What's YOUR Overriding Political Issue in the Next Election?

nimh wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
This is why I have stopped posting anything substantial on this forum. I got tired of having to fight off the repeated doggerel of the other side.

"Stopped"? <raises>

Does that mean you're not going to copy/paste any more Ann Coulter columns, and will now exclusively focus on calling Democrats/liberals dumb, bitter, cowardly, pathetic or irrelevant?

Come now Nimh, I didn't say I stopped recently. It was a ways back when I realized the lefties here just wanted to argue and get in pissing match's.

Pushing buttons is the name of the game here in the political forum, you know that, so why pretend differently as though you have some moral authority to preach to anyone?

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Come now Nimh, I didn't say I stopped recently. It was a ways back when I realized the lefties here just wanted to argue and get in pissing match's.

Nope, doesnt work. Ive been here longer than you, and you've always been this way.

McGentrix wrote:

Pushing buttons is the name of the game here in the political forum, you know that, so why pretend differently as though you have some moral authority to preach to anyone?

Well, God knows there are precious few things in life I have any right to preach about. But yes, when it comes to posting things that go a little bit beyond mere button-pushing on this forum, I think there's a difference, hell yeah. There's actually a bunch of us who do a little bit more than that.

Actually, I'll give you this: you're concise. Like now - you've just described exactly what you're doing here, and what you're apparently only out to do here, more briefly than I could have done if I'd tried.

In fact, it would be something of a public service announcement if you'd just pasted that first half of your sentence - "Pushing buttons is the name of the game here in the political forum, you know that" - in your sig line. Then at least newcomers would be warned about your take on this place, and oldcomers would be reminded, and perhaps save themselves the breath on that response they were going to write.

Yeah - I mean, you mean it, you were being honest, so why not - put it in your sig! See, I knew this conversation would be good for something.

0 Replies

These are some of my suggestions, and they're not posted in any
order of importance, as they're all important in my book:

1. Decrease the patent life on Brand name drugs so that cheap generics are available to patients.

2. Available and affordable health insurance for all children and adults.

3. Increase the number of medical schools in the US, so that there will be an increase in number American MDs.

4. Find ways to make college education + books more affordable for all students.

5. Increase Federal support (?) to States, so that less of a burden in placed on property taxes for the individual .

6. Border control to decrease # of illegals gaining entry into US.

7. Tighter immigration laws, to control population growth in USA.

8. Have English declared the official language of the USA.
8.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
Come now Nimh, I didn't say I stopped recently. It was a ways back when I realized the lefties here just wanted to argue and get in pissing match's.

Nope, doesnt work. Ive been here longer than you, and you've always been this way.

McGentrix wrote:
Pushing buttons is the name of the game here in the political forum, you know that, so why pretend differently as though you have some moral authority to preach to anyone?

Well, God knows there are precious few things in life I have any right to preach about. But yes, when it comes to posting things that go a little bit beyond mere button-pushing on this forum, I think there's a difference, hell yeah. There's actually a bunch of us who do a little bit more than that.

Actually, I'll give you this: you're concise. Like now - you've just described exactly what you're doing here, and what you're apparently only out to do here, more briefly than I could have done if I'd tried.

In fact, it would be something of a public service announcement if you'd just pasted that first half of your sentence - "Pushing buttons is the name of the game here in the political forum, you know that" - in your sig line. Then at least newcomers would be warned about your take on this place, and oldcomers would be reminded, and perhaps save themselves the breath on that response they were going to write.

Yeah - I mean, you mean it, you were being honest, so why not - put it in your sig! See, I knew this conversation would be good for something.

I'll do no such thing, but why not point your hypocritical finger at the real button pushers here? You seem to be a good finger wagger, why wag it in only the direction of the right?

It's a disproportionate minority of posters here that hold a conservative viewpoint, yet being the hypocrite you are, ignore the constant insults, badgering and general idiocy directed our way because the ones doing it appear to represent similar interests as you do and because you consider them friends.

As far as there being "bunch of us who do a little bit more than that", you are kidding yourself.

0 Replies

dadpad wrote:

Climate change, nothing else matters if climate change is not addressed.

Does this mean that you believe "climate change" (within the context of how it is generally defined) can put an end to civilization and humanity, and will if not properly addressed.

