Time to start thinking about the presidential race

[Arlos]

Actually, in all seriousness, no, the US hasn't waterboarded people, until the Bush administration. Indeed, we prosecuted several Japanese prison camp guards for war crimes for waterboarding US POWs in WW2. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 70_pf.html

As for its effectiveness, the FBI disagrees with you. They are on record as opposing such harsh methods of interrogation, as they say that they really don't work anywhere near as well as other methods, and what "information" you DO get is likely to be fabricated, as people will make up what they think their torturers want to hear just to stop it from going on. Indeed, the FBI protested against just such methods in one specific case (Zubaydah) where they had been conducting the investigation and the CIA took over and started using the harsher techniques, despite the fact that the FBI had been getting useful information out of him without them. Also, there's now a memo that's been obtained by the freedom of information act showing the FBI felt the CIA techniques were torture. In any case, you don't think the FBI might have some minor experience in how to conduct interrogations, even on hardcore violent criminals? The fact that THEY oppose those methods is somewhat telling, don't you think?

As for wiretapping, I have no problem with doing it IF it is is conducted in accordance with the rule of law, and subject to judicial oversight. I simply do not trust any branch of the government with unilateral decision power on who they do or do not choose to wiretap without oversight. Hell, we saw how badly that can be abused just 35 years ago, under Nixon. THOSE abuses were why the FISA court was created to begin with. I am all for security, but NOT at the expense of eroding our civil liberties. I am in complete agreement with Ben Franklin, when he said "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Lastly, I think you have a highly distorted view of what "liberals" want. We want this to be a strong, prosperous country, the same as anyone else. What we do NOT want is needless wars and the destruction or abrogation of rights and liberties. Furthermore, we believe that any civilized society has a duty to care for ALL of its citizens, not just the wealthy, and to give everyone as equal a playing field as possible so that they can advance themselves. Universal health care, helping pay for college, etc. are all part of that level playing field. Yes, there are some fringe PC-patrol types, but I think they're as stupid as you do. The government's rights should end at your nose as it were, and whatever you as a consenting adult want to do or believe, as long as it's not hurting other people or inciting the harming of other people, you feel free to do it.

Funny, but I don't consider wishing for a strong nation, the preservation of liberties, and wanting to see some of the national effort put into making sure EVERYONE, including the poor are given a chance to succeed rather than into bombing the fuck out of brown people indicates any sort of mental disorder....

-Arlos

[Narrock]

No, I don't have a distorted view of liberalism, Arlos... the writing's on the wall. I know exactly what liberalism is and it disgusts me to no end. You're saying that John Q. Taxpayer should help fund healthcare and education for those who can't afford it. That's socialism, my friend. And that isn't gonna fly in MY America... the America that our forefathers built. If you (rhetorically speaking) can't *currently* afford health care, then get a better-paying job. If you can't find a better-paying job to cover costs of healthcare and education, then you're not trying hard enough to find that job (they are out there), or you're not willing to work hard enough to support yourself. You don't need a Master's degree or even a Bachelor's degree to make a decent wage, so playing the "I can't afford an education and therefore can't get a decent job" card isn't gonna fly either.

We talked about this a couple years ago. Wiretapping/surveillance is for detecting sleeper cells in our home land. If the government doesn't hear any keywords (I believe it's within 10 seconds or so) then they move on. To think that somebody gets their panties twisted in a bunch because a 'man in black' might have listened to them talking to their friend on the phone about who their favorite "Survivor" contestant is for a few seconds... is beyond me. THEY ARE DOING IT FOR YOUR SAFETY.

Capitalism and Conservatism are going to be the saving graces of this nation. Liberalism and Socialism are going to bankrupt America both morally and monetarily. Our forefathers would be spinning in their graves with rage and anger over what America has become with all the PC crap, moral/ethical decay, and funding of socialist-type programs going on. And all this is why it's absolutely imperative that we do NOT get another socialist in the white house like the hilldebeast or Obama bin laden, or a delusional dufus like algore.

[Gypsiyee]

Our forefathers would be spinning in their graves with rage and anger over what America has become with all the PC crap,

a lot of them would also be spinning in their graves if they knew we abolished slavery and let women go to work - doesn't mean we should bring those principles back

i have a well paying job and my health insurance *sucks.* theres no excuse for the healthcare system we have, it's friggin pathetic. half the time i don't want to go to the doctor because of what i'll have to pay and fear of the bill - telling me to get a better job isn't very reasonable since i work for the government and make more money than most my age do.

ps - YOUR america is *my* america too.

