BS: Voting for Hillary?

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Jun 08 - 09:33 PM

Maybe I'll write in Kucinich; it's the right thing to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Jun 08 - 02:52 PM

Amos and Rig? Just think how one of you is going to get to gloat when it's all over and say to the other, "See! I told you so!"

Me, I'm bettin' on Chongo. Not because I think he'll win, mind you, but just because it's the right thing to do. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jun 08 - 02:18 PM

RIg:

I think you are about 180 degrees out of whack on that prediction.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Jun 08 - 02:15 PM

"something far darker" Would that be Guinness?

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Jun 08 - 10:02 AM

"Let's hear about "something far darker". It's bound to at least bring us comic relief."



               Barak Obama is going to prove to be another politiacl fizzle. When it's all over we'll all be calling him Dukakis Dark.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Jun 08 - 10:15 PM

Oh, dear! No, Ron. You're mistaken. A number of those who see "dark forces" at work behind the political system also support Mr Obama. People just aren't as conveniently stereotypical as you wish they were for the purposes of your arguments, Ron.

It would be convenient for you if everyone who disagreed with you on every single notable issue ALSO did not support Mr Obama...but, ALAS! It is not so. ;-) Many who disgree with you on some issue or another support Obama. Nor are all the people who disagree with you on this or that issue necessarily alike in a variety of other ways. Nor are they among the clinically insane, drooling morons, or paranoid lunatics that seem to dance around in your fantasies.

Nope. It ain't the glorious and rational you versus a monolithic horde of babbling idiots, the despicable and contemptible "them", Ron, them who are "all the same". LOL! I know it seems that way to you at times, but it just ain't.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 08 Jun 08 - 09:56 PM

As I saId: "puppets for something far darker". Do tell. I'm sure we'd all like to be entertained by the latest theory.

Let's hear about "something far darker". It's bound to at least bring us comic relief.

It's amazing the number of people commenting on the political threads who specialize in these wonderful theories explaining everything with one handy--and terribly threatening-- scapegoat--or perhaps 2 or 3--and neatly relieving the author of the theory in question of the terrible burden of thinking.

And they all seem to oppose Obama, also. It's only the people willing to support Obama who think at all, it seems. Wonder why that is.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Jun 08 - 09:16 PM

LOL! Well, I am surprised by that latest revelation. I doubt that many Cubans will take advantage of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Jun 08 - 07:54 PM

I see in today's paper that some changes are taking place in Cuba - see here Sex-change operations offered for free

"Cuba has authorised sex-change operations and will offer them free for qualifying citizens, officials said.

The move is the latest in a series of changes implemented by President Raul Castro since he succeeded his elder brother, Fidel, in February. Raul Castro's daughter, Mariela, heads Cuba's National Centre for Sex Education, which strongly backs the new policy. "

Somehow I don't think that is what the Cuba lobby in the States is after. Adding insult to injury - not just Commies but now they're coming out as Liberals as well!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ebbie
Date: 08 Jun 08 - 06:55 PM

Guest from Sanity (ha!) is under the impression that this is a blog. He's just getting his jollies.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 08 Jun 08 - 06:51 PM

YOur vituperaive spirit is leaking through again, GFS-- I suspect it reflects badly on the accuracy of your handle. Mister Obama (to you) has earned his own momentum thorugh the exercise of actual skill--more than I can say in your case. If you have something constructive to offer, I would be delighted to find out what it could possibly be. This dedication to nullifying others does not become you, or anyone else.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 Jun 08 - 02:02 PM

i think Ron gets his input from either the goldfish on his screensaver, or the hostess at his local starbucks. ...O-Blabbo, is just another shill....We can always forgive those who bore us..we can never forgive those who we bore! O-Blabbo, only has momentum from the propaganda machine...not from anything of his accomplishments..if you can find one. He is just a reasonably good orator....He easily inspires the simple minded, who of course, don't do their homework.McLame is just plain dishonest, and a waffle

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 08 Jun 08 - 10:09 AM

The reality for some people is that they don't grapple at all--just look for someone else to blame.   I would say anybody who's forever moaning about religion, "the media", Mexicans, etc., fits that perfectly.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 08 Jun 08 - 09:45 AM

Ron - The reality is, two people might grapple with the same problem, apply the same amount of diligent effort, and come to different conclusions. It happens all the time.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 08 Jun 08 - 09:19 AM

As I said, another brilliant-- yet somehow fact-free --response.