Granted, if "climate change" were to result in duplicating the Venusian environment here on earth, the End Days would, most certainly, arrive, but I have yet to see anything approaching such dire predictions outside of the Al Gore propoganda flick.

Even if we accept that the worst predictions might prove true, certainly no one believes the Apocolypse will arrive for decades yet to come, and certainly not before 2008, or even 2012 if we get it wrong this time around.

In the meantime do we expect those without health insurance, small business owners, Islamist terrorists, Mexican immigrants (legal or otherwise), gays and lesbians, bible thumping evangelists, and any number of other groups to put their interests and concerns on hold?

If The World announced tomorrow it was making "climate change" its #1 concern tomorrow, would Al Qaeda announce on one of its websites that it was suspending operations to allow the infidels time to save the planet?

0 Replies

eoe wrote:

I'm concerned about health care, seeing that my husband and I are presently two of the millions in this country that are uninsured. But immigration is way up there, along with putting an end to this stupid war.

Enlightened self-interest -- aint it grand?

You should vote based on your personal interests.

You should also not be quick to criticize others when they do the same.

I am entirely sympathetic towards anyone who must face the costs of health care without insurance. Of course, the reasons some go without health insurance are not always related to a victim's status. Nevertheless some people are really in a bad place insurance wise through no choice of their own, and these people should consider voting for candidates who promise to alleviate their anxieties and fears.

Now, are these anxieties and fears more important than putting an end to "this stupid war?" "This stupid war" involves the deaths and maiming of thousands -- many being young Americans. If you could give up any chance for health insurance to stop "this stupid war," would you do so?

Now I or a fellow member of the Rich in America may vote for a candidate because of his position on taxes.

We are we greedy bastards are we not for putting our self-interest over the interests of other?

0 Replies

Quote:

If you could give up any chance for health insurance to stop "this stupid war," would you do so?

In a flash.

Quote:

We are we greedy bastards are we not for putting our self-interest over the interests of other?

Depends. One person's self-interest revolves around Security, a critical component of well-being. The others' revolves around owning more stuff. It isn't difficult to figure out that arguments can be similar, but based upon different underlying principles.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

My overriding concern is that I don't see the US as elementary school hall monitor for the world. To start with, we don't have the moral authority. We don't own the world or possess the earth and its riches, just yet, or ever, as the earth and its history isn't owned, no matter how may zillions we've thrown at doing that - I see elephantine excess.

I'd like a president who doesn't just bomb as some kind of natural right for us to do some place half way across the earth. Well, next door either.

0 Replies

Security in the US? Much of the question of that is from what we have wrought.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
If you could give up any chance for health insurance to stop "this stupid war," would you do so?

In a flash.

Quote:

We are we greedy bastards are we not for putting our self-interest over the interests of other?

Depends. One person's self-interest revolves around Security, a critical component of well-being. The others' revolves around owning more stuff. It isn't difficult to figure out that arguments can be similar, but based upon different underlying principles.

Cycloptichorn

The question about trading ins for an end to the war wasn't directed to you, but it's nice to see you're so selfless --- even though we both know you will never be called to make good on your claim.

Not surprising that you would characterize opposition to increased taxes as a desire to own more stuff. Not surprising that you fail to see the economics that runs through the personal situation of so many of the uninsured.

Health insurance is, undoubtedly, expensive but a very large percentage of those without it have decided that the security it provides is not worth sacrificing certain comforts and enjoyments. Anecdotal evidence at best, but I know quite a few people without health insurance who could afford it if they were willing to lower their standard of living (and by this I do not mean going hungry or living in a box on the street). They have made a choice based on their tolerance for risk and their lifestyle priorities. They admit they are betting on their health, and they know that if they faced an acute emergency, the system in place will meet their immediate needs and keep them alive.

These are people who might follow your lead and require me to pay more taxes so that they can have their security and their stuff.

I do not mind helping my fellow man with necessities. I do not want to subsidize necessities for those who insist on maintaining luxuries.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

I don't have a one overriding issue, but my key issues are:

1. Restoring the rule of law and separation of powers to our system of government
2. Climate change
3. The economy

Interesting.