[araby]

It's my America also and I work a well-paying job that doesn't offer insurance. I shopped for a policy and it's very expensive.

I guess everyone has their breaking point in an argument..Lyion doesn't tolerate a hypocrite and when it comes to politics, I have a difficult time discussing with people who use "left wing" "right wing" "neocons" "liberal" "conservative" and anything else for labeling. It's not even the label that bothers me, it's issues. Why does my view on healthcare make me anything at all? Why isn't it just an opinion that goes along with others..who think the same way? Most importantly, they are distracting and full of generalizations.

It makes us a "party" but our "parties" aren't really that anymore..

Kizzy wants someone to break down the candidates for her. I ask myself how many voters in South Carolina want this..and in the country.

I believe people are turned off and intimidated by the terms and talk..they can't even keep up with current issues that matter. They are not aware of any effects by Presidential change and pay no attention.

I want leadership that thinks on immigration, education, health care, trade, taxes, the war...in positive ways and with a working mind. I realize politicians are "politicians" but that is another word that I hate to be used as an adjective. Makes discussions seem moot.

[Arlos]

The founding fathers had never heard of socialism because it hadn't been invented yet. Hell, Karl Marx wasn't even born until 1818, almost 40 years after the Constitutional Convention. Furthermore, given especially Jefferson's concern for minority groups, I think he (and many other Founding Fathers) would be all for having some form of universal health care. Hell, EVERY SINGLE OTHER 1st world western nation has universal health care, and they seem to be getting along OK... Someone living or dying should not be based on a middle manager's desire to make bonus numbers for the quarter, and that is EXACTLY what is happening now. Any society will ALWAYS have a lower income group, it is universal and inevitable. I just don't feel it is right for people in that category to be utterly exposed to added risk of death or financial ruin just because of their socio-economic status. It is IMPOSSIBLE to tell 60 million Americans to "Get Better Jobs", for the simple reason that there are not that many jobs in existence for them to GET. Yes, when I go back to work, I will absolutely be getting a job that has coverage. Still doesn't change my steadfast desire to see EVERYONE covered, *AND* my willingness to help PAY for it out of my taxes.

As for Wiretapping, Nixon's crew couched their wiretapping in terms of National Security as well. Furthermore, it is our constitutional right to be free from arbitrary search & seizure by the Government. It's in the bill of rights. The government wiretapping someone's phone calls is a form of search, and thus it's covered by the constitution, and they need to get a warrant. I repeat what I have said before: wiretap every single known terrorist threat in existence. If you have real evidence to believe he's a threat, then getting a warrant should be no hassle whatsoever, yes? Only reason warrants should be denied is if there's no evidence, in which case the government shouldn't be listening in. In any case, giving the government unfettered power to wiretap anyone it wants has been PROVEN to lead to abuses by past action. It happened, there's no getting around that fact. Therefore, I want there to be oversight by the judicial branch. Why is that so hard to comply with?

-Arlos

[Narrock]

Our forefathers would be spinning in their graves with rage and anger over what America has become with all the PC crap,

a lot of them would also be spinning in their graves if they knew we abolished slavery and let women go to work - doesn't mean we should bring those principles back

i have a well paying job and my health insurance *sucks.* theres no excuse for the healthcare system we have, it's friggin pathetic. half the time i don't want to go to the doctor because of what i'll have to pay and fear of the bill - telling me to get a better job isn't very reasonable since i work for the government and make more money than most my age do.

ps - YOUR america is *my* america too.

I agree with you Gyps that health insurance costs are astronomical. That's why on the question where it asked about how you feel health care should be dealt with, I answered the choice that states something like this -- "to open up health insurance to more companies, giving people more options." That would create competition amongst the health insurance providers, and the end result of that would mean much lower premiums/affordability. I don't want my tax dollars funding health care for little Juanito Guadalupe who's pregnant mother jumped the fence in California and bore him here. The illegals are the prime reason why health insurance costs so much. If you want health care reform, then control the illegal immigration problem first.

And the comment about slavery and letting women work... lol C'mon. There's a HUGE difference there between socialists leaching our funds and bankrupting the economy, and the slavery and women in the workforce issue.

