



That's exactly it. What I should have said is, "I'm not here to tell you who to vote for, I'm here to tell you to vote."

-Jeff

Edit: I love this thread, BTW.

And Diane, you and the rest of Ohio are really going to decide this election.

[diane]

And Diane, you and the rest of Ohio are really going to decide this election.

You can tell with all the ads and such. Everyone is energized in this state. Anakin has volunteered for his first national campaign (he has only ever worked on local and county). It is very interesting to hear kids discussing the importance of this election. I just hope that this continues into their adulthood.

[yssman]

And Diane, you and the rest of Ohio are really going to decide this election.

It depends on who you ask, but its going to be tight in places like Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Florida... States that will likely decide the election. I can say with a fair amount of certainty that my state (Michigan) will go for Obama (hooray!), but Ohio is definitely in the air at this point. Same with states like Virginia (oddly), and even Georgia. The key is going to get minorities and the young people out to vote, that and "invigorating the base," just to make people happy.

*sigh*

I love politics so much that it hurts.

...I'm looking forward to extremely heated arguments in my Politics and Elections class on Thursday. As a Republican who is voting Democrat, its fun being able to push their buttons by using their own rhetoric.

[ohhoe]

The key is going to get minorities and the young people out to vote, that and "invigorating the base," just to make people happy.


Is it really the key though? Kerry put a lot of faith into young voters last election and look what happened :(

[yssman]

Considering that it is a fairly sizeable portion of the American public, not to mention the generation that will eventually determine the future of this country, the one that has its future at the greatest amount of risk... Yes, I'd say the youth vote is key here. We saw how they came out to vote for Obama in Iowa, how so many were inspired by Ron Paul in the GOP Primaries, and how they're helping to make issues like the environment, heath care, education and net neutrality major pieces of the campaigns, and consequently I'd expect them to play a major role come November. At least for me, it rings bells in a way similar to how the youth vote helped get Bill Clinton elected back in 1992 (when I was six!).

Although I totally agree with the fact that the youth vote cannot be counted on to completely change the outcome of the election, building a coalition between it, minority votes (the Latino vote this year is critical in states like Florida), and obviously with the choice of Palin as VP, female votes... Its going to be one helluva year of catering to different groups.

[straylightrise]

just get everyone out to vote - I'm tired of the low turn outs for elections. Hell even if you don't care about politics or hate it just go and write in Mickey Mouse or something. The next 4 years are going to be determined by us the American people.

Plus it's not like the world is going to end if McCain or Obama win.

I hope.

[ohhoe]

I hope people my age really do go out and vote.

Last election it was ridiculously depressing because I invested a lot of my time canvassing trying to get people to register, and then going out on election day and getting them to go out and actually vote.

Then I got to watch the results roll in on a giant screen in some fancy ballroom that kerry's people got for election night in Pittsburgh.

;_; sad day.

[jay_ray]

As a canadian looking in at what I view as one of the biggest elections in the last half century, I hope people vote in the 2008 election. It is necessary for people to vote if they can for more reasons then just to get their guy in.

[sir_scutter]

Posting working?

Edit: only on my iPod... Talk aboutfrustrating ... Want to type on keyboar.

[satori]

All our lives are at stake, for the love of god VOTE!!!!!

[cucumberboy]

In the 2000 election my friend, who is an american citizen living here in Sweden, wasn't old enough to vote just yet. But his parent were. Only they didn't even get the papers needed to vote in time.

I'd be pissed.

I'll be voting in Sweden.

[stubadub]

Is it really the key though? Kerry put a lot of faith into young voters last election and look what happened :(


Kerry wasn't able to energize anyone. Obama does not have the same problem.

I hope everyone actually looks into the candidates and doesn't vote based on media soundbites.

[tokenuser]

just get everyone out to vote - I'm tired of the low turn outs for elections. Hell even if you don't care about politics or hate it just go and write in Mickey Mouse or something. The next 4 years are going to be determined by us the American people.In the last 2 elections (which were considered *large* turnouts), 60% of the eligible voting population voted.

Considering that only just over 50% of the electorial college votes went to Bush on both occassions (making a distinction between the popular vote, and the allocated vote), that means he was voted in by little over 30%.

Apathy with a resounding 40% of the vote was the big winner.

Wouldn't it be nice to have an election for once where the President got more votes than the people that chose to WAIVE THEIR DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS and not vote? (Thats right - not voting is not a "choice of conscientious objection" but is a WAIVING of democratic rights).

[ike6116]

Im registered, I voted in the primaries.

If you're going to vote for Barack Obama, vote.

If you're going to vote for John McCain, stay home.

[mier]

For the most part the thread stayed neutral. Until now.

[sir_scutter]

...
Don't vote for the lesser of two, three, four, or a millions evils, because you'll still just get more and more evil. ...

Yes.

****I am having trouble posting my full intended post. Anything longer than this post here it won't let me submit it and I get a timeout or something. WTF?****

Voting for president? I couldn't think of anything sillier to spend my time doing. I became political and almost instantly apolitical at the end of 2007 with the whole Ron Paul happenings. I've registered to vote exclusively for Ron Paul, and if I do vote, it will be for him (or some fictional character). I doubt I will ever vote unless it be for Mary Ruwart.

Looking at the obvious choices: there's no WAY I could support Obama or McCain. They both are dangerous people who wish to grow the size of government and run my life how they want through coercion and threats. I will not be a part of it.

The only way I could see voting as something I would do actively would be to do it defensively. If there was something happening locally where my vote would more likely change the outcome of certain legislation, I would absolutely vote defensively--and only to bring down the size of government. But never with the intent to encourage a government force.

I know my opinion means nothing to most, but if anything else just read it as another point of view on things. I don't believe everyone should vote. Those who aren't into politics shouldn't feel pressured to just vote for skin color or X/Y chromosomes... you should vote for someone you truly honestly believe in.

I really don't know what else to say about it... I despise politics. (http://www.revision3.com)

(My solution: the Free State Project freestateproject.org (http://freestateproject.org))

[kenshin_elite]

Been registered for a while now. Voted in 2004 for Kerry. Hopefully my vote will have more weight this election season.

[diane]

The only way I could see voting as something I would do actively would be to do it defensively. If there was something happening locally where my vote would more likely change the outcome of certain legislation, I would absolutely vote defensively--and only to bring down the size of government. But never with the intent to encourage a government force.

I know my opinion means nothing to most, but if anything else just read it as another point of view on things. I don't believe everyone should vote. Those who aren't into politics shouldn't feel pressured to just vote for skin color or X/Y chromosomes... you should vote for someone you truly honestly believe in.


I understand your point of view. It is a little depressing that you think the only reason to vote is defensively, I have voted on things to actually improve my community so was in turn voting offensively (that doesn't seem right :) ). So just vote local. But do vote.

I read all of Ron Paul's platforms and frankly found him to be dangerous. Breaking citizen ship to be a into tiered levels? I have read that before in papers from the 1800s. His defense platform was very 1918 in the overall scope. It ignored about 18 things that are issues that need to be addressed.

If you think Ron Paul is the best person, but he isn't available, to you, who is closest to Ron Paul? To not vote because your person isn't available is like saying you will not support a bill because it doesn't do everything you want it to. Things don't change over night, you need to take it a step at a time. So vote to move in the direction you want it to move.

As for sex and race, I am a woman and I didn't vote for Hillary nor am I voting for Palin. Just because some has breasts doesn't mean I agree with them. I vote based on who I think will do the best job. I see this country like a business and I am part of HR. My candidate might not be chosen, but I will voice my opinion so that way everyone knows where I stand.

We have two employees up for promotion. Who will it be?

[stubadub]

We have two employees up for promotion. Who will it be?

There are more people eligible, we just know they won't get the promotion. I don't feel like voting for one of those other people is throwing your vote away, and I think it can be more than just a statement against the established order. If another party can gain enough momentum to get 10% of the vote they can get federal campaign assistance in future elections, and it becomes harder to ignore them in the MSM. Not that I'm a Green party supporter, but Nader came reasonably close to achieving this in 2004. Now if we could only get a libertarian candidate to make that kind of an impact.

[diane]

There are more people eligible, we just know they won't get the promotion. I don't feel like voting for one of those other people is throwing your vote away, and I think it can be more than just a statement against the established order. If another party can gain enough momentum to get 10% of the vote they can get federal campaign assistance in future elections, and it becomes harder to ignore them in the MSM. Not that I'm a Green party supporter, but Nader came reasonably close to achieving this in 2004. Now if we could only get a libertarian candidate to make that kind of an impact.

Nader did real well in 2000, but has become a bit of a joke recently. I would love to see a true libertarian party move up. But the problem is that it will not take hold on the national level all at once. It is better to get people elected on the local level and have them move up. Parties can't just spring on the national stage. That doesn't happen even in countries that have a ton of parties. But since so many people who claim they can't stand the two party system don't bother to vote, it is rare for a local person, even lower on the ballot, who isn't a main party person to get elected. That is why it is vital to vote.