Sure is a shame it's too much of a burden for some people to think--they prefer simple answers to all their problems. Just give them an all-powerful scapegoat.

If it's not Mexicans, it's religion, or " the media", etc. Anything but grappling with their own flaws.

No wonder propaganda is so successful.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 08 Jun 08 - 08:35 AM

"'....candidates before us in the election "do not represent us and I believe puppets for something far darker'."


                Ron - Deal with reality here, Obama ended up with the nomination.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 08 Jun 08 - 07:24 AM

....candidates before us in the election "do not represent us and I believe puppets for something far darker". Right. The classic amorphous but all-encompassing conspiracy theory"-- blissfully fact- and evidence- free, but neatly relieving the poster of any burden to think.

That theory is actually one of the greatest hits around here.

You'll fit in great.

So, welcome.

And those of us who actually don't mind thinking will know how seriously to take anything you say.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Jun 08 - 12:16 AM

Ah-hah! Very cool. I had heard some rumours about this through the fuel cell industry awhile back.

Indeed there are viable alternative power sources to oil just waiting...but they aren't being mass marketed yet.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Jun 08 - 09:26 PM

That's putting it mildly, but there's no use talking to many Americans about it. They already figure they know all there is to know about it.

The amazing thing is that Cuba is the one country in Latin America that's been trade blockaded by the USA for almost 50 years now, and they are STILL able to provide better average per capita conditions for their own people than any of the others do, and that's without Russian economic help since 1989. I was down there in 2000. I liked it.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Jun 08 - 08:59 PM

I suspect there are a lot of things about Cuba that the corporate press in America does not bring us.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Jun 08 - 07:27 PM

I've been to Cuba, and there were a lot of things I really liked about it. I've met Cubans who were there before Castro's revolution and who are still there and who believe very much in what that revolution accmomplished and who are staying in Cuba because they believe in their society and support it.

One of them has visited Canada a couple of times now, and he did not seek refuge here. He went back to Cuba. ;-) He believes in the revolution and is proud of Cuba.

When you talk about the Cubans who are eager to get into the USA, just remember this: there are millions of Mexicans and other Latin Americans who are equally eager to get into the USA and who would also be trying to get to Florida on rafts if the Mexican border wasn't the more obvious and easy way to go. They all live in capitalist countries, and the poor in their countries are way worse off than the poor in Cuba.

None of them are under Castro's hand, but they are just as eager as many Cubans to get into the USA. Ask yourself why. It has little or nothing to do with fleeing socialism, it has mostly to do with their desire for the affluent North American lifestyle as compared to the poverty in Latin America.

If the Malaysians or the Indonesians were sitting where Cuba is...THEN you'd see a flood of boat people that would make your head swim! And they would not be fleeing socialism, they would be fleeing poverty in a capitalist society.

All of capitalist Latin America is suffering deep poverty, and people in ALL those countries would like to come to the USA and Canada if they could...just as much if not more than the Cubans.

That's the part you choose not to take note of when you rail against Cuba and talk about Cuban refugees. It's like you're blind in one eye and can't see out of the other.

Socialism is NOT an all-or-nothing proposition, and as Carol pointed out there is already a great deal of socialism in the USA (and in Canada and in every capitalist society)...she likes it that way, because it is desirable and necessary to have it that way...and THAT is why she has no reason to have to move from the USA to some other place such as Cuba...whether or NOT she likes socialism!

How stupid are you, lansing? Don't you know that your own society, like all modern societies that exist in the world today, already HAS socialism? Lots of socialism? And don't you know that without socialism you would have no police or armed forces or even any courts or government to defend your precious freedoms? You wouldn't have public schools either. You wouldn't have a whole lot of stuff you take for granted...but don't recognize AS socialism.