[Harrison]

We should use non-violent crime convicts as slave labor moreso than we do now.

[Gypsiyee]

Sure, it can be looked at that way now, but back then it'd be looked at as a huge difference between "letting negros have freedom" and taxing our people when that came into play. in 100 years it'll be another 'huge difference.'

I've said it before and I'll say it a hundred more times - immigration is a completely different ball of wax, and the responsibility of the illegal aliens coming over lies completely on the government and their ridiculous greed when it comes to allowing people to move here. So long as they make it so difficult for middle class upstanding people to come here legally, there will always be people who take advantage of weaknesses elsewhere.

[Harrison]

What I don't understand is:

Just because while we were a developing nation we allowed anyone and everyone to emigrate to the U.S., we should allow it now. That makes no sense to me and I've yet to see any logical reasoning behind entirely open immigration.

[Narrock]

Araby wrote:

I want leadership that thinks on immigration, education, health care, trade, taxes, the war...in positive ways and with a working mind. I realize politicians are "politicians" but that is another word that I hate to be used as an adjective. Makes discussions seem moot.

You won't find that kind of leadership within the democratic party.

[Gypsiyee]

What I don't understand is:

Just because while we were a developing nation we allowed anyone and everyone to emigrate to the U.S., we should allow it now. That makes no sense to me and I've yet to see any logical reasoning behind entirely open immigration.

The same reason americans have the choice to live anywhere else? Why shouldn't anyone be allowed to live here.. do you think you're special because you're born here? this is the problem with so many people in america who make this country less than it could be, and why we're the laughing stock of the world. as a whole, we tend to think ourselves better than any other country and look down our noses at the rest of the world. we're people just like any other country, and here's a newsflash that a lot of people don't seem to grasp - we're no more free than europeans etc. our ways of life are no more special, unless you consider extra violence something of a treat.

[Yamori]

Need I remind you that "waterboarding" is not even considered "torture," but rather a very effective strategy the CIA has used for decades?

The average time it takes someone to cave in and start confessing after waterboarding is alledgedly less than 25 seconds. Some big Al-Qaeda hot shot got a lot of respect within the CIA for lasting more than 1 minute. Those who are actually guilty of something (which may very well not even be the majority of those being held - they aren't being charged with anything and have no real access to lawyers or means to legally defend themselves or contest the evidence), are supposed to be religious zealots WHO WHOLEHEARTEDLY DEVOTED TO THEIR IDEOLOGY AND VENDETTAS TO THE POINT THAT THEY'LL READILY DIE FOR IT. And they're caving in less than 1 minute. It's blatantly obvious, that's the very definition of torture.

It doesn't matter if the government calls it "enhanced interrogation" "giving them hot cocoa and a basket full of puppies." It's torture and it's abhorrent, illegal, and disgraceful for this country to be doing it. Not to mention confessions from torture are basically useless - the victims say whatever they think their captors want to hear in order to make it stop.

Then again, I'm sure Jesus would be suffocating and drowning people held without charges in secret prisons. So I guess it's ok.

[Yamori]

Furthermore, given especially Jefferson's concern for minority groups, I think he (and many other Founding Fathers) would be all for having some form of universal health care.

I doubt it. The entire spirit of the constitution and founding philosophy were centered around protecting citizens from government coercion and the arbitrary abuse of power. You don't see the right to the works or efforts of other people anywhere. There was fierce and heated battle about even having anything more than a token federal government with the ability to minimally tax. They believed peoples' fundamental rights consisted of being free of certain things - not getting free certain things.

They knew their history extremely well and put massive forethought into the direction they wanted their new government to go. Socialism may not have been "invented" but the concept of the welfare state wasn't unknown. Bread and circuses anyone?

[Narrock]

Sure, it can be looked at that way now, but back then it'd be looked at as a huge difference between "letting negros have freedom" and taxing our people when that came into play. in 100 years it'll be another 'huge difference.'

I've said it before and I'll say it a hundred more times - immigration is a completely different ball of wax, and the responsibility of the illegal aliens coming over lies completely on the government and their ridiculous greed when it comes to allowing people to move here. So long as they make it so difficult for middle class upstanding people to come here legally, there will always be people who take advantage of weaknesses elsewhere.