[sir_scutter]

I read all of Ron Paul's platforms and frankly found him to be dangerous.

He was in no way perfect and would have been just voting for the lesser of all evils.. but he was amazingly a lot less evil (he signed the small-gov't pledge) than any other politician I've seen. I supported him more to get a message out than to win.

Voting for these people isn't an option to me--they are repulsive decisions. I'd rather work towards liberty. To get there one can't support the current presidential candidates because they're in favor of the opposite: bigger gov't. As much as I don't feel like arguing online, I'll leave this with how I'm stepping up: moving to New Hampshire for the Free State Project.

[diane]

He was in no way perfect and would have been just voting for the lesser of all evils.. but he was amazingly a lot less evil (he signed the small-gov't pledge) than any other politician I've seen. I supported him more to get a message out than to win.

Voting for these people isn't an option to me--they are repulsive decisions. I'd rather work towards liberty. To get there one can't support the current presidential candidates because they're in favor of the opposite: bigger gov't. As much as I don't feel like arguing online, I'll leave this with how I'm stepping up: moving to New Hampshire for the Free State Project.

Good luck to you.

[tokenuser]

Voting for these people isn't an option to me--they are repulsive decisions. I'd rather work towards liberty. To get there one can't support the current presidential candidates because they're in favor of the opposite: bigger gov't.Neither of the two major candidates is looking at bigger government, they are both looking at better managed government.

Diane's business analogy was spot on. We are in HR, and have multiple people up for promotion. You know those people are going to put funding and resources into departments they have an affiliation with. A good business has times of expansion, followed by times of contraction - getting rid of things that didn't work, keeping those that did. Thats how a good business grows.

If national politics isn't your thing (because - when it comes down to it, there are really only two national parties that get considered), grassroot local politics might be more your thing.

Libertarians should be all over local government. That is self rule at the lowest level. Prove you can make a difference locally, thenat a state level, then maybe someone will take you seriously at a national level.

(and ditch the endorsements by Alex Jones and his ilk ... they just discredit any good motives and intentions you might have by linking you to the lunatic fringe).

[sir_scutter]

Diane's business analogy was spot on.

Except a business deals with competition and voluntary interaction. A free-market business doesn't force everyone in a certain area to do things through threat of violence. That's why it's called government, because it's coercive.

Looks like I'm going to be the iconoclast.

Neither of the two major candidates is looking at bigger government, they are both looking at better managed government.

Socialized health care isn't bigger government?

Libertarians should be all over local government. That is self rule at the lowest level. Prove you can make a difference locally, thenat a state level, then maybe someone will take you seriously at a national level.

I would never force my opinions on others. I would let them choose what's best for them. I simply wish to be left alone by gov't.

[sir_scutter]

(and ditch the endorsements by Alex Jones and his ilk ... they just discredit any good motives and intentions you might have by linking you to the lunatic fringe).

I don't think I've ever heard an Alex Jones show, and I'm far from being a crackpot conspiracy theorist. I don't think I'd enjoy his shows too much.

[rokov]

I'm registered. Haven't voted since 04, but I'm registered.

[quix]

I'm registered.

[tokenuser]

http://pleasedress.me/images/tshirthell/2995.gif

Yeah ... its a tshirt (http://www.tshirthell.com/funny-shirts/i-bet-youll-vote-this-time-hippie/).

[burkhartmj]

I'm sending in my registration tomorrow in the mail, though I can't imagine that making too many of you happy since I'm in VA and a republican :eek:

EDIT: But what the crap, I've looked everywhere and I can't find any ballot listings for Virginia. Do we just not have any or am I missing something?

[poltah]

I'm not registered to vote in the US. I live in Denmark. Where you don't have to register.
What's the reason behind you having to register to vote? I don't get it.

Don't get people not voting either.

[tokenuser]

I'm not registered to vote in the US. I live in Denmark. Where you don't have to register.
What's the reason behind you having to register to vote? I don't get it.

Don't get people not voting either.Being registered to vote just means that you are on the electoral roll, and can legally vote. While you often give a party affiliation, it is not mandatory. Its as much about logistics as anything, and means that someone should only be able to vote once.

When you move in Australia, you are supposed to fill in a voter card as well that means that you are no longer in one electorate (district) but another. No party affiliation ever asked. Also - if you dont vote in Australia, you will get fined, but the elections are always held on a Saturday with polling booths in locations thatare easy to get to. The only exception is citizens living overseas who are exempt from compulsory voting ... mainly because (unlike the US) you dont vote for a President, you vote for a local member, and the party with the majority of local members in the house of representatives becomes the ruling party - and their leader the Prime Minister. Because I have no idea what electorate I would fall under (I haven't lived in Australia for 12 years), and have no permanent address, I can't really vote. I could pick an electorate, but that has no meaning.

[heyseuss]

Being registered to vote just means that you are on the electoral roll, and can legally vote. While you often give a party affiliation, it is not mandatory. Its as much about logistics as anything, and means that someone should only be able to vote once.

When you move in Australia, you are supposed to fill in a voter card as well that means that you are no longer in one electorate (district) but another. No party affiliation ever asked. Also - if you dont vote in Australia, you will get fined, but the elections are always held on a Saturday with polling booths in locations thatare easy to get to. The only exception is citizens living overseas who are exempt from compulsory voting ... mainly because (unlike the US) you dont vote for a President, you vote for a local member, and the party with the majority of local members in the house of representatives becomes the ruling party - and their leader the Prime Minister. Because I have no idea what electorate I would fall under (I haven't lived in Australia for 12 years), and have no permanent address, I can't really vote. I could pick an electorate, but that has no meaning.


I'm not sure what the rules are about claiming an electorate, but two of my sisters have voted back in Aus, from their overseas homes, at least twice in the past 12 years, that I know of. You have to register as some sort of abroad voter, probbly the same as an absentee. Voting wasn't mandatory for us in Aus, as my sisters and I are all born in the U.S., but have Aus citizenship. So they had to register to vote there as they weren't auto-registered when they partook in the census. Now they register from parts of europe, as americans, registering to vote in australia !!!

Not to start a 'us/them,' thing, but mandatory voting is a bloody smart idea by them convicts and colonials.

[sir_scutter]

So one doesn't have the freedom not to vote? Kinda stinks. Not saying no one should vote, but I am saying one should decide for themselves.

[heyseuss]

So one doesn't have the freedom not to vote? Kinda stinks. Not saying no one should vote, but I am saying one should decide for themselves.

If you're referring to Token and my posts, yeah, voting is mandatory once over 18 years old for Aus citizens.

[gabe_utsecks]

just get everyone out to vote - I'm tired of the low turn outs for elections. Hell even if you don't care about politics or hate it just go and write in Mickey Mouse or something. The next 4 years are going to be determined by us the American people.

Plus it's not like the world is going to end if McCain or Obama win.

I hope.

I'm sick of this philosophy. Voting is a right, not a responsibility.

If you are unsure of who to pick, or don't care who wins or if a ballot measure passes or fails, DON'T VOTE! Abstain. There is nothing wrong with that. Really.

Also, don't vote for the lesser of two evils. Pick the person who you think is the absolute best, regardless of party. The reason we have this terrible, rigid two-party system is that most people fear that they voting for a third-party would be throwing their vote away. Think about how many people do that every election. What if every single one of them actually voted they way they really wanted to? Libertarian, Green Party, Independent, Socialist, Whig, whatever. The third parties would very quickly become "viable" and we would have a strong, diverse, multi-party system. Vote for your "in-a-perfect-world" candidate, please. If you vote for the lesser of two evils, you will still move your country in the direction of evil.

The only way to throw your vote away is to vote for something you don't truly believe in. Not voting at all is better than that.

Of course, it would be better to do some damn research and vote, but voting for the sake of voting is stupid. It's harmful, as well, especially if you are giving your vote to one of the two major candidate. If you don't care but are going to vote anyway -- because of peer pressure -- the most useful thing you can do is vote for a small party. Don't send our country further down the gloomy two-party path.

It is much stupider, however, to CARE and not vote because you are too lazy. Its easy to vote. If you care about the outcome, vote. Even if its just one thing on the ballot.

Oh, that's another thing. When you are voting, and there is something on the ballot you don't understand or don't care about, leave it blank. You don't have to vote on every single thing on the ballot. Its better to not vote than to just flip a coin.


(there was an episode of the Penn Jillette Radio Show on the subject of voting. You can download it directly here (http://www.pennfans.net/radio_show_archive/The.Penn.Jillette.Radio.Show.2006.07.17.mp3), or you can stream it from here (http://www.pennfans.net/view/Audio_Archive/PennRadio/Penn.Jillette.Radio.Show.2006.07.17/). I highly recommend it. And you might want to skip the first minute or so.)

[anakinastronaut]

I'm sick of this philosophy. Voting is a right, not a responsibility.

If you are unsure of who to pick, or don't care who wins or if a ballot measure passes or fails, DON'T VOTE! Abstain. There is nothing wrong with that. Really.


