Who are you voting for?

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

Well, based largely on this, I'd have to go with Ron Paul.

My views
Roe vs Wade: Against (the whole abortion thing)
Death Penalty: Against (too final, what if the person was innocent?)
No Child Left Behind: Against (synonymous with No Child Gets Ahead)
Stem Cell Research: For (assuming embryonic research, the embryos are going to die anyway; might as well learn from them)
Energy: Not a huge concern for me
Assault Weapons Ban: Against (the term is too general, too abusable)
Background Checks: For (criminals shouldn't be allowed to own guns)
Patriot Act: Against (the whole Big Brother thing)
Guantanamo: For (intelligence is a necessary evil)
Torture: For (our methods are VERY tame compared to what they could be; again, I'd rather have one Iraq hurt to learn of an ambush than for twenty soldiers to die because we didn't know of that ambush)
Wiretapping: Against (again, the Big Brother thing)
Citizenship Path: For (if they can prove that they should be allowed to be a citizen, let them be one)
Border Fence: For (can't hurt)
Net Neutrality: For (censorship tends to be bad)
Iran/Iraq: Against all but withdrawal
Minimum Wage Increase: Against (simple economics; higher wages mean fewer workers)
Same Sex Marriage: Against (marriage is inherently religious)
Same Sex Civil Unions: Indifferent
Same Sex Ban: Against (constitution should grant freedoms, not limit them)
Universal Healthcare: Against (other people getting hurt isn't my problem)

Ok, now let's see how the candidates compare to me (Name: agree/disagree)
Clinton: 12/11 (52%)
Edwards: 12/11 (52%)
Giuliani: 11/11 (50%)
Gravel: 13/6 (68%)
Huckabee: 8/12 (40%)
McCain: 12/11 (52%)
Obama: 12/9 (57%)
Paul: 17/6 (74%)
Romney: 5/15 (25%)

Yep, Ron Paul's the one.

[frogboy]

Torture: For (our methods are VERY tame compared to what they could be)

Oh come on, the Jewish Holocaust wasn't so bad, I mean look at Stalin and Mao. Fundamentalist Christianity isn't nearly as bad as fundamentalist Islam, nobody's running around with explosives. VW Beetles aren't that bad, people drive Mazda MX-5s.

Really, torture isn't one of those things you can defend just by saying, "well it could be worse...", and you can't justify it because of something which shouldn't really have happened in the first place.

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

Torture: For (our methods are VERY tame compared to what they could be)

Really, torture isn't one of those things you can defend just by saying, "well it could be worse...", and you can't justify it because of something which shouldn't really have happened in the first place.

But you CAN justify it (IMO) by saying that more people would get hurt without it than with.  This isn't the middle ages, when torture was used as a punishment.  These days, it's used to obtain information, which can be life-saving.

[Radical Terrorist]

Universal Healthcare: Against (other people getting hurt isn't my problem)

What if you're diagnosed with a pre-existing condition (I.E Diabetes) and your HMO won't cover you if you get in a car crash caused by a drunk driver and can't go to the hospital cause you can't affored to have your life saved.

Aye, In Canada, it's slower, but when you don't have to pay to remain alive, I guess it doesn't matter. And we live in a democracy for a reason (for you a Democratic Republic I guess), We're all in this together. if you didn't want to have to worry about your neighbour tripping, falling and breaking his leg and you having to pay a small % of your taxes to make sure he gets the proper health care, You may as well move to africa.

[Graham]

For those of you that can vote today is super Tuesday. Don't forget to go out and vote.

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

Universal Healthcare: Against (other people getting hurt isn't my problem)

What if you're diagnosed with a pre-existing condition (I.E Diabetes) and your HMO won't cover you if you get in a car crash caused by a drunk driver and can't go to the hospital cause you can't affored to have your life saved.

Aye, In Canada, it's slower, but when you don't have to pay to remain alive, I guess it doesn't matter. And we live in a democracy for a reason (for you a Democratic Republic I guess), We're all in this together. if you didn't want to have to worry about your neighbour tripping, falling and breaking his leg and you having to pay a small % of your taxes to make sure he gets the proper health care, You may as well move to africa.

Unfortunately, in a capitalist society, some people are going to get the shaft.  That's just how it works.  Universal healthcare is a sort of socialism, and I'm not comfortable with that.  I'd rather let people do what they want with their money than take it from them so that others can have a slightly better quality of life.  Despite what you may like to believe, we'll never reach a utopian existence, and trying to get there often screws the people whose high quality of life comes from their own hard work.

