Vote Today

[Parkbandit]

I'm for lazziez faire business regulation.
I'm for small government (something the R forgot in 2001).
Fiscal responsibility (something the R forgot in 2003)
I'm for less taxes.
I'm for family values but without the affiliation of the Church.
I'm for a strong national defense.
I"m also for taking the fight to the aggressor, and winning decisively without becomming embattled in a political war. (something the R didnt pay attention to with LBJ and Vietnam)

Where I differ with the conservative R party:
Gay rights (live and let live)
Stem Cell research
Driving organized religion down your throat
Pro-choice until the fetus is medically viable to live outside the womb (25 and sometimes less weeks currently with today's technology) not to mention its a woman's body.


I'm pretty much in tune with that.. but would add the need to increase border controls and a real plan to deal with the 1+ million illegal aliens.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Oddly enough.. I tend to agree with Ganalon's points on things with the exception of that last one (taking the fight to the aggressor) and I definitely DON'T agree with the Republicans on most of their Social Security policy, mostly for personal reasons.

However, because in my opinion the Republican party has failed on the things I would value in them (fiscal responsibility, small government, etc) and instead focused on things I'm not too happy about (shoving religion down people's throat, trying to legislate religion, Iraq, etc) I've shifted my focus more over to the social issue side of things. My big one has been women's rights since that applies to me, and on non-social issues I am all for the reversal of a lot of the infringements on privacy and for a plan to be made concerning Iraq (though NOT just pull out.. which is a hard stance to take since it seems people are split black and white on the issue).

If it came down between voting for a die-hard Liberal who may pound, pound, pound through everything I may want done for the government, or a Moderate who'll try to strike a balance again, I'd definitely go for the Moderate. I'm a firm believer that American politics are like a pendulum and that what sways wildly right will sway wildly left. I'm quite hopeful now that the Democrats have some power because finally it will force some negotiation and some compromise from both parties instead of letting the bigger party reign with a total monopoly (and I mean bigger party, not Republican OR Democrat since it goes both ways depending on Elections).

[Keller]

I never thought that would be possible but you might be right. I blame it on Hope College connections.


I don't remember the connection. Remind me?

[Gan]

Radicals!

You're all a bunch of radicals!

[AestheticDeath]

What I can't figure out is why only 40% (give or take a few percentage points) of the American people bother to vote. It's mind-boggling.

Well, I could quote my last post in here since no one saw it.. But I didnt vote because I had no clue who/what to vote for. I dont consider myself any type of party follower, partly cause I have no clue what the parties stand for.

And I saw absolutely nothing about the election, mostly heard from friends about voting - when and where. Heard a few things about it on the radio when the voting day came up, but I didn't know anything prior to it, so I had no clue what to vote for.

I asked my two of my coworkers how they voted etc, one said he went and voted for four issues.. and then since he had no real choice on the rest since he hated them all, he just voted straight republican. The other said she didnt even bother, even though she is fairly up to date on the issues, because she didnt like any of the people running.

I asked them how I could keep myself informed on the election stuff, and basically just got the answer of local newspapers, which I dont buy, and actually going to the party office in town. Which seems kinda weird to me.

[TheEschaton]

Bill Clinton reduced the government radically from where it was in the Reagan and then Bush days...and then Bush jr. just made it larger again. He also balanced the budget and brought a surplus to the country.

Who's the party of fiscal responsibility?

That would be an interesting conversation to have: Can one implement effective social welfare programs and still be fiscally responsible/disciplined? I'd say yes, and that Clinton's "Third Way" is the obvious example.

Second question is, can you be fiscally responsible/disciplined and be a hawk in today's world of prolonged, non-state actor warfare?

-TheE-

[Sean of the Thread]

Bill Clinton reduced the government radically from where it was in the Reagan and then Bush days...-

Enough said.

[TheEschaton]

Enough said what? Ganalon was saying how he valued smaller gov'ts as a conservative value, when the last three Republican administrations have increased gov't, and the only Democratic pres in the past 25 years has reduced it.