My mom always says that only stupid people don't vote. That is because stupid people are either lazy or think that the only election to vote on is the president. That isn't true. My school has a levy that needs to be voted on. That is paid for by people who own houses like my mom or who live in a building that pays taxes and then has that as part of their rent. I think that is everybody for the most part. And my mom says that strong towns have strong education systems so that is something to also consider. So voting isn't about presidents, there is a bunch of other stuff to vote on.

I have been working campaigns for most of my life. I have campaigned for levies, county seats and now president. I see how elections do change peoples lives and I am only 10. How dense does someone have to be to think that an election isn't important. I just don't get it. If someone doesn't care, then ok don't vote. But the problem is why do you not care? Do you not care about your future? Do you not care about my future? If you don't care about that then what do you care about? And do you really think that that won't be impacted by decisions other people are making that you don't bother to vote in.

Frankly if you don't vote you just plain suck. And I can't wait because it is going to be really easy for me to get into power then. HAHAHAHA!

[tokenuser]

Frankly if you don't vote you just plain suck. And I can't wait because it is going to be really easy for me to get into power then. HAHAHAHA!And this is why we all love you Anakin.

Happy birthday :)

[sir_scutter]

I'm sick of this philosophy. Voting is a right, not a responsibility.


Well said. And I much enjoyed the Penn Jillette link.

[truebullfan]

can't vote since not going to be citizen until 2010 even though been living in good old USA for 15 years now. I encourage people to vote but not a fan of pushing people and being so upset that they didn't. Its a personal thing.

[irishpunk]

Both of my parents are die hard (pun not intended incase you were taking it as a pun) democrats. They had me register to vote the day I turned 18. Kind of hard not to know about the election at my house when my mom is the main blogger for Sen. John Kerry's website and her job at the moment also involves covering the election as it goes on. I blame my parents for corrupting me with politics and I thank them for it :)
Don't forget to vote everyone this is probably one of the most important decisions you are going to make in your life. Swear it feels like this election will decide the future of this country and I really hope Obama gets the win.
Rock the vote everyone, rock the vote.

[irishpunk]

just click on the link above under safe secure link to register and you can do it right there online. That is it. You will be mailed a card telling you where you can physically go to vote, or you can pick up an absentee ballot vote at a post office, or even request it online. There are different ways to apply for absentee registering, so I would recommend googling your state absentee ballot to get the info.

If anyone needs help, feel free to pm me.

Diane, perfect idea for a thread and also great job on providing help for those who haven't registered yet on how to do it. You go Diane!

[straylightrise]

My mom always says that only stupid people don't vote. That is because stupid people are either lazy or think that the only election to vote on is the president. That isn't true. My school has a levy that needs to be voted on. That is paid for by people who own houses like my mom or who live in a building that pays taxes and then has that as part of their rent. I think that is everybody for the most part. And my mom says that strong towns have strong education systems so that is something to also consider. So voting isn't about presidents, there is a bunch of other stuff to vote on.

I have been working campaigns for most of my life. I have campaigned for levies, county seats and now president. I see how elections do change peoples lives and I am only 10. How dense does someone have to be to think that an election isn't important. I just don't get it. If someone doesn't care, then ok don't vote. But the problem is why do you not care? Do you not care about your future? Do you not care about my future? If you don't care about that then what do you care about? And do you really think that that won't be impacted by decisions other people are making that you don't bother to vote in.

Frankly if you don't vote you just plain suck. And I can't wait because it is going to be really easy for me to get into power then. HAHAHAHA!

This is a 10 year old kid by the way - so go vote because ANAKIN SAID SO.

[skin87]

Yay for living in Wisconsin. You can register at the polls, and once you vote you are automatically registered for future elections. All I'll have to do is show up, say my name. They'll look it up and ask me to confirm my address and hand me a ballot. I can be in and out in less than 3 minutes.

[yssman]

I'm sending in my registration tomorrow in the mail, though I can't imagine that making too many of you happy since I'm in VA and a republican :eek:

No worries!

I've been a die-hard Republican for as long as I can remember, and I continue to support the party ideals in spirit... But I'll be voting for Obama in the fall. When the Democrats are the ones to teach Republicans about fiscal responsibility, family values, and addressing the needs of the majority of Americans, there is something wrong. Really, really wrong. I don't know if I'll kick out my GOP Congressman, but I'll be voting pretty "liberal" on a lot of the issues this year.

EDIT:

Is it just me or when Palin speaks, doesn't it sound like shes addressing a classroom of teenagers?

[skin87]

EDIT:

Is it just me or when Palin speaks, doesn't it sound like shes addressing a classroom of teenagers?

I had to turn it off, she was annoying me too much.

[stubadub]

Nader did real well in 2000, but has become a bit of a joke recently. I would love to see a true libertarian party move up. But the problem is that it will not take hold on the national level all at once. It is better to get people elected on the local level and have them move up. Parties can't just spring on the national stage. That doesn't happen even in countries that have a ton of parties. But since so many people who claim they can't stand the two party system don't bother to vote, it is rare for a local person, even lower on the ballot, who isn't a main party person to get elected. That is why it is vital to vote.

Yes, I said 2004 but I meant 2000. All these years are starting to run together in my old age. D'oh!

Ron Paul is pretty much a libertarian in republican clothing. He has some revolutionary ideas in the truest sense. I have little doubt that the current situation with the Federal Reserve isn't working, and his plan to abolish it certainly attacks things at the source, but it pretty much would mean economic chaos immediately. Things have to be looking pretty grim for the masses to accept that kind of change.

I live here in Austin, which is pretty much Alex Jones central. People eat that shit up. He was showing his documentary on how the government was behind 911 at the Drafthouse for what seemed like months, so it must have continued to do decent business. I'll hear people talking about him while I'm eating at Subway, arguing over building 6. I agree with Bill Maher on this. "You know how I know the government wasn't behind 911? Because it worked!"

I registered as a Democrat earlier this year so I could support Barack Obama. At the time I didn't realize how bizarre the system is here in Texas. I went that morning to cast my vote in the primary, and there was plenty of measures in place to ensure that no one could determine how I was casting my vote. If you were wearing any memorabilia for a candidate you weren't even allowed in the building.

By voting in the primary, I was eligible to come back that night for the Caucus. The majority of the delegates were assigned according to the primary results, but a smaller yet still signifcant portion were assigned according to the result of the caucus. At the caucus you are told "Everyone who wants to vote for Hillary stand in this line, everyone for Obama stand in this line, anybody else stand in this third line." There is no sense of privacy in casting your vote, and people were pretty freely debating back and forth about who you should vote for.

Early on they announced that people interested in being a delegate for your chosen candidate could come stand in a certain area, and later we would vote on who should be chosen to be a delegate to go to the convention (regional or State, I'm not sure exactly how that worked). I'd become so energized with the process that I decided I wanted to participate on that next level and see what that experience might be like. What I hadn't counted on was the insane number of people waiting to cast their vote in front of me. Three hours later after I'd finally casted my vote all my energy was gone, and I'd decided to head home rather than wait for an unknown number of hours afterwards. They were in no way expecting the kind of turnout that we saw for the caucus, and just weren't ready to handle it. I've decided that next time I will excercise that right again and actually follow through with my attempt to become a delegate and go on to the convention.

[burkhartmj]

No worries!

I've been a die-hard Republican for as long as I can remember, and I continue to support the party ideals in spirit... But I'll be voting for Obama in the fall. When the Democrats are the ones to teach Republicans about fiscal responsibility, family values, and addressing the needs of the majority of Americans, there is something wrong. Really, really wrong. I don't know if I'll kick out my GOP Congressman, but I'll be voting pretty "liberal" on a lot of the issues this year.

EDIT:

Is it just me or when Palin speaks, doesn't it sound like shes addressing a classroom of teenagers?

Im sure I'm gonna get flamed to hell for this, but two big issues for me are abortion and states' rights. Even if I didn't believe the obscene number of youtube vids about some of Obama's voting habits, he supports any kind of abortion, and I don't. McCain's made it pretty clear that things of that nature [as well as gay marriage I believe] are state issues, and shouldn't be legislated at the federal level, which I love.

Obama is such an idealist, and has such socialist values [which I respect in theory, but they just don't work in practice], that I personally can't see him being good for this country.

For better or worse, this board got me back into caring about politics, and is very likely the reason I'll be voting come November, since I wasn't planning on it as recently as August [parents are hardcore political, which burned me out by the time I hit college], so thanks guys, even if we do disagree ;)

[quix]

No worries!

I've been a die-hard Republican for as long as I can remember, and I continue to support the party ideals in spirit... But I'll be voting for Obama in the fall. When the Democrats are the ones to teach Republicans about fiscal responsibility, family values, and addressing the needs of the majority of Americans, there is something wrong. Really, really wrong. I don't know if I'll kick out my GOP Congressman, but I'll be voting pretty "liberal" on a lot of the issues this year.