I know I probably sound like I'm a greedy, insensitive jerk who only cares about himself.  However, that's definitely not the case.  I reject universal healthcare, not because of the impact on me, but because of the principle of the thing.  How would you like it if we decided to have universal healthcare, but we'd get funding solely from the Canadians? By your own admission, "we're all in this together," and refusing to help your neighbor would be wrong, wouldn't it?  Or would you instead say, "It's not our job to look out for you; take care of your own problems"?

Or for a similar example, consider frogboy's (likely) stance on torture.  If we could save 100 people by torturing one prisoner, wouldn't it be worth it? Or, by principle, would even that single act of torture be undesirable, no matter how much good it causes? The same applies to universal healthcare.  Maybe I can help 100 people just by contributing a small sum each month.  However, I don't think I should be forced to do that; such a contribution would have to be out of my own free will.

[Carlitos]

For those of you that can vote today is super Tuesday. Don't forget to go out and vote.

Seems like Obama won that super tuesday.

[a-4-year-old]

For those of you that can vote today is super Tuesday. Don't forget to go out and vote.

Seems like Obama won that super tuesday.

He won Georgia.

[Radical Terrorist]

Or would you instead say, "It's not our job to look out for you; take care of your own problems"?

Actually, If I help my neighbour move in today, he may help me build a deck tomorrow. Same thing with health care. And a lot of people are misled by "Socialism" especially after communism was popular. It doesn't look to me like we have a bunch of soldiers goose stepping down the street so I don't think we have to worry about "Socialist" health care ruining our government and society. Socialist Health care seems to be working for Europe and canada, and the average Canadian lifespan is longer than that of the American lifespan when you look at the poor state of health care in the US. Hell, CUBA has better health care than the states. Not meaning to shit on your government or anything, I know everyone runs things their own way for a reason, I just think that the right to live a healthy life and not have to own an insurance brokerage to pay for it should be a right that everyone  should be allowed.

[frogboy]

But you CAN justify it (IMO) by saying that more people would get hurt without it than with.  This isn't the middle ages, when torture was used as a punishment.  These days, it's used to obtain information, which can be life-saving.

less people would get hurt if you pulled out of Iraq. you can't really say, "well, now that we're here, let's fuck with the population and make ourselves even more unpopular". besides, torture has this strange way of telling people what they want to hear, not the truth.

[Radical Terrorist]

But you CAN justify it (IMO) by saying that more people would get hurt without it than with.  This isn't the middle ages, when torture was used as a punishment.  These days, it's used to obtain information, which can be life-saving.

less people would get hurt if you pulled out of Iraq. you can't really say, "well, now that we're here, let's feck with the population and make ourselves even more unpopular". besides, torture has this strange way of telling people what they want to hear, not the truth.

Quite right! If I didn't know the answer (or just hated whoever was trying to extract if from me), I'd tell them what they want even if it isn't quite the truth no matter how much beating is administered. Obviously there's no where out and if the truth isn't good enough, lying till they like it is the next best thing.

[Yes]

Obama.

[Vltava]

Unfortunately, in a capitalist society, some people are going to get the shaft.  That's just how it works.  Universal healthcare is a sort of socialism, and I'm not comfortable with that.  I'd rather let people do what they want with their money than take it from them so that others can have a slightly better quality of life.  Despite what you may like to believe, we'll never reach a utopian existence, and trying to get there often screws the people whose high quality of life comes from their own hard work.

I know I probably sound like I'm a greedy, insensitive jerk who only cares about himself.  However, that's definitely not the case.  I reject universal healthcare, not because of the impact on me, but because of the principle of the thing.  How would you like it if we decided to have universal healthcare, but we'd get funding solely from the Canadians? By your own admission, "we're all in this together," and refusing to help your neighbor would be wrong, wouldn't it?  Or would you instead say, "It's not our job to look out for you; take care of your own problems"?

Or for a similar example, consider frogboy's (likely) stance on torture.  If we could save 100 people by torturing one prisoner, wouldn't it be worth it? Or, by principle, would even that single act of torture be undesirable, no matter how much good it causes? The same applies to universal healthcare.  Maybe I can help 100 people just by contributing a small sum each month.  However, I don't think I should be forced to do that; such a contribution would have to be out of my own free will.