Gyps, I can pretty much guarantee that if we get the illegal immigrant problem under control, then health care insurance costs/premiums will go WAY down... down to "affordable" prices for people who have a hard time paying that now.

[Arlos]

I dunno, Mindia, I wouldn't be so sure. Remember, my dad has been involved in the health care field, off and on, for almost 40 years. He said all he's seen in the industry is levels of care going down, and prices and overhead going up. Some of these insurance companies have 30% overhead, all of which goes to middle managers and administrators, and is effectively waste.

Also, remember they're in business to make a profit, so they have financial incentive to deny patients needed medical procedures if they cost anything. At least a couple executives have admitted to Congress doing just that, resulting in the completely avoidable DEATHS of people WITH INSURANCE just so the managers would make their bonus numbers for cost containment. That's just flat-out wrong, anyway you look at it, and has nothing whatsoever to do with illegal immigration.

Ultimately, that sort of thing is why I believe that health care companies should all be not-for-profit companies. Still let doctors, nurses, techs, etc. make tons of money, they've earned it, and the potential income helps get the best and brightest into the field. But paying doctors tons doesn't mean we need to have it be done by a company that will put profit margin ahead of the health, welfare, and indeed LIVES of the people it's supposed to be serving. Eliminate the need to have a return on investment for shareholders, and we can get rid of a lot of that overhead I mentioned, and really help control costs.

-Arlos

[Narrock]

I dunno, Mindia, I wouldn't be so sure. Remember, my dad has been involved in the health care field, off and on, for almost 40 years. He said all he's seen in the industry is levels of care going down, and prices and overhead going up. Some of these insurance companies have 30% overhead, all of which goes to middle managers and administrators, and is effectively waste.

Also, remember they're in business to make a profit, so they have financial incentive to deny patients needed medical procedures if they cost anything. At least a couple executives have admitted to Congress doing just that, resulting in the completely avoidable DEATHS of people WITH INSURANCE just so the managers would make their bonus numbers for cost containment. That's just flat-out wrong, anyway you look at it, and has nothing whatsoever to do with illegal immigration.

Ultimately, that sort of thing is why I believe that health care companies should all be not-for-profit companies. Still let doctors, nurses, techs, etc. make tons of money, they've earned it, and the potential income helps get the best and brightest into the field. But paying doctors tons doesn't mean we need to have it be done by a company that will put profit margin ahead of the health, welfare, and indeed LIVES of the people it's supposed to be serving. Eliminate the need to have a return on investment for shareholders, and we can get rid of a lot of that overhead I mentioned, and really help control costs.

-Arlos

The pharmaceutical industry's exhorbitant prices aren't helping matters either. It's one thing to be profitable, but quite another to be discracefully overly-profitable while many people suffer. But you see Arlos (and a couple other people here), having a socialist mindset is going to have a snowball effect into other avenues of our economic and/or other systems. If government steps in to help "the people" by regulating the health insurance industry, then eventually they're going to step in and regulate the real estate market, rent, the food industry, the automobile industry, and so forth and so on. You can roll your eyes at that, or think it's a stretch, but that's the path we'd be heading down. Pretty soon we'd be a socialist nation, and the America that was built on capitalism will be no more. America as we knew it will no longer exist. We might as well start preparing templates to design our new flag which will have stars, stripes, and a sickle and hammer.

I wish there was a more simple solution to all this madness besides having the government step in. The government pretty much screws up everything they get their hands on no matter who is in office or whichever party controls the house.

[araby]

Free market!! Vote Ron Paul!

[Narrock]

Free market!! Vote Ron Paul!

lol Araby. I tell you what... if Ron Paul becomes Hilldebeast's number one opponent, I'll vote for him. But we'll have to see how all the candidates do over the next few months, and what new scandals and background information (if any) get unfolded. A lot of skeletons they may have been hiding in the closet might get discovered!

[Arlos]

Well, Mindia, I think you're wrong in that one. I know I have zero interest in the government running any more than it needs to. I just feel that health care falls under the "Life" part of "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness", and as such the health of its citizens IS something that the government should support, if only monetarily. Indeed, I don't even think the Government should "run" health care, per ce, just make sure that it is universally available to all citizens. The same health care companies that we have now should provide the care, the government should just PAY for it is all. Big difference between that and letting the Government actually run it. If we did that, we could completely eliminate Medicare, because it would no longer be necessary. That right there would cover a significant chunk of the costs of the new program, yes?