Since you used the word "restoring," you must believe that there was a prior time when the rule of law governed. When was that and how does it substantially differ from today? Is this fall from the rule of law something more than the provisions of the Patriot Act, or is there more to it?

Climate Change -- see other post

The economy - does this mean you want to keep it at it's current robustly healthy state?

0 Replies

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:
I don't have a one overriding issue, but my key issues are:

1. Restoring the rule of law and separation of powers to our system of government
2. Climate change
3. The economy

Interesting.

Since you used the word "restoring," you must believe that there was a prior time when the rule of law governed. When was that and how does it substantially differ from today? Is this fall from the rule of law something more than the provisions of the Patriot Act, or is there more to it?

There's a lot more to it but it's probably too much for this thread. I will see if I can come up with a concise summary of my concerns. As to believing there was a prior time when the rule of law governed, perhaps you've got me. Maybe it was all an illusion.

Quote:

Climate Change -- see other post

My concern here is that we should do as much as we can to make sure that we are not the cause of catastrophic changes. It doesn't mean we can stop it or should, just that we shouldn't make it worse and we should study it and try to predict it in order to prepare ourselves for it.

Quote:

The economy - does this mean you want to keep it at it's current robustly healthy state?

I'm concerned about instability and long term plans in general.

I didn't see your list, Finn. I must've missed it ... going back to look now.

0 Replies

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
If you could give up any chance for health insurance to stop "this stupid war," would you do so?

In a flash.

Quote:

We are we greedy bastards are we not for putting our self-interest over the interests of other?

Depends. One person's self-interest revolves around Security, a critical component of well-being. The others' revolves around owning more stuff. It isn't difficult to figure out that arguments can be similar, but based upon different underlying principles.

Cycloptichorn

The question about trading ins for an end to the war wasn't directed to you, but it's nice to see you're so selfless --- even though we both know you will never be called to make good on your claim.

Well, you knew that before you even asked. So I wonder why it's worth bringing up now.

Quote:

Not surprising that you would characterize opposition to increased taxes as a desire to own more stuff. Not surprising that you fail to see the economics that runs through the personal situation of so many of the uninsured.

Health insurance is, undoubtedly, expensive but a very large percentage of those without it have decided that the security it provides is not worth sacrificing certain comforts and enjoyments. Anecdotal evidence at best, but I know quite a few people without health insurance who could afford it if they were willing to lower their standard of living (and by this I do not mean going hungry or living in a box on the street). They have made a choice based on their tolerance for risk and their lifestyle priorities. They admit they are betting on their health, and they know that if they faced an acute emergency, the system in place will meet their immediate needs and keep them alive.

There are more elements to security then just health insurance, of course.

Quote:

These are people who might follow your lead and require me to pay more taxes so that they can have their security and their stuff.

I do not mind helping my fellow man with necessities. I do not want to subsidize necessities for those who insist on maintaining luxuries.

Neither do I. Constructive criticisms such as this can be used to refine a plan and make it work. But to kill the argument?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
I don't have a one overriding issue, but my key issues are:

1. Restoring the rule of law and separation of powers to our system of government
2. Climate change
3. The economy

Interesting.

Since you used the word "restoring," you must believe that there was a prior time when the rule of law governed. When was that and how does it substantially differ from today? Is this fall from the rule of law something more than the provisions of the Patriot Act, or is there more to it?

There's a lot more to it but it's probably too much for this thread. I will see if I can come up with a concise summary of my concerns. As to believing there was a prior time when the rule of law governed, perhaps you've got me. Maybe it was all an illusion.

Quote:

Climate Change -- see other post

My concern here is that we should do as much as we can to make sure that we are not the cause of catastrophic changes. It doesn't mean we can stop it or should, just that we shouldn't make it worse and we should study it and try to predict it in order to prepare ourselves for it.

Quote:
The economy - does this mean you want to keep it at it's current robustly healthy state?

I'm concerned about instability and long term plans in general.

I didn't see your list, Finn. I must've missed it ... going back to look now.

I am interested in your concerns about the rule of law and look forward your summary.