"Socialism" does not mean an authoritarian system or a dictatorship or anything like that. It simply means something that is financed by government money...not to make a profit, but to accomplish something that is deemed desirable or absolutely necessary...like public schools, law enforcement, a Congress, a courts and justice system, and a standing army, for example.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Jun 08 - 06:25 PM

There is no post from me anywhere in which I have indicated anything other than a preference for a combination of the two economic systems. Not in this thread or anywhere else.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Jun 08 - 06:23 PM

I should clarify my last post. We are moving toward a totalitarian political system, with an economic system in which private industry and government are essentially joined together. This is known as Fascism.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Jun 08 - 06:12 PM

I think some people are confusing totalitarianism with Socialism. These are not the same thing at all. Socialism is an economic system, not a political system. Socialism is not inherently totalitarian. It is simply an economic system in which resources are provided by everyone for the benefit of everyone. Totalitarian governments can use Socialist economic systems, like the government of Cuba. But they can also use Capitalistic systems, like Iran under the Shah. But countries that are have a high degree of socialism in their economic systems can also be democratic, like some of the Scandinavian countries.

I don't choose to live in a totalitarian country (although we are moving in that direction here in this country). I prefer to live in a democratic country that has a healthy balance of Capitalism and Socialism.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 Jun 08 - 06:12 PM

LMAO!!

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,lansing
Date: 07 Jun 08 - 06:10 PM

then when you find out that its not all its cracked out to be, and you make a raft to get back home, maybe the coast guard will find you out in the water, and bring you home

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,lansing
Date: 07 Jun 08 - 06:05 PM

hey carolc if you love socialism so much, get a government grant to buy yourself a ticket for a Carribean Cruise, jump ship and swim to Cuba.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 Jun 08 - 05:53 PM

Amos..You hit on the crux of the matter....BALANCE....hats off to you!!Whenever, as history shows, the balance leans too far one side to the other, there is discontent, toward the places it brings us to, and the instigators and exploiters of pushing the center one side or the other, too far...but then again..history teaches us that man never learns from history!

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Jun 08 - 05:46 PM

We know for a fact that the private sector health care industry in the US is far more expensive, and does a far worse job of delivering services to US citizens than the health care programs in the countries that have socialized medicine.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 07 Jun 08 - 05:42 PM

The factor that seems to underlie such programs is the notion that they are too large in scope, or too far-future in their profitability, to be viable for one individual or group to undertake them.

If the highway program were not coordinated by the central management, it would be a shambles-- the roads would change dramatically at every state or county line. Overcoming local arbitraries and greed and self-interests was hard enough even with the full leverage of Federalism behind it.

I think it is similar for other large-scale undertakings.

The big question is, what kinds of nation-wide concerns and what degree of centralized coordination? I think barking about "-isms" is less profitable than a case by case examination of how the benefits balance against the drawbacks.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Jun 08 - 05:40 PM

There are no governments that are purely socialistic and there are no governments that are purely capitalistic. All governments are a combination of both Socialism and Capitalism. The only difference is the amount of the two in relation to each other. In the US we not only have quite a lot of Socialism in our government institutions and services, but we also have Socialism in the way our money is allotted to many of our private institutions. The defense industry, for instance. The defense industry depends on taxpayer money for its survival, so the allocation of defense industry money is also socialistic. We are less socialist in terms of how well we take care of the needs of our citizens, but we are far more socialistic than any other country in the world when it comes to allocation of resources for our military-industrial complex.

The thing I notice about a lot of people who criticize socialism, is that they are happy to live with some degree of socialism in this country and in their lives, but they draw the line at that point at which they have what they want and/or need.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 Jun 08 - 05:38 PM

Sorry for the typo above..it should read 'TO some people, what is profitable is more than......."