That's been the case for awhile now though. The Democrats have been better at addressing the needs of the common man since FDR at the very least. They've been better for "family values" ever since they fought to get civil rights passed in the 60s and the GOP have plunged themselves even deeper into immorality through their support for torture. As for fiscal responsibility, the economy has done better under Democrats than Republicans for at least the last 60 years. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/magazine/27wwln-idealab-t.html)

Obama is such an idealist, and has such socialist values [which I respect in theory, but they just don't work in practice], that I personally can't see him being good for this country.

Socialist values?

[tokenuser]

Socialist values?I think he is hooking onto the "universal health care" meme. Socialist value? No more than "socialist" law enforcement ... you are already paying for health care, socialised medicine does work. I have experienced both models - and the US HMO/PPO/Private model sucks in comparison.

[lik]

i reregistered when i renewed my license this year so i'm in.

[deegraww]

I'm not.

[sir_scutter]

I live here in Austin, which is pretty much Alex Jones central. People eat that shit up. He was showing his documentary on how the government was behind 911 at the Drafthouse for what seemed like months, so it must have continued to do decent business. I'll hear people talking about him while I'm eating at Subway, arguing over building 6. I agree with Bill Maher on this. "You know how I know the government wasn't behind 911? Because it worked!"

Yeah, I thought Alex Jones was a fringe conspiracy theorist. I can't really tolerate arguing with that because none of the things they bring up have much evidence nor do they matter in the grand scheme of things.

[quix]

I think he is hooking onto the "universal health care" meme. Socialist value? No more than "socialist" law enforcement ... you are already paying for health care, socialised medicine does work. I have experienced both models - and the US HMO/PPO/Private model sucks in comparison.

Ah, I suppose it could've been a reference to the health care plan, though as you said it's no more socialist than our law enforcement.

[sir_scutter]

Im sure I'm gonna get flamed to hell for this, but two big issues for me are abortion and states' rights. Even if I d...)

That's awesome. Using your own actual thought and values to decide who you don't want in office.. then choosing the other guy.

I still can't come to terms with voting for a president because both of these guys are so awful. If I do go, I'll be writing someone in.


Socialist values?

Yes. Just look. Mass taxation, gun control, hate speech laws, thought police, nanny state, socialized health care... sounds like a national socialist to me.

Edit: I think I got carried away here, please wait for a future post for me to explain myself.

[tokenuser]

Im sure I'm gonna get flamed to hell for this, but two big issues for me are abortion and states' rights. Even if I didn't believe the obscene number of youtube vids about some of Obama's voting habits, he supports any kind of abortion, and I don't. McCain's made it pretty clear that things of that nature [as well as gay marriage I believe] are state issues, and shouldn't be legislated at the federal level, which I love.Gay marriage and abortion are (IMHO) federal issues, and not state issues, otherwise you run into situations like they had in the 60s where it was illegal for an inter-racial couple to get married in some states, and leaving the state to get married then returning meant that the marriage was not recognised in the state (and worse - could result in jail time).

Rights like these need to be federally recognised, and not left to the cowards approach of "its a state thing". Its NOT a state thing.

Ditto on gun control (not I didn't say banning). Gun laws need to be consistent nationally so you dont end up with situations where someone crosses a state border to buy a gun they wouldn't have been able to purchase in their state, or with slacker license laws.

Obama is such an idealist, and has such socialist values [which I respect in theory, but they just don't work in practice], that I personally can't see him being good for this country.Nothing wrong with being an idealist. If your vision is what can drive us to a better future unencumbered by thinking from the past, that could be a good thing. Socialist values does not mean moving towards a socialist government. If you look at the Democrat policies on a global scale, you would find that they are actually right of centre, and not leftwing as they are perceived in the US.

Internationally, the US is seen as having a conservative party ... and an even more conservative party.

[quix]

Yes. Just look. Mass taxation, gun control, hate speech laws, thought police, nanny state, socialized health care... sounds like a national socialist to me.

Do you have any proof or are you just going to accuse him of being a Nazi and then run away?

[sir_scutter]

Gay marriage and abortion are (IMHO) federal issues, and not state issues, otherwise...

Aren't those personal issues that gov't should just stay out of? If there was a racist location then everyone who hated racism would leave.

gun control

I can't say much to argue this besides show you the Second Amendment of the gov'ts Bill of Rights.

[sir_scutter]

Do you have any proof or are you just going to accuse him of being a Nazi and then run away?

It just seems to me that a lot of his issues revolve around the redistribution of wealth, increasing the size of government, and looks to create even more laws to have the gov't run my life the way they want.

...so my head is starting to hurt with all this political stuff. I'm done. I'm sorry I called Obama a Nazi, probably not completely true. But as far as I can see even if Ron Paul became president the government still wouldn't work. It's way too big and out of control.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yxjNAt_Jdk

[quix]

It just seems to me that a lot of his issues revolve around the redistribution of wealth, increasing the size of government, and looks to create even more laws to have the gov't run my life the way they want.

Except none of that's true. He's not "redistributing the wealth" he's just shifting the tax code so that it will help the majority of Americans. He's not increasing the size of government or making laws more expansive, he just wants to make government run well.

[tokenuser]

Aren't those personal issues that gov't should just stay out of? If there was a racist location then everyone who hated racism would leave.The problem is that the government doesn't stay out of it. Abortions are illegal in some states, not in others, and inconsistently in others. If the government should stay out of it - then it should be legal across the board. Making illegal shows that they can't leave it alone. It will now take a federal law to make it consistently legal or illegal.

Ditto on the whole gay marriage thing. Personally (no offense intended to any of the gay people on the forums), I am against gay "marriage" - that is a term that should have specific meaning, but I am NOT against a civil union between partners and giving them the same rights as a traditional hetero marriage. Again, if the government should stay out of it, then it should be legal, because any other definition means that a law was passed that interferred with the relationship.

Sometime addressing personal issues is needed so that people are treated equally in society.

I can't say much to argue this besides show you the Second Amendment of the gov'ts Bill of Rights.This is the part that really really pisses me off.

Gun control DOES NOT equal banning of guns ... even the freaking NRA understand that.

[sir_scutter]

Except none of that's true. He's not "redistributing the wealth" he's just shifting the tax code so that it will help the majority of Americans. He's not increasing the size of government or making laws more expansive, he just wants to make government run well.

OK, then I'm wrong. I guess I really don't follow politics much and I shouldn't make statements like that if I don't have sufficient evidence.

[sir_scutter]

This is the part that really really pisses me off.

Gun control DOES NOT equal banning of guns ... even the freaking NRA understand that.

Shall we look?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It seems that any gun control is infringing on those rights to bear arms. Where do you draw the line? What happens when the "law" says you can only have a gun locked up in a safe with the ammunition on a different floor in the house?

But that doesn't matter because the constitution wasn't even a fair document. When you tell me I can't defend myself how I see appropriate, then send a group of people with guns to force me to comply, problems begin.

[tokenuser]

Shall we look?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It seems that any gun control is infringing on those rights to bear arms. Where do you draw the line? What happens when the "law" says you can only have a gun locked up in a safe with the ammunition on a different floor in the house?

But that doesn't matter because the constitution wasn't even a fair document. When you tell me I can't defend myself how I see appropriate, then send a group of people with guns to force me to comply, problems begin.Both Democratic and Republican controlled Supreme Courts since 1939 will disagree with you. You are focused on the last 14 words of the amendment, and ignoring the A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State part. The well regulated (pay attention to that part) part is the National Guard ... which is a voluntary STATE based organisation. A bunch of drunken rednecks rolling around in clapped out F150s is not a well regulated militia.

You want to play with guns more powerful than you need for sportshunting? Go join the National Guard.

[cucumberboy]

I'm following this discussion with great interest.

[sir_scutter]

Both Democratic and Republican controlled Supreme Courts since 1939 will disagree with you....

Well, no. Read the words.


A Well Regulated Militia, Being Necessary To The Security Of A Free State(Sure, you need an organized, military force to defend your country, but), The Right Of The People To Keep And Bear Arms, Shall Not Be Infringed.
This is The People[/] in contrast to [i]The Militia. It doesn't say the right of the militia to keep and bear arms not to be infringed, it says The Right Of The People To Keep And Bear Arms, Shall Not Be Infringed.

Why the word [b]People,/b]? Because the people who wrote this had just fought a war for two years against a tyrannical state militia.

The second amendment is more than guns... it's freedom. Deny me the means of self-defense, you deny me the right of self-defense.

(Thanks to P&T:BS! for that shortened explanation)

[yssman]

It seems that any gun control is infringing on those rights to bear arms. Where do you draw the line? What happens when the "law" says you can only have a gun locked up in a safe with the ammunition on a different floor in the house?

The problem with gun control is that it becomes an arms race without it. To paraphrase Batman Begins, the police carry handguns, the criminals carry shotguns. The police go semi-automatic, the criminals go fully automatic. The police wear kevlar, the criminals guy armor-piercing bullets.

There is a rational approach to gun control and its quite simple: Don't be an idiot.

We don't need to have AK-47s in the hands of citizens because they need to "defend themselves," but certainly they should have the right to own guns if they deem it necessary.