Icertainly agree that we should continue to study "climate change" if for no other reason than that it is too politically charged to have any confidence that current opinions and conclusions (on either side of the coin) are reliably objective and scientifically accurate. Certainly we should exercise control over what we dump into the environment but the law of unintended consequences has a way of biting the butts of those with tunnel vision. Assuming Rachel Carson was correct about DDT, was it worth the millions of lives lost to maleria becuase of its ban? Was there not a less draconian method to employ than an absolute ban?

Not very clear on your point about the economy. In my opinion it is undeniably healthy and robust. The privations of a minority of individuals signify the absence of perfection, not disease.

I've not posted my list. I am making my way through all the others before I do.

0 Replies

my overriding political agenda would be to mandate that every male over the age of 17 wear Stetson hats, except Finn who would be required to continue wearing baseball caps backwards.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
If you could give up any chance for health insurance to stop "this stupid war," would you do so?

In a flash.

Quote:

We are we greedy bastards are we not for putting our self-interest over the interests of other?

Depends. One person's self-interest revolves around Security, a critical component of well-being. The others' revolves around owning more stuff. It isn't difficult to figure out that arguments can be similar, but based upon different underlying principles.

Cycloptichorn

The question about trading ins for an end to the war wasn't directed to you, but it's nice to see you're so selfless --- even though we both know you will never be called to make good on your claim.

Well, you knew that before you even asked. So I wonder why it's worth bringing up now.

Huh?

Quote:
Not surprising that you would characterize opposition to increased taxes as a desire to own more stuff. Not surprising that you fail to see the economics that runs through the personal situation of so many of the uninsured.

Health insurance is, undoubtedly, expensive but a very large percentage of those without it have decided that the security it provides is not worth sacrificing certain comforts and enjoyments. Anecdotal evidence at best, but I know quite a few people without health insurance who could afford it if they were willing to lower their standard of living (and by this I do not mean going hungry or living in a box on the street). They have made a choice based on their tolerance for risk and their lifestyle priorities. They admit they are betting on their health, and they know that if they faced an acute emergency, the system in place will meet their immediate needs and keep them alive.

There are more elements to security then just health insurance, of course.

Yes, of course, but it was you that labeled concern for health insurance as a security issue, so what is your point?

Quote:
These are people who might follow your lead and require me to pay more taxes so that they can have their security and their stuff.

I do not mind helping my fellow man with necessities. I do not want to subsidize necessities for those who insist on maintaining luxuries.

Neither do I. Constructive criticisms such as this can be used to refine a plan and make it work. But to kill the argument?

Huh II?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

my overriding political agenda would be to mandate that every male over the age of 17 wear Stetson hats, except Finn who would be required to continue wearing baseball caps backwards.

Of course this presupposes that I regularly wear a baseball cap backwards.

Now I don't, but I am hard pressed to understand why it might be considered a rip that I did.

What archtype do you consider to be marked by the backwards cap?

The Catcher?

0 Replies

All the things Bush said early in his presidency, but broke his promise.

1) "I'm a uniter, not a divider"
2) "I'm a compassionate conservative"
3) "I will restore honor and integrity to the White House"
4) "No decision on Yucca Mountain until research results are available"
5) "Free trade"
6) "Leave no child behind"
7) "President of all the people, not just those who voted for me"
8) "A reformer with results"
9) "It's the people's money, not the government's"
10) "Election reform"
11) "Reforming the military"

0 Replies

eoe wrote:

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
it wuld be nice to have a preseident willing to charge bush and cheney and rumsfeld with war crimes and send them to guantanemo as well.

I'd like to see that.

Would you really?

With what specific crimes would you have them charged?

Do you truly believe that the President and Vice President of your country, twice elected by millions of your fellow citizens are war criminals?

Are these millions complicit in their alleged crimes or merely dupes?

Or is it just something would-be hip liberals have to parrot to one another?

0 Replies

Asherman wrote:

1. Prosecution of the war on Radical Islamic terrorism.
2. Reclaim a majority in the Congress.
3. Defeat whichever candidate the Democrats pick to run for the Presidency.

While the nation is under attack from an enemy determined upon our destruction, all other issues are secondary. The National Debts is an important issue, but wars always are expensive and the alternative is unacceptable.

I think #1 will be at the top of my list as well, but I wish to continue considering the opinions of my fellow A2Kers before I declare.

0 Replies

What's YOUR Overriding Political Issue in the Next Election?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know