But the basics are still there: a corporation's only goal is to earn money. They'll deny you as much coverage as possible to earn a higher profit. Do you think they care about you? feck no. With a federal health care system, this isn't an issue.

We have federal police and fire departments for the same reason. Back when America only had private fire control, the fire department would only save a burning house if it had a tag of some sort proving that its owners are subscribers to that company.

Of course, if you believe in total privatization of all federal departments we hold so dear, Paul is your guy.

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

But you CAN justify it (IMO) by saying that more people would get hurt without it than with.  This isn't the middle ages, when torture was used as a punishment.  These days, it's used to obtain information, which can be life-saving.

less people would get hurt if you pulled out of Iraq.

Obviously, but that's not the issue here. (And I already said I support a withdrawal of troops anyway, so what's your point?)

besides, torture has this strange way of telling people what they want to hear, not the truth.

Maybe so, but it obviously works often enough that we see the need to continue doing it.

We have federal police and fire departments for the same reason. Back when America only had private fire control, the fire department would only save a burning house if it had a tag of some sort proving that its owners are subscribers to that company.

You have a federal fire department? We don't.  In my city, the fire department is composed entirely of volunteers who do independent fundraising to pay for the costs.

[BondJamesBond]

For those of you that can vote today is super Tuesday. Don't forget to go out and vote.

Seems like Obama won that super tuesday.

Right now:
Clinton | 214 Delegates (She leads in NY, CA and NJ)
Obama | 209 Delegates (Leads in IL, GA, CT)

Feck the Republicans.

[iDante]

Bad Clinton:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuZhwV24PmM
http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/01/7047_really_bad_news.html

[frogboy]

less people would get hurt if you pulled out of Iraq.

Obviously, but that's not the issue here. (And I already said I support a withdrawal of troops anyway, so what's your point?)

besides, torture has this strange way of telling people what they want to hear, not the truth.

Maybe so, but it obviously works often enough that we see the need to continue doing it.

It is the issue. The reason why people are in danger is because they are invaders in a foreign country, and a certain outspoken few are vehemently opposed to that. Throwing in torture on top of that alienates some of the moderate population on top of those extremist few. Really, the only solution to stopping people getting hurt is to pull out.

And George W. Bush still sees the need for throwing billions of dollars into the military. Look how far that's got him so far. A similar situation in Australia is WorkChoices legislation under the previous government, which arguably lost them the election. Despite strong opposition from unions and workers, they still went through with it and kept it despite strikes and an obvious indication that it was unpopular. The only reason torture keeps going on is because of Bush's ideology and belligerence.

[Svirin Kerath]

less people would get hurt if you pulled out of Iraq.

Obviously, but that's not the issue here. (And I already said I support a withdrawal of troops anyway, so what's your point?)

besides, torture has this strange way of telling people what they want to hear, not the truth.

Maybe so, but it obviously works often enough that we see the need to continue doing it.

It is the issue. The reason why people are in danger is because they are invaders in a foreign country, and a certain outspoken few are vehemently opposed to that. Throwing in torture on top of that alienates some of the moderate population on top of those extremist few. Really, the only solution to stopping people getting hurt is to pull out.

And George W. Bush still sees the need for throwing billions of dollars into the military. Look how far that's got him so far. A similar situation in Australia is WorkChoices legislation under the previous government, which arguably lost them the election. Despite strong opposition from unions and workers, they still went through with it and kept it despite strikes and an obvious indication that it was unpopular. The only reason torture keeps going on is because of Bush's ideology and belligerence.

You raise some valid points, many of which I agree with, but there are a few problems:
Pulling out would mean less deaths caused by coalition forces, and no more torture. But the coalition, and by its majority, the U.S., forms the backbone of the security forces in Iraq. Pulling out would mean the Iraqi police, which have a history of, ironically, cut-and-running, would be completely overwhlemed by the sectarian violence and insurgency. The U.S. leaving may placate revolutionaries, but the Iraqi government hardly has any control over the populace, so there's no guarantee the government in place would be sufficient in their eyes. Really, it isn't sufficient in many capacities, if it is sufficient at all.

I argue against the idea of "staying until we win," because that is fundamentally impossible. There is no "side" we're fighting against, and no way to win. It's as vague as the terms "war on terror." But we have assumed many responsibilities that keep Iraq in the "really bad" social, political, and logistical levels it has, as opposed to falling into "intolerably horrendous," as it inevitably would if we pull out.