HOWEVER: This is not a thread on gun control, this is a thread on political engagement.

But that doesn't matter because the constitution wasn't even a fair document.

No it wasn't. It was written by white, wealthy, land-owning citizens who were more interested in protecting their asses from the "regular" people than actually giving everyone the equal rights that we all deserve. Certainly, it has ended up working well, but when they talk about protecting us from the "tyranny of the majority against the minority," in Federalist 10, they were in reference to their own interests.

[sir_scutter]

The problem with gun control is that it becomes an arms race without it.

Let the gov't take away some of the guns, they'll find a way to take away the rest. The problem with gun laws is that it restricts the good people from owning those weapons. Criminals won't follow the rules either way. Let people carry guns, and the bad guys won't have the advantage.


HOWEVER: This is not a thread on gun control, this is a thread on political engagement.

[cucumberboy]

I've got an idea. Change the constitution.

Gustaf /Polar bear land

[siraim]

I've got an idea. Change the constitution.

Gustaf /Polar bear land

We have, regularly, over the last 200+ years.. and thanks for bringing this back on topic. :) Even alterations to the Constitution require the participation of citizens. At some point, you'll have to get out an vote.. even if you live in a State where your vote in elections is next to worthless. (see.. Chicago elections and Illinois elections in general... corruption keeps our boys in power.. not votes)

[cucumberboy]

We have, regularly, over the last 200+ years.. and thanks for bringing this back on topic. :) Even alterations to the Constitution require the participation of citizens. At some point, you'll have to get out an vote.. even if you live in a State where your vote in elections is next to worthless. (see.. Chicago elections and Illinois elections in general... corruption keeps our boys in power.. not votes)

Oh I see, well that's good. Interesting. But then why is there a discussion what they meant when they were talking about the right to bear arms?

EDIT: The changing of the constitution is a good thing, not the corruption. I didn't know there was corruption over there...

[mier]

I believe the constitution is just fine as it is. The only changes I'd support would be a fair-tax and that would also have to have the rider to repeal the 16th amendment before fair-tax could be put in place.

I will touch on one part of previous arguments. Which is better, citizens in fear of their government or government in fear of the citizens?

[cucumberboy]

Well, the second one, of course.

But they've got smart bombs and fighter jets. Might as well fight them off with slingshots. The American military is pretty epic.

The government in the United States is probably as afraid of the American people as the French government is of the French people, the Danish of the Danish people and so on.

That part of the constitution was a great idea up 'til a certain point. That's just my opinion.

[tokenuser]

I will touch on one part of previous arguments. Which is better, citizens in fear of their government or government in fear of the citizens?Why does it have to be either of those? Wouldn't citizen working the government, or the government working with citizens produce a better result?

Why does "fear" need to come into it at all?

[sir_scutter]

Why does "fear" need to come into it at all?

Because government requires coercion. There's no way a government could effectively rule over everyone in a given area like the USA and leave everyone satisfied. People have different values and different morals.


I will touch on something previously mentioned pertaining to a constitution and taxes:

Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution: Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Again, just using the constitution as rules for this government, not saying I agree with it... But I really like that rule.

[mier]

You hope for that. We all hope that there remains cooperation and that when you call the congressmen he truly listens.

Hope for the best, prepare for the worst. I'm a law abiding citizen and I have a selection of weapons in my possession. It's my right to have these weapons and I will keep them. Regardless of how you read the 2nd amendment it still points back to the citizenry (ie The People) to keep and bear arms. You could try to have the 2nd amendment repealed but I assure you that will fail miserably.

Here's a link to the definition of militia.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/militia

As for cucumber, you may live in fear I choose not too. First you have to get the military to pull the trigger and if you do then you have a force substantially larger than the military shooting at them. It's virtually impossible suppress an armed populace which is why dictators pick up all the weapons in private hands.

[masherscf]

Why does it have to be either of those? Wouldn't citizen working the government, or the government working with citizens produce a better result?

Why does "fear" need to come into it at all?

Citizens fearing the government or vice-versa, neither needs to be the case. The ideal government is established and made up of citizens. Citizens constitute a community and that community empowers the government. A wise man one spoke of a government, by the people and for the people. That man was a Republican. Any assertion that citizens have anything to fear from the government is ludicris fear-mongering. The real issue is individuals versus the community. The unaligned individual has a lot to fear from a community. A community can limit the individual both through statutory and moral codes. The more you dislike the community, the more you distrust the government. This is the real debate.

Liberitarianism is about the triumph of individual rights and freedoms over resposibilities and sacrifices to the community. That community is called America.

[sir_scutter]

Nice.

Well, the question I have to ask is: would you obey a bad law? I know most of you would probably pay taxes because the threat is so great... but what if they did outlaw all guns like they tried to do in DC? What if they forced you to send your kids to the government schools or else they would find a parent for them who would? What happens when the governments decide to steal (aka tax) 90% of your wages?

Then brings up the shortest political quiz in the world: Do you believe that goods and services should be offered through the threat of violence?

[mier]

Its about the sovereignty of the individual. Not the supplication of the individual to the community. I'll avoid the word that surrounds that post of yours but I'm sure you know what I'm thinking. The individual is part of the whole but is sacrosanct unto himself. He has the right to say "no" when it doesn't involve him. He pays what he needs to pay (taxes because he uses the services) and he participates what he needs to participate in. (Voting, jury duty because his voice must be heard)

But there are lines the "community" are not allowed to cross when it comes to the individual. The door is shut you may not enter. What he writes you may not censor. What is his you may not take.

[sir_scutter]

Its about the sovereignty of the individual. Not the sup [...] ipates what he needs to participate in. (Voting, jury duty because his voice must be heard)

I can agree with that but it's done on such a non-voluntary level and forced upon me. What if I don't use the government schools yet still get taxed for them? I passionately disagree with them and will probably never use them. Why can't a company organize arbitration on a voluntary basis where there's no conflict of interest?

I'll pay for what I use, but I want to use someone else's services, not the government's.

But there are lines the "community" are not allowed to cross when it comes to the individual. The door is shut you may not enter. What he writes you may not censor. What is his you may not take.

Agree completely, but not currently happening (or the ideas are disintegrating).

[mier]

I can agree with that but it's done on such a non-voluntary level and forced upon me. What if I don't use the government schools yet still get taxed for them? I passionately disagree with them and will probably never use them. Why can't a company organize arbitration on a voluntary basis where there's no conflict of interest?

I'll pay for what I use, but I want to use someone else's services, not the government's.



Agree completely, but not currently happening (or the ideas are disintegrating).

I support vouchers. The problem is too many people want a nanny state and will do just about anything to get it. They're willing to be slaves as long as they're not inconvenienced. You can trample all over some peoples rights and it doesn't bother them but the cable goes out and HOLY SHIT get out of the way.

[masherscf]

I'll avoid the word that surrounds that post of yours but I'm sure you know what I'm thinking.

What "communism"? Is that a dirty word? That's the eventual end-product. I'm not espousing one view over another. But, isn't that what everyone is afraid of?

[sir_scutter]

I support vouchers. The problem is too many people want a nanny state and will do just about anything to get it. They're willing to be slaves as long as they're not inconvenienced.

Right, I'm advocating that they can have their nanny state; just leave me out of it when I haven't contracted or agreed to such terms.

[masherscf]

But there are lines the "community" are not allowed to cross when it comes to the individual.

Like telling a women what she can and can't do with her body...for example.

[lik]

this thread is becoming way too intelligent for me :P

[masherscf]

this thread is becoming way too intelligent for me :P

That can't be good. How about, "Vote, or I'll come in and kick you in the balls!"

[mier]

Like telling a women what she can and can't do with her body...for example.

Does the kid get a choice? Maybe he might like to hang out since she made her choice when she decided to have sex without protection.

[masherscf]

Does the kid get a choice? Maybe he might like to hang out since she made her choice when she decided to have sex without protection.

So, it's a matter of personal responsibility then. The government is just helping a person be responsible. Recycling is responsible, how about a law that requires recycling. Drinking promotes irresponsible behavior. How about prohibition of alcohol?

[lik]

That can't be good. How about, "Vote, or I'll come in and kick you in the balls!"

LOL, i love you man

[sir_scutter]

So, it's a matter of personal responsibility then. The government is just helping a person be responsible. Recycling is responsible, how about a law that requires recycling. Drinking promotes irresponsible behavior. How about prohibition of alcohol?

Responsibility should be decided on the individual, not on everyone forcing it down everyone else's throat. Laws requiring recycling is irresponsible and recycling is already the law. Drinking used to be prohibited, and drugs currently are: see what that's done for it? Made it worse. Prohibition creates black markets and worsens the things you try to protect.

[sirdan]

Well... This thread has certainly been more entertaining than any college political science class I've taken!

To the question at hand, I am registered and have voted in all elections I've been eligible for. I plan to continue. There is a local hospital measure that has failed to gather enough votes for the third time, perhaps it will squeeze on the ballot again November 4th for what should be a good turnout.