-TheE-

[Sean of the Thread]

Including the military.

[Apathy]

Enough said what? Ganalon was saying how he valued smaller gov'ts as a conservative value, when the last three Republican administrations have increased gov't, and the only Democratic pres in the past 25 years has reduced it.

-TheE-

More specific... Reduced what? Increased what?

[Artha]

Clinton was a pretty right-leaning democrat. My dad liked him, and he was pretty staunchly republican otherwise.

[Gan]

More specific... Reduced what? Increased what?

I was also hoping for greater detail in that comment.

Edited to add:

Define big government/small government. So we're all talking about the same thing.
?Do we mean overall expenditures?
?Do we mean excessively large as in payroll or inefficient programs?
?Do we mean being overly involved in matters relating to the public's personal lives?


1. How would you measure big or small government, or more accurately the size of our government? Overall expenditures?
A. I'd say by looking at the budget, that would give you the most accurate indication of the size of government based on spending.

2. Who controls (holds the purse strings) on government expenditures (OMB?) Congress or the President?
A. All budgets are submitted to Congress for approval. The President submits his budget to congress along with the other independant departments and agencies. Then the budget process begins in earnest in both the House and Senate where they debate on the overall budget until a resulution is reached. This budget contains both discretionary spending (determined by US House) and mandatory spending (required by passed laws).

Currently there are 20 categories of government spending on the budget resolution.
050 National Defense 150 International Affairs 250 General Science, Space and Technology 270 Energy 300 Natural Resources and Environment 350 Agriculture 370 Commerce and Housing Credit 400 Transportation 450 Community and Regional Development 500 Education, Training, Employment and Social Services 550 Health 570 Medicare 600 Income Security 650 Social Security 700 Veterans Benefits and Services 750 Administration of Justice 800 General Government 900 Net Interest 920 Allowances 950 Undistributed Offsetting Receipts.

Here's a great PDF with a historical table of US Govt. Outlays/Recepits from late 1800's to 2005 proj.
http://www.mbe.doe.gov/budget/05budget/content/appendix/hist.pdf

Ironically enough when I look at my definition of big government (spending inefficiency) and yet realize that I support a strong defense (meaning supporting a robust national defense budget - which was #2 on the list of highest expenditures of the 2007 proposed budget) I'm left wondering if a large budget in national defense alone represents a 'big' government stance within the same philosophy of those wanting a 'small' government and yet a strong national defense (Republican). Yet there are 19 other major categories that also represent Government expenditures, of which the largest is Social Security (mandatory expense) which is growing dramatically each year with the retirement of the baby boomer generation.

Talk about a delimma. Which areas of the budget should receive greater funding versus which areas should receive less of a priority? AND should these programs should be limited to existing tax receipt levels, should they be subsidized by an increase in taxes or cuts in other programs to offset the variance? Is running a defecit an acceptable short term trade-off from interest owed versus capital investment in certain areas, and which areas would result in long term gains with said deficit investment trade-offs?

UGH. Deciding whats best for individuals and yet at the same time deciding whats best for the country as a whole is not an easy task. And while I loathe what the politician has become, I dont envy them for the burden of the task they undertake, and for those who try to keep the public's interest at heart above and beyond special interests, they have my admiration.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Clinton was a pretty right-leaning democrat. My dad liked him, and he was pretty staunchly republican otherwise.

Yeah for all the bashing done on him he was definitely more on the moderate side of things.

[Back]

Yeah for all the bashing done on him he was definitely more on the moderate side of things.

The best president since Kennedy.

[Artha]

Maybe the best president since Reagan.

[TheEschaton]

Clinton reduced the federal workforce drastically. It was the smallest federal gov't in years.