In either case we really harm the country. But I think it's irresponsible to summarily pull out without extensive efforts to fix the massive problem we've caused.

As for the military funding, a reason it's failing so bad is that it doesn't actually go to the soldiers. Too much of it gets funneled into officer "entertainment" costs. Troops still are not equipped with current vehicles, or the best weapons and equipment available. A lot of money goes into tech which has shown it has no way in hell of working any time soon, and yet is still pursued. With all the billions of dollars going into the military, an insufficient amount finds its way to the people and leaders who actually need it.

I'd say that was my two cents, but that was more like a dollar and twenty seven.

[treeSkwerrral]

[/quote}We have federal police and fire departments for the same reason. Back when America only had private fire control, the fire department would only save a burning house if it had a tag of some sort proving that its owners are subscribers to that company.

Of course, if you believe in total privatization of all federal departments we hold so dear, Paul is your guy.

Well I'm not sure about you but I live outside the city so we only have volunteer fire departments and their response time is good but most of the time they don't try and save the house they just try and control it so it won't spread. There is a firehouse two blocks away from my place of work and when our smoke detector went off one day and the fire department "rushed" to get there it took them 10 minutes. Half a mile in ten minutes...I can walk faster than that. Then look at the police...they are called and have to GET there to stop the bugler when they break in. But with home security systems (private) they go off and make bollocksloads of noise that annoys all the neighbors who will go to check things out. That same noise usually scares the intruder off.

Oh and to respond to radical's point..."Aye, In Canada, it's slower" well if my dad lived in Canada he would have died from Hepatitus that he had gotten in Russia on a business trip. It was realized three weeks after he got back and only went to the doctor because he was sick. If he was in Canada it would have taken longer for testing and the medicine. People say an HMO doesn't cover everything...well nothing covers everything. Look at a bullet proof armor. It doesn't cover everything but it's better than nothing.  Even with GOOD health insurance which I have stuff still costs a WHOLE lot. And what about for people who never get sick or break a bone. Worst I ever have is some bronchitis which I can live through without a trip to the doctor. I am already losing money to medicare and social security which will be gone by the time I'm old enough to get it. Trust me I could DEFINITELY use that money right now to pay for college. Altogether those two things alone take about 18% of my 14k a year. So almost 2K which I could have used to buy food. So great I'll be able to get dentures by the time I'm 60 but I have to starve and let my teeth rot now because I can't afford toothpaste since I have to buy bread. How about instead of socialism we cut stuff off at the mouth of the river and let me eat and brush my teeth today so I won't need dentures by the time I'm 60. Socialism is the idea of helping others because they are too stupid to do it for themselves. Isn't that sorta the definition of retardation, someone too stupid to help himself? I definitely know how to clothe myself and wipe my ass so I guess I don't need help "saving" my money. People just need to learn to not overpass their limits and use things correctly. I have the money for a brand new computer but I know I need it for school first so it means me not buying a computer and using the ones in the library. Most people would just decide to use a credit card and say "well i don't have to worry about this until later". The problem with the US today is that people just decide they can't live without the most expensive things available. Everyone I know has a big flat screen tv bigger than 40". I have a 28", 10 year old tv. My parents are wanting to buy a newer bigger tv and I keep telling them to save the money for another car cause we don't need another tv but we do need another car since my mom's is dieing.

Basically my point is that our grandparents and greatgrandparents had it right when they looked for the basics before anything else. Today's society HAS to have the best of everything even when it can't afford it. How about instead of the best of everything I'd settle for good everything. But I want it to be my choice for what I spend my money on.

Socialism doesn't work or nature would have adopted it LONG ago. Remember the Nazi party were socialists and look where they ended up.

I can vote cause I'm 19 and voted for McCain cause he's the least retarded of them all...I wish Guliani hadn't dropped out because I would have voted for him. Hillary...do you really want ANOTHER Clinton in the White House? Look at what the first one did. Obama...no. Nobody vote democratic because the US is about freedom of expression, opinion, and most of all choice in life. The democrats want you to do things in the way they see as free. Sorta paradoxical if you as me. Sorta like when your parents say "Yeah you do have a choice...my way or...may way".

[Eclipse]

Well, based largely on this, I'd have to go with Ron Paul.

My views

Background Checks: For (criminals shouldn't be allowed to own guns)

Oh come on, honestly. You can buy a 9mm off the streets in america. This wont stop them buying off the streets or the black market, where no checks are needed!