[sir_scutter]

Well, I'm done destroying the TRS voting thread for now. I didn't wish to argue like this because it's quite silly. However I'd like to invite anyone who wants to discuss anything like this further, just for fun or even for debate and argument, to video chat with me to have a live-debate/discussion type thing.

I love discussing this stuff because I like learning new views and different solutions. So if you have a camera and a preferred video chatting client, let me know by messaging me on this forum or email me at jermaine(at)jermainejustice(dot)com and if you wouldn't mind i'd like to post it online through youtube or something

[tokenuser]

That can't be good. How about, "Vote, or I'll come in and kick you in the balls!"Wasn't that a Sex Pistols song back in the Thatcher days?

NEW POLITICAL FORUM OPENED AT REVISION3 (http://revision3.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=40) ... keep the political rhetoric in show threads to a minimum please

Diane had a valid question ... head over there if you want to take the subject in different directions.

[straylightrise]

let's take it to the new political forum/sub board.

There's a voter registration poll up there as well.

[nextgenxbox]

Hell yea I'm registered to vote!

[diane]

Wasn't that a Sex Pistols song back in the Thatcher days?

NEW POLITICAL FORUM OPENED AT REVISION3 (http://revision3.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=40) ... keep the political rhetoric in show threads to a minimum please

Diane had a valid question ... head over there if you want to take the subject in different directions.

You rock Tokenuser. I read this thread without wanting to respond even though I kept thinking "logical falllacy!" throughout it. Overall I am so happy to read such a thoughtful, truly adult, and educated discussion.

Reading this I have seen so many viewpoints, liberal, conservative, libertarian, socialist, and my personal favorite to read, anarchist. As a Poli Sci Major from back in the day, it is refreshing to read such a thread without people using statements like "you people" or "going to hell".

Sometimes I am worried that I brought a child into a world that I can't make better for him. You have helped to restore my faith. We might not agree, but we can discuss and cooperate. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

[sir_scutter]

Good idea with the political forum and I enjoyed discussing this stuff. This was lots of fun.

[burkhartmj]

Shouldn't this get merged into the similar thread in the politics board? Just for continuity or something?

Oh and phalitp, by socialist values I was mainly talking universal healthcare.

[poltah]

I'm sick of this philosophy. Voting is a right, not a responsibility.

If you are unsure of who to pick, or don't care who wins or if a ballot measure passes or fails, DON'T VOTE! Abstain. There is nothing wrong with that. Really.


I would disagree. If you don't care who wins, you don't care about who runs your country. Which to me is wrong. You SHOULD care about who's running the country you live in, especially if you live in America.

If you don't know who to vote for, it's most likely because you don't know enough about the two candidates. I mean, if you get some info, one should be able to decide which one is the lesser evil or whatever.

[tokenuser]

Oh and phalitp, by socialist values I was mainly talking universal healthcare.This is a notion that confuses me. Universal Health Care is considered a "socialist value".

Is having taxes fund a national military service a socialist value? We all pay for it ... and supposedly see the shared benfit.
Is having taxes fund schools a socialist value? We all pay for it ... and supposedly see the shared benfit.
Is having taxes fund new hospitals a socialist value? We all pay for it ... and supposedly see the shared benfit.
Is paying taxes to fund road building, maintenance, and infrastructure a socialist value?
You get the idea.

Would you prefer to pay for your own military on a local basis?
Get rid of public education (hands up who went goes to a public highschool or college)?
Have no new hospitals built unless they were made by a corporation who were tied to the pharma mega corps?
Every road was a toll road ... even to the end of your street?

Calling Universal Health Care a socialist viewpoint is valid to a point, but it ignore the other infrastructures we pay for. Also, socialised medicine is more about prevention than (they dont want you getting sick - because that is more expensive), so you see a lot more obesity, high blood pressure, pregnancy care type plans.

If you are working, you are already paying into medicare, but possibly are earning too much to take benefit of it. You are possibly also paying private health insurance - either directly, or indirectly via benefits. When you are at your fittest/healthiest, you probably ignore health insurance. But, I'll say that when I (as a fit, healthy 24 yo) and I broke my pelvis in a parachuting accident, everything was covered - ambulance, tests, 2 weeks in hospital, ongoing physio, etc. How much would that cost for an uninsured male in the US?

Socialised medicine comes in several forms - from the fairly draconian UK system, to the far more liberal Canadian system, to the one I experienced in Australia (which is actually closer to the US model proposed).

There is a lot of FUD filtering through the conservative media about the evils of socialised health care - but for every example they throw up about "delays getting an MRI in Canada", I am sure I can point to a similar story about people going across the border to Mexico cheaper treatment than they can get in the US, or people who have died because they didn't have medical insurance in the US.

[maxhdrm]

In honor of Jeff’s request, I started this thread. Different states have different deadlines to register but the earliest is October 4th (South Carolina and Rhode Island) so there is still plenty of time. I included links to help make it easier to find out your state’s deadline, register and even research some of the issues.

Many states even allow for absentee ballots that you can mail in without having an excuse or anything. Voting has become very easy. And when you stop and think how important it is it boggles the mind why anyone wouldn’t vote.

And before someone replies that they don’t like this position or that both candidates don’t live up to what they want I just want to point out you to http://www.drury.edu/ess/Logic/Informal/overview.html It goes over the usual fallacies people, and especially politicians, use.

And please don’t say how pointless it is to vote because of the "it is choosing the lesser of two evils" argument. That is the false dilemma argument and just points out your ignorance on both logic and the issues. Just because a person doesn’t agree with you on everything doesn’t mean he would do a bad job. No one is perfect. One could make the argument to not vote if it wasn't going to impact you in anyway, but who we choose to lead this country, serve as our representatives in congress, heck even be our town's sheriff does impact us.

So please register to vote. Heck, sign up for a blog or podcast and learn a few things about the candidates and the issues. You might find that there is something you care about you can help with, there will be more on the ballot besides who is running for president (all of Congress is up and half the senators plus a ton of local issues and elections).

Deadlines for each state:
http://www.rockthevote.com/voting-is-easy/important-dates/

Safe secure non-partisan website to register:
http://www.declareyourself.com/

Obama’s Website and issue stances:
http://www.barackobama.com/index.php

Mc Cain’s website and issue stances:
http://www.johnmccain.com/

So see you at the polls!
After much debate with my wife she registered me to vote last year and now that I have children it is important to me. Most of the time I agree with you Diane, however this time you are historically and factually wrong. Yes you ARE choosing the lesser of two evils because it has been over 100 years since a political leader has had their roots in Christianity like our founding fathers. Since then all the voter gets is a hash of mudslinging in the form of tabloid publishing fodder against their rivals in order to beat him/her.

It is a disgrace to what our founding fathers constructed as a fair means of choosing who are leaders are. It has factually become corrupt and a blatant show boat of who can catch whom doing the worst crime whether present or past. It is a cannibalism of politics.

If you fail to see this you are just simply the blind being lead by the blind or choose not to see what is beneath the surface. This typical individual only believes or buys into what his/her local news tells them. Does that mean that all candidates don't mean well?, of course not. Their are things that they can and will do and things that they won't be able to do because his/her hands will be tied or they must make sacrifices for the sake of the whole country.

Politics is not sublime, nor is it simplistic. It is very complex and intricate of which very few people in our country understand. It takes research and education. I still could care less about the presidency because they all have been screw-ups since Reagan. However I pay very close attention to local voting, city, county and yearly propositions regarding "local" funding especially how it relates to our schools.

How many people out there realize that voting can occur every year and sometimes 2-3 times a year with local special elections? Very few I can tell you because most lemmings only pay attention to the large-scale ones that the media displays.

Now with that said here is the true ignorance and hypocrisy. Yes you CAN complain whether you vote or not about how this country is governed. You CAN complain about anyone and anything because that is the very fundamental foundation of our constitution under the freedom of speech act. Therefore, this whole notion that you don’t have the right to complain is idiotic. YES YOU DO! You have every right guaranteed under the constitution to complain and voice your opinion whenever you feel like it. We as voters may not like it but TOUGH it is their right. Now SHOULD they complain…NO not really because history has proven (just do your research with newspaper articles) that one single vote can change anything.

I say vote but keep in mind that no one is justified in berating or degrading any individual or their self-esteem because they do not. I have said my peace and will say no more..ROCK ON TRS!!

On a different note I have found out on superherohype that there is an addition to the upcoming Sherlock Holmes movie with Robert Downing Jr. and to my concern, that it is based on a comic book? Here is the news flash.

http://www.superherohype.com/news/featuresnews.php?id=7644

[burkhartmj]

I asked in the McCain/Palin thread for an experience and I guess you skimmed over it since my post was monstrous, but since you've had firsthand experience with a socialized healthcare system that resembles our proposed one, explain a typical visit to the ER. You're right I've only ever come across Canadian horror stories [the latest of which being they're turning away older people because they're 'more likely to die anyway], and while I plan on reading Obama's plan, that's not enough to convince me it could work.