You mention rent in there, and while I don't think the government should control it, I think there being low income housing available that anyone who's honestly working full time can afford is important. Right now, without that, someone working full time at even $10 an hour here in the bay area simply couldn't afford an apartment on their own. I mean, we're talking someone working full time at above minimum wage. I think it reasonable that there be SOME option for them to be able to afford a place to live, yes? Again though, that's not the government necessarily running things, just subsidizing owners who make such places to live available, so they aren't unduly harmed in their interest in making money.

In any case, I don't personally know a single person amongst my liberal comrades that wants to see the government take over and control 1 iota more than it absolutely has to. But help provide such absolute basics and necessities as a place to live for everyone who wants to work, regardless of income, health care, food help for the poor, etc... Sure, that it can help with. Running the auto industry, the financial industry, etc. etc. etc. Fuck no. Oversight, sure, to prevent more crap like with ENRON, but run it? Hell no, not a chance in hell.

I certainly don't want to see this country turned into Soviet Russia by any stretch of the imagination. I don't even want to see it turned into a major socialist country. I just feel it is possible to borrow ideas from other systems and incorporate our unique spin on them into our own system, and better quality of life for everyone, and without converting to the system we borrowed the idea from. Hell, the Founding Fathers borrowed ideas from a ton of different political systems when they founded this country and created its governmental system, why shouldn't we continue the tradition?

-Arlos

[Tikker]

What I don't understand is:

Just because while we were a developing nation we allowed anyone and everyone to emigrate to the U.S., we should allow it now. That makes no sense to me and I've yet to see any logical reasoning behind entirely open immigration.

if you want to apply standards to who gets to live in america, you're fucked

[Tikker]

.
You mention rent in there, and while I don't think the government should control it, I think there being low income housing available that anyone who's honestly working full time can afford is important. Right now, without that, someone working full time at even $10 an hour here in the bay area simply couldn't afford an apartment on their own.
-Arlos

I completely disagree with this, to tell the truth

I'm not sure why you think everyone is entitled to own their own place?
if you can't afford it, find some roommates, get a better/another job, or move somewhere you can afford it

charity is the province of the church, not government

[Narrock]

.
You mention rent in there, and while I don't think the government should control it, I think there being low income housing available that anyone who's honestly working full time can afford is important. Right now, without that, someone working full time at even $10 an hour here in the bay area simply couldn't afford an apartment on their own.
-Arlos

I completely disagree with this, to tell the truth

I'm not sure why you think everyone is entitled to own their own place?
if you can't afford it, find some roommates, get a better/another job, or move somewhere you can afford it

charity is the province of the church, not government

Well said, Tikker! And this to Arlos: You're painting a warm & fuzzy picture... a rosy picture of those scenarios, and being naive to the thorns that will be present.

[KaiineTN]

I think in an ideal world, a person should be able to get by on their own from working a single job full-time. If they live and work in the city/suburbs, businesses should pay better because of higher living expenses in that area. If they live and work out in the country, obviously you can get by on much less. Doesn't McDonalds in California start people at a much higher hourly wage than in other parts of the country? I wish that sort of thing would become more common. But unfortunately, this isn't, and will never be, an ideal world (or country).

I find it rather discouraging that I can't find a job that would provide me with enough compensation to afford living on my own. Maybe I should try the internship thing for experience, that'd probably help. Perhaps I'll have better luck after this semester once I have my Associate's degree and general business certificate, but I doubt it. Seems like an Associate's doesn't mean shit these days unless it's focused training.

[Tikker]

I find it rather discouraging that I can't find a job that would provide me with enough compensation to afford living on my own. Maybe I should try the internship thing for experience, that'd probably help. Perhaps I'll have better luck after this semester once I have my Associate's degree and general business certificate, but I doubt it. Seems like an Associate's doesn't mean shit these days unless it's focused training.

having marketable skills would help too

[Ouchyfish]

If we start constructing a yellow brick road for everyone, what will be the incentive for anyone to better themselves?

"Let's all drop out of college and live in these houses funded by the government, eat the food funded by the government, and if we get sick, we can use the health care provided by the government."

Come to think of it, isn't that the current welfare state right now? You want to expand this?