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 Jun 08 - 05:36 PM

Amos, If the space program was private, jeez, it might be more cost effective. But, all the programs you stated, are not the same as running the government. Do we really need all those programs just to hire people so that every service is provided by a federal employee??...so that the entire work force in America is a federal employee??? Do non-profit organizations do what they do to profit society for monetary gain, or just provide a service?..The key problem here is, somehow, people have gotten to think of 'profit' always equates to FINANCIAL profit. Some people what is profitable as more than monetary gain. Those are usually pretty dedicated people. "People have confused the pursuit of happiness with the pursuit of material gain"--Dalton Trumbo

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Jun 08 - 05:25 PM

To get back to the thread topic for a bit - I wonder how the people who have been so passionate for Clinton and against Obama feel when they see the target of their devotion praise the target of their vituperation to the skies and promise him every support.

The thing about politicians that people often fail to appreciate is that for them partisanship tends to be a role they slip into and out of.

It's a bit the same way with professional sport - players switch sides, and the fans feel cheated and angry.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 07 Jun 08 - 05:19 PM

Well, if there were no trees, it is a good bet there would not be many forest fires.

But why don't you guys define your terms. Obviously, the balance between individual determination and group determination is a sliding scale or spectrum. There seems to be a point of comfort in this country, a bit to the left of our present balance.

SHould the Space Program, in all its complexity and cost, be privatized? Where's the profit? How about the NEA with its grants for art? DARPA?   The Federal Parks? The highway system between states?

I don't think any of those would do well, in the hands of profit-driven private parties.

Social security seems to be well-received as a safety net for minimal support, as do Medicare and Medicaid.

Yet these are examples of a degree of socialism that in general are not qwell received by the strongly right-of-center crowd.

How about Pell grants? District and state funding of education? Aren't these "socialistic"?

Do they benefit society more than they detract?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 Jun 08 - 05:01 PM

Carol, Merely having a tax, to use for the common use of the citizenry, it not the same as having a socialistic form of government. I just went to another thread, about Israel, and Iran, and read your posts. You are certainly too astute,and intelligent, to make that that mistake, about socialism, and merely paying taxes for services rendered.yes, I agree that to a limited degree there were provisions to do that, but saying that socialism, is what the founding fathers had in mind, is like saying 95% of all forest fires are caused by trees!

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Zach
Date: 07 Jun 08 - 04:36 PM

Did any of you really honestly think that America would vote a woman into the White House ? Both candidates get my admiration, but Americans aren't ready for either just yet sadly.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Jun 08 - 04:26 PM

Constitution of the United States, Article. I., Section. 2...

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons

The "direct Taxes" mentioned above were to be in the form of property taxes and a head tax.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Cecil
Date: 07 Jun 08 - 04:21 PM

No, to answer your question. Am still curious as to what kind of music you compose. Based on my observations, again, you must be on a roll. Your answers are once again clear, concise, and right on. This really makes me curious about your music!! I'll await your reply.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Jun 08 - 04:17 PM

Not all roads were built originally with money from tolls. Many are payed for by the taxpayers. The road in front of my house, for instance. And the roads are maintained using taxpayer money.

All of the things I listed are examples of socialism. Any time money is taken from the citizens of a country in the form of taxes and is used collectively to pay for things that everyone has access to, that is socialism. It doesn't matter if it's federal, state, local, property, sales, or any other kind of taxes. It's all socialism.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 Jun 08 - 04:02 PM

Carol, dear Carol, be healed! Tolls were originally used to pay for the road..(except the new super highway running from Mexico to Canada, Spain will get those monies) Libraries or funded by tax dollars, and private donations. Fire and police by state property taxes, parks by local taxes, user fees, lottery revenues, and donations, (unless it is a federal park). The founding fathers, collected their revenues, at that time, on tariffs(there was no income tax at that time. Postal service by stamps, and so on. The founding fathers were not socialists in the least, rather, the constitution was drafted to keep the central government limited, and out of the way of the freedoms fought and died for, to break from England, who indeed, taxed the colonies and interfered with their lives. The slogan used during the revolutionary war was, 'No taxation without representation'. Now, in light of all the taxes we pay, do you feel you are being truly represented????????? Anybody??????