This is a notion that confuses me. Universal Health Care is considered a "socialist value".

Is having taxes fund a national military service a socialist value? We all pay for it ... and supposedly see the shared benfit.
Is having taxes fund schools a socialist value? We all pay for it ... and supposedly see the shared benfit.
Is having taxes fund new hospitals a socialist value? We all pay for it ... and supposedly see the shared benfit.
Is paying taxes to fund road building, maintenance, and infrastructure a socialist value?
You get the idea.

I don't see how any of those except school even comes close to being related to socializing healthcare. All but public schooling are government infrastructures. If we paid for private fighting services, they wouldn't serve the country and would therefore be irrelevant in a crisis. Hospitals and roads were placed in case we got attacked, soldiers would have nearby places to get patched up, and a system of traveling quickly throughout the country.

Another thing is that all those have been worked into the tax structure. The money for social healthcare would have to come from somewhere, and that'll probably be people like my parents. No matter how it's done [aside from taking funding from other services], healthcare is gonna cost money, and raised taxes are the way it's going to be paid for.

Oh, and my question still stands, why wasn't this moved to the politics thread?

[tokenuser]

I've been in the ER in Australia twice ... once for kidney stones, once for my parachuting accident. I have also been in the ER in the US for Kidney Stones.

Kidney stones - the Australian experience.

Kidney stones hit you at the worst time. I wasn't feeling great, got up, went to the toilet, (probably passed the stone) while peeing, and collapsed ... falling against the toilet door, and smashing a hole in the wall.

My GF drove me to the local ER, which happened to be in a not so good neighbourhood in inner city Melbourne. It is also an ER that is popular with drug addicts faking symptoms looking for a fix. Unfortunately, kidney stones are a popular illness to fake. So, I was put under observation until they could establish my medical history, or that I was not faking it. That was the downside - they needed to establish that I wasn't faking it. They then gave me muscle relaxants and pain killers, and all was good. I was admitted at 4am, and discharged about noon. Medical support was good, and in retrospect was glad that they were thorough to make sure they weren't administering incorrect drugs. Oh yeah - medical records? They were digital ... and were able to be accessed remotely by the hospital. I (well my GF - now wife) filled in the medical paperwork after I was admitted and well underway.

Kidney Stones - the US experience.

2am on a Sunday morning, after a big home game at the local college. The local ER is also the University Hospital (I have 4 ERs within a short drive - we are surrounded by teaching hospitals). We called first to see if I was OK to be driven (I was pretty much curled up in a fetal position from the pain) or needed an ambulance. The medical staff refused to provide advice over the phone ... so we jumped in the car for the 10 min drive to the hospital. The ER was full. Sat night is a busy time in ERs - fight wounds, injured drunks, etc. NOTHING could happen until I was put in the system, and that included handing over my insurance card (I have PPO insurance - great coverage). I was then put to the front of the queue - over the uninsured people (students) sitting in the ER sobering up. I was put through a number of tests that were pretty much unnecessary, but it was a teaching hospital, and I was insured, so I am sure they justified it. I was checked out at 7am, with a pocket full of meds. Weeeeeeeeeeeee.

Now - in Australia, I got service. Pretty much immediate, responsible approach to ensure I wasn't over medicated. In the US I got overserviced, and once my insurance was approved, it was real quick ... but I am glad I wasn't uninsured, I'd still be waiting.

Health care should be treated like any other infrastructure in a western society. Its needed, it should be consistent. Yes taxes will pay for it, but we are already paying for it via health insurance (which BTW - takes over 40% as adminsitrative charges ... so they have a vested interest in making sure Universal Health Care DOES NOT pass), as well as Medicare.

Why is health care treated any differently to other services (protection, infrastructure, education)?

[diane]

First as to the attack ads, dude they are actually a lot more mild than what they were previously. Go read newspaper articles attacking John Adams. Holy Shit. Or my personal favorite, Andrew Jackson shot a man in a duel over articles he wrote about his wife during the election. He would make Larry Flint blush over the stuff he was writing about Jackson's wife.

As for the Christianity, sorry, don't buy it. There were already a ton of different forms of Christianity in the US of A by the time the country was founded. Heck, the man who penned the Declaration of Independence would not be called a Christian by most Christians today. In fact, many were more agnostic. Going to church was not a priority for them. To quote Jefferson "religion is in the realm of women". Many felt that it was the responsibility of their wives to handle religion for the family and saw it more like a function of running a household.

Then you have the fact that some used religion to rationalize having slaves, beating their wives and children and having mistresses (yes, I swear there are papers with this argument-just google it). So I am not too positive that "Christianity of our Forefathers" is really thing we should aspire too. And I think they knew it. They knew that as soon as you mix politics and religion with power things go wrong. This is the main reason many left England in the first place. We see everyday that excerise play out in places like Iran, Afghanistan or with groups like Hamas and al qaeda.

Please be careful when you assume things are better than what they were in the good ole days. Everything has a price. Just forty years ago I would not have been allowed to marry my now ex husband in the state my son was born in. I am latino and he is white. My grandparents came to Ohio because my grandmother who was Mexican could not marry my grandfather who was English. There are times when federal laws make sense.

As for healthcare and ER visits. Do you want to know the main reason why people go to the ER? Sore throat. I wish I was joking but honest to golly that is the main reason why people go. Why? They don't have a PCP and in turn are not receiving preventative care. I did a study of 5 states claim data from our members for a TMC (total medical cost) project. Out of the top 10 diagnosis codes on the claims 6 were related to a simple sore throat issue (sore throat, strep, tonsillitis, etc), 2 were related to stomach troubles (abdominal pain and nausea) most these went on to get diagnosed with mild forms of food poisoning (most "24 hour" bugs are actually food poisoning, there is no 24 flu) or the flu. The remaining two were for actual emergency issues (neck pain being number 4 in the top ten-standard for car accidents).

As a personal opinion, I am sorry, but if you go to an emergency for a non-emergency, then you are wasting the hospital's time, tax payer's and employer money, and possibly putting true emergencies in jeopardy.

Now how great would it be if the country stop focusing on disease management and focused on prevention? There is something to be said when doctors are now saying they want universal healthcare (http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSN3143203520080331). This is because the money to be made is in disease management not in prevention, yet it is much harder and more expensive to treat the disease than it would ever be than to prevent it. Yes, we need to treat diseases, I do not for one second question that. But we need to also tell people go get a pap or a prostrate exam along with an annual physical too. And as a nation, we are not doing that.

[secret-steve-crumbles]

This is a notion that confuses me. Universal Health Care is considered a "socialist value".Yes, because you are saying you have a right to someone's time and property. You do not. Hence, commie.

I think if you use government health care, your cell phone should be collected when you go to the doctors office. You can't afford healthcare, but you can afford you cell phone, car payment, satellite TV, etc.

Also, what no one ever seems to mention, in the US, you are NEVER turned away from the ER. EVER.

[diane]

Yes, because you are saying you have a right to someone's time and property. You do not. Hence, commie.

So do you consider defense along these lines? I am truly being serious because I have seen health care as a national security issue. And we take land and people's time for defense already. Actually we do this for roads and all sorts of crap. And doctors and such would be paid for their time and talent, like military personnel. I am just trying to better understand your viewpoint. Oh, and technically that isn't just a communist aspect, there are fascists states with universal healthcare too.

[masherscf]

Yes, because you are saying you have a right to someone's time and property. You do not. Hence, commie.

Do you pay cash at the Doctor's office or do you draw a health benefit from some agency?

[tokenuser]

So do you consider defense along these lines? I am truly being serious because I have seen health care as a national security issue. And we take land and people's time for defense already. Actually we do this for roads and all sorts of crap. And doctors and such would be paid for their time and talent, like military personnel. I am just trying to better understand your viewpoint. Oh, and technically that isn't just a communist aspect, there are fascists states with universal healthcare too.I 100% agree with you. Healthcare - just like law and order (paid for by taxes at local, state, and federal level), national security (I'll lump all branches of the military in here, plus include customs/immigration, and the various "spooks"), education (again, paid for by taxes at local, state, and federal level), national infrastructure (freeways, dams, bridges, water), and even privatised but legislated entities like power and communications, need a federal mandate.

US Health Care administrative costs (2003) were 30% (http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/349/8/768), in Canada it was more like 15%. While that 30% does go to pay for people like Diane, imagine what could be done with that extra 15% ...

I saw an article more recently that said admin costs were more like 40% now. I wish I could find that, eitherway, the New England Journal of Medicine is a prety good reference.

[burkhartmj]

I've been in the ER in Australia twice ... once for kidney stones, once for my parachuting accident. I have also been in the ER in the US for Kidney Stones.

Kidney stones - the Australian experience.

Kidney stones hit you at the worst time. I wasn't feeling great, got up, went to the toilet, (probably passed the stone) while peeing, and collapsed ... falling against the toilet door, and smashing a hole in the wall.