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Jun 08 - 03:34 PM

I wonder how many people who say we are not a Socialist country would be willing to pay a toll for every road they travel on or would be willing to give up being able to depend on a local fire department to rescue them and their homes if they catch fire, or give up public libraries and parks, or give up having a local police department or even a military to protect them.

Actually, the people who founded this country were Socialists, because they got themselves together and formed a government, and they even said that the government had certain responsibilities, like issuing money, waging war, and collecting taxes to pay for these things. These are all examples of Socialism.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Jun 08 - 02:36 PM

What strange labels some GUESTs choose for themselves...

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 Jun 08 - 02:30 PM

....or need to put gas in your car, to see a doctor!!!!......in that case, you have my prayers!

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 Jun 08 - 02:29 PM

To answer your questions first: I would rather vote for 'Honest John 'Fingers' McGrew', than even consider voting for O-blabbo. I wouldn't buy a used car from him, for the same reason, in fact, used car salesmen have a higher credibility rating than our present crowd of politicians(National poll has used car salesmen up 9 points over them). So when did he first compromise his beliefs? Was it when he distanced himself from the church(that one goes to worship God), because his pastor is seen ranting and raving about 'God Damn America'?? or is it because we was affiliated with radical left ('terrorist's) groups, (Ayers), is it because his voting record is nothing?(he only authored one bill, which he voted against?? Is it that they were never proud to be an American...till he won a few primaries??.... is it because he,in a speech wants to dismantle our military, and unilaterally end our nuclear weapons program?...and thats only part of the stuff reported. I don't know, seems like my kind of guy!
   As far as McCain, the waffle from Arizona?? An avid supporter of Bush?? Naw, I don't think so, for the obvious reasons..do need to enumerate those, too? We need someone who is truly outside the box, who has the balls to be not afraid of the muscle of the 'special interest'(predatory globalists), and smart enough to survive, who is truly American, in spirit, and not sold out. I can't say that about the present crowd..can you?????
   Little Hawk, I agree with you. Not only in the medical field, but in so many areas. Isn't it interesting that our 'economic stimulus' package, was 200 billion, and the big 5 oil companies profits for the last quarter, (when the package was announced) was 143 billion??? Billion!!! Come on, who greasin' who?? Just like enforcing the border laws we already have, the gun laws we already have, how about enforcing the anti monopoly laws, we already have?????? Instead, I'm sure they'll create new laws to remedy the problems we, as a people in this nation have that will further erode, and enslave us, while heaping more unchallenged power for themselves. I wouldn't say or feel this way, if their track record showed us anything different, but...it doesn't.
hey, you all have a great day!!......(unless of course you need to put gas in your car, ..or need to see a doctor?

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Jun 08 - 11:40 AM

You might be onto something there, "Sanity". ;-) Yes, I think it is the big insurance lobbyists, the professional medical associations, and Big Pharma (the pharmaceutical industry) that have created a situation where health care is way more expensive (and far less effective) than it ought to be...whether it's private health or done through the government plans. Big Pharma can't make much money if everybody gets well! It works better for them if everybody is chronically sick all the time with something or other...so why would they encourage people to adopt a better lifestyle, get more exercise, and stop eating processed garbage that makes them sick?

We've come a long way from the freedom and common sense and tried and true home remedies that governed people's lives on this continent several generations ago. We have surrendered our personal sovereignty to a bunch of high tech quacks, in my opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 07 Jun 08 - 11:33 AM

"will of the people", "gullabley" (sic)--

So, when all the cliches and buzzwords are out of the way, do you support Obama or not?

And if not, why not? Please try to avoid smears--we do in fact recognize them. And their use tells us clearly how seriously to take anything the poster says.

Do you support McCain in his chasing the pipe-dream of "victory" in Iraq? If you are against abortion rights, exactly why? Do you think the health insurance system should be totally overhauled or are you content with tax breaks and "portability" so all can in theory buy their own insurance--except of course for people with serious health problems?

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 Jun 08 - 03:00 AM

Oh, Little Hawk, it would be affordable too!!

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 Jun 08 - 02:54 AM

Any system, put in place, and run by those who are not trustworthy, nor represent the will of the people, should always be suspect. If you submit to someone or thing, for a blessing, and that someone or thing is corrupt, or evil, or controlled by a darker force or motive, you yourself become subject to its evil, and darkness. However, in times of great distress, is also the time that this earth has been blessed by some of the most beautiful works, in all the arts. Bach, Tolstoy, Tchaikovsky, the Beatles, Beethoven, etc. etc. all came into their own, by expressing the human spirit, emerging through the oppression of the human condition. My dear fellow bloggers, we are in perilous times, of which will be made manifest, before our eyes. I cannot be supportive of those who seek to bring that about, nor can I take joy, in the confusion, and damage I see by those who so willingly and gullabley lap it up. Such as I've seen here. And its sorta funny, though we may differ, just the mere fact that we communicate, and share thoughts, fears, laughter, anxiety, etc. etc. together on here,I can't help but relate to you all as dear to me.
Cecil, ..Art for therapy might be good therapy, but it might not be great art!....if thats what you are driving at. Rather, I answer back, interpreting the spirit I detect in the poster. If they are emotional about a subject, (confused)....my text may wander..but...they get it, when its right on...I, and we get precise. A friend, to whom I was sharing this thread with, upon reading it commented, that since 'Sanity' showed up, the tone became different, and less ado about nothing. 'At least they(we) are all thinking deeper about the resons of our choices', was the comment. So, Cecil, I've given you this as a clue to the process, to which I can relate to, when I compose. You tell me.
Little Hawk,.. Great to hear from you again. and btw, ..if it wasn't for the insurance lobbyists, bribing our 'representatives' health care would not have to be 'fixed' to be state owned and controlled....Hey, love ya'

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Jun 08 - 01:55 AM

Yes, I agree that the American people are by nature rather generous people, and usually don't wish war or cruelty on any other nation on earth. This is also true of the ordinary people, the common citizenry, in a great many other countries, if not all of them. The trouble is that the government in the USA and most other countries (if not all of them) is not being controlled by the ordinary people, it's being controlled by special interests in the hands of an elite few.

In a case like that, unfortunately, neither socialism nor large scale corporate capitalism tend to be applied in a very humane or moral fashion...because being humane and moral is not the objective!

I agree that the candidates are mostly just puppets in service of something far darker...and that's been happening for quite a long time now.

I also agree that compulsory re-distribution of wealth should not be forced on a citizenry, and I'm not normally in favor of such stringent measures as that...although such things sometimes will happen in the wake of a great war or a revolution or a tremendous economic disaster when an old social order collapses completely.

What I am in favor of is a universal socialized health care system such as exists in Canada and pretty well every country in western Europe. It's there to ensure that everyone can afford necessary health care. It's not there to eliminate all other forms of alternative health care that one might opt for outside of that system. For instance, in Canada I can get basically free health care for anything provided through any private M.D. or any public hospital. I can also get a partial discount on chiropractic and many other conventional forms of health care, but only partial. I can, unfortunately, not get any government help with my dental bill...and for many people that's a BIG one! It's one bad flaw in our health insurance coverage which should be addressed.

Now, if I choose to go to a Naturopathic doctor...which I do as a matter of fact...I get no help from our health care system. Guess why. The M.D.'s are powerful as an organization and they and the drug companies had enough clout to ensure that only they would really be tied in with the universal health care system...so people would be "persuaded" to come to them rather than to a Naturopath because it's way cheaper! Clever move on their part.

I have discovered, however, that the Naturopath does me 50 times more good than the M.D.s ever did and gives me enough info about diet and lifestyle and stuff like that that I can fix my OWN health, rather than getting drugs from a doctor to suppress the symptoms and do nothing about the lifestyle. ;-)

So I don't mind paying the Naturopath. It's worth it.

Still, I strongly support Canada's socialist health care system. It hasn't helped me much, but it has helped a lot of other people who wouldn't dream of seeing anyone but their M.D.

I don't mind paying a portion of my taxes to maintain it.