My GF drove me to the local ER, which happened to be in a not so good neighbourhood in inner city Melbourne. It is also an ER that is popular with drug addicts faking symptoms looking for a fix. Unfortunately, kidney stones are a popular illness to fake. So, I was put under observation until they could establish my medical history, or that I was not faking it. That was the downside - they needed to establish that I wasn't faking it. They then gave me muscle relaxants and pain killers, and all was good. I was admitted at 4am, and discharged about noon. Medical support was good, and in retrospect was glad that they were thorough to make sure they weren't administering incorrect drugs. Oh yeah - medical records? They were digital ... and were able to be accessed remotely by the hospital. I (well my GF - now wife) filled in the medical paperwork after I was admitted and well underway.

Kidney Stones - the US experience.

2am on a Sunday morning, after a big home game at the local college. The local ER is also the University Hospital (I have 4 ERs within a short drive - we are surrounded by teaching hospitals). We called first to see if I was OK to be driven (I was pretty much curled up in a fetal position from the pain) or needed an ambulance. The medical staff refused to provide advice over the phone ... so we jumped in the car for the 10 min drive to the hospital. The ER was full. Sat night is a busy time in ERs - fight wounds, injured drunks, etc. NOTHING could happen until I was put in the system, and that included handing over my insurance card (I have PPO insurance - great coverage). I was then put to the front of the queue - over the uninsured people (students) sitting in the ER sobering up. I was put through a number of tests that were pretty much unnecessary, but it was a teaching hospital, and I was insured, so I am sure they justified it. I was checked out at 7am, with a pocket full of meds. Weeeeeeeeeeeee.

Now - in Australia, I got service. Pretty much immediate, responsible approach to ensure I wasn't over medicated. In the US I got overserviced, and once my insurance was approved, it was real quick ... but I am glad I wasn't uninsured, I'd still be waiting.

Health care should be treated like any other infrastructure in a western society. Its needed, it should be consistent. Yes taxes will pay for it, but we are already paying for it via health insurance (which BTW - takes over 40% as adminsitrative charges ... so they have a vested interest in making sure Universal Health Care DOES NOT pass), as well as Medicare.

Why is health care treated any differently to other services (protection, infrastructure, education)?

I'm not sure how to take your American experience. It sounds like the overservicing was pretty much because it was a teaching hospital. When I sprained the crap out of my ankle, it was a much quicker process. They did some simple feel tests and then an xray, then gave me a chemical cast, crutches and prescription advil and I was out. Whole thing took about 2 or 3 hours. This was on good insurance so I'm not arguing that point. And while, you're right, we're already paying health insurance, we're paying it for ourselves. Having the top 10% paying taxes to cover the bottom 90%'s health insurance isn't at all the same thing [those are current tax numbers, not using the tax increases Crumbles said Obama is pushing for]

[diane]

I'm not sure how to take your American experience. It sounds like the overservicing was pretty much because it was a teaching hospital. When I sprained the crap out of my ankle, it was a much quicker process. They did some simple feel tests and then an xray, then gave me a chemical cast, crutches and prescription advil and I was out. Whole thing took about 2 or 3 hours. This was on good insurance so I'm not arguing that point. And while, you're right, we're already paying health insurance, we're paying it for ourselves. Having the top 10% paying taxes to cover the bottom 90%'s health insurance isn't at all the same thing [those are current tax numbers, not using the tax increases Crumbles said Obama is pushing for]

Actually it is not that common to over diagnose. Hi Tech Radiology is huge here because it is a money maker. It doesn't necessarily show anything more than an x-ray but they are more commonly used than they should. The AMA has had a huge issue with this because If a patient doesn't have a pre-cert policy in their health insurance a person can actually be put into danger from over use (it is nuclear medicine).

Also, we already paying for a huge amount of health care. It comes from absenteeism, higher cost of healthcare and taxes from the write offs hospitals can take for poverty care.

There is even a push to allow gastric bypass to be an acceptable treatment for diabetes. Now really is a money maker. And the data really isn't there. You would be surprise how many procedures have been shown to have the same or even worse results than cheaper older treatments. The shame is most people don't read things medical journals and these results are not sexy enough.

Heck both knee and back surgery have been proven to be worse than standard physical therapy for pain and yet they are the standard solution. And did you know lung transplants are palative care? I still support them for the most part (there are times when it is not good) but still, who knew?

[secret-steve-crumbles]

So do you consider defense along these lines? I am truly being serious because I have seen health care as a national security issue. And we take land and people's time for defense already. Actually we do this for roads and all sorts of crap.You think I'm for eminent domain or something? So, what you're saying is because we are doing it for other things, ah, the hell with it. I hate eminent domain almost as much as I hate UHC.

Do you pay cash at the Doctor's office or do you draw a health benefit from some agency?Um, yes? Do you like jujy fruits?

[masherscf]

Um, yes? Do you like jujy fruits?

I hate jujy fruits. You didn't answer the question. Do you have a health plan?

[secret-steve-crumbles]

I hate jujy fruits. You didn't answer the question. Do you have a health plan?Um, I guess for once I'm at a loss for words here. I thought yes was a valid answer? Obama doesn't have us speaking Spanish yet, right?

[masherscf]

Um, I guess for once I'm at a loss for words here. I thought yes was a valid answer? Obama doesn't have us speaking Spanish yet, right?

It was a choice. "Yes," wasn't one of the choices. Never mind anyway, the topic of conversation has strayed away.

I was just going to speculate that the amount you and your employer have contributed on your behalf to your health plan may more than cover any medical benefit that you've drawn. In which case, your already paying for someone else.

Of course, there's no good answer. Your paying for some other person's risk or your risk is being payed by that other person. That's the way a group health plan works. Private, public, it makes no difference.

I'd be willing to bet that your physician's practice made a deal with your health plan for discounted prices that the physician subsidizes with inflated medicare billings. I'm often amazed at the "program discounts" that appear on my health plan statements that account for the difference between what the practice bills the PPO and what they get paid. But it means that even people who are paid through a private health plan are indirectly benifiting from the invisible hand of the tax-payer.

The only difference between that and government plan is who runs it. I guess that's the main objection. If you accept the axiom that the government can't do anything right, there's literally no argument that can be made for it.

[secret-steve-crumbles]

It was a choice. "Yes," wasn't one of the choices.What?

"Do you have a health plan."
"Yes."

How is that not a valid answer?

I was just going to speculate that the amount you and your employer have contributed on your behalf to your health plan may more than cover any medical benefit that you've drawn. In which case, your already paying for someone else.

Of course, there's no good answer. Your paying for some other person's risk or your risk is being payed by that other person. That's the way a group health plan works. Private, public, it makes no difference.

I'd be willing to bet that your physician's practice made a deal with your health plan for discounted prices that the physician subsidizes with inflated medicare billings. I'm often amazed at the "program discounts" that appear on my health plan statements that account for the difference between what the practice bills the PPO and what they get paid. But it means that even people who are paid through a private health plan are indirectly benifiting from the invisible hand of the tax-payer.

The only difference between that and government plan is who runs it. I guess that's the main objection. If you accept the axiom that the government can't do anything right, there's literally no argument that can be made for it.I really really really don't want to get into a UHC argument again. Especially in a voting thread. I'm sure you can search for Crumbles and Universal Health Care and see all my reasons and answers as to why I 100% disapprove of it. Here, I'll even do the work for you (http://revision3.com/forum/search.php?searchid=4672165).

[masherscf]

What?

"Do you have a health plan."
"Yes."

How is that not a valid answer?

I really really really don't want to get into a UHC argument again. Especially in a voting thread. I'm sure you can search for Crumbles and Universal Health Care and see all my reasons and answers as to why I 100% disapprove of it. Here, I'll even do the work for you (http://revision3.com/forum/search.php?searchid=4672165).


Do you pay cash at the Doctor's office or do you draw a health benefit from some agency?

That's okay. My question did have two choices. I thought your were just being flip. I meant to offer two choices. Yet, the question can be answered logically with a yes if either of the conditions are true. I'm a Mathematician, if you recall. That's precisely the way one Mathematician might answer another if he was trying to be a smart-ass. My bad.

I decline to open the UHC argument again. I think it's hopeless. A UHC is a fantasy at this point...for good or bad.

[secret-steve-crumbles]

That's okay. My question did have two choices. I thought your were just being flip. I meant to offer two choices. Yet, the question can be answered logically with a yes if either of the conditions are true. I'm a Mathematician, if you recall. That's precisely the way one Mathematician might answer another if he was trying to be a smart-ass. My bad.A ha, OK, I see how "yes" looks totally stupid there, my bad. I thought you would see from my quote that I was answering your second time of just asking me: "Do you have a health plan."

I decline to open the UHC argument again. I think it's hopeless. A UHC is a fantasy at this point...for good or bad.Agreed.

[rabidbadger]

damn, this thread went in so many directions... But mostly great replies. Keep up the great work.

[speed]

I intend on registering... but I realized that I don't know how you go about doing that.

Dude, you can register on Xbox Live. They're trying to make it as easy as possible.