Yes, he also reduced the size of the military, updating it technology wise and so on, and so forth, and he received criticism for that, but it turns out Rumsfeld was for the same sort of small, elite fighting army. Furthermore, generals are learning now that a small force, well led, well prepared, and with good planning and technology, was lethal. A small force not led, not prepared, and with piss poor planning was still lethal...to itself.

As for gov't inefficiency being the sign of small vs. large gov't, Reagan spent how much on Star Wars? Clinton reformed SS and Welfare, making it far more efficient than it ever was.

-TheE-

[TheEschaton]

And, I'm sorry, Artha, Reagan was a douche bag.

[Artha]

A douche bag who took down the soviet union.

[Back]

There has been a lot of analysis on what happened. Why did the Dems win so big? What was the underlying issue on voters minds? Was this a referendum on Bush and Iraq? Did the Republicans shoot themselves in the foot?

Well, after much deep thought about this over the past few minutes, I’ve come to the only conclusion possible in this day and age...

God loves Democrats and hates Republicans.

[Parkbandit]

Dear Backlash..

If you could just let us know when you are kidding and serious.. that would really help the readers of your posts. Between your wild conspiracies and slanted view on the world.. it's tough to tell sometimes.

Thanks.

[TheEschaton]

I'm pretty sure he was kidding on that one.

-TheE-

[Gan]

The best president since Kennedy.

Bay of Pigs fiasco. And yet you accuse Bush of doing the same thing with Saddam, only with bigger guns.

[Sean of the Thread]

Kennedy was a drugged up adulterist.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

And, I'm sorry, Artha, Reagan was a douche bag.

QFT

[TheEschaton]

And yet he was good enough that someone saw the need to assassinate him.

-TheE-

[Back]

A douche bag who took down the soviet union.

Heh, you make it sound like he rode in on his stallion with gunz a blazin’! I think we basically give him credit for that happening under his watch out of respect for the man.

Another remarkable achievement of his administration was selling weapons to Iran and using the profits to support Contra insurgents who were terrorizing a democratically elected government in Nicaragua.

[Artha]

He's also responsible for the Just Say No campaign. Even if you're not down with the war on drugs, education is never a bad thing.

[Gan]

Heh, you make it sound like he rode in on his stallion with gunz a blazin’! I think we basically give him credit for that happening under his watch out of respect for the man.

It was his defense build up strategy that economically broke the USSR. Since they were so paranoid as to try and keep up with a hyper-military production status when their economy could not support it, they tried to keep up with the US, and failed.

[HarmNone]

Let's keep the personal insults (directed at other posters) out of this. There are plenty of politicians to insult, on both sides of the spectrum.

[DeV]

I can't wait until someone sticks a fork in this overcooked thread.

Can we say House and Senate, ftmfw.

All liberals can go hug trees and each other for the time being and conservatives, well, you're on time out for at least the next two years.

[ElanthianSiren]

:hug: liberals
:hug: trees
:hug: independents too

[ElanthianSiren]

He's also responsible for the Just Say No campaign. Even if you're not down with the war on drugs, education is never a bad thing.

Just say no isn't education though; it's a slogan. The education came with D.A.R.E, which studies have linked to lower self-esteem in kids and higher drug use. The best way to learn about the dangers of drugs, cigarettes, and alcohol are to see them first hand. No D.A.R.E program can accurately depict how fucked up heroin addiction is until you know someone or lose a close friend who loses themself to it. Same thing with lung cancer, drunken behavior etc. That's my opinion though, including first hand experience.

-M

[Gan]

Just say no isn't education though; it's a slogan. The education came with D.A.R.E, which studies have linked to lower self-esteem in kids and higher drug use. The best way to learn about the dangers of drugs, cigarettes, and alcohol are to see them first hand. No D.A.R.E program can accurately depict how fucked up heroin addiction is until you know someone or lose a close friend who loses themself to it. Same thing with lung cancer, drunken behavior etc. That's my opinion though, including first hand experience.

-M

I'm all for field trips to local prisons, ER's on friday/saturday nights, and local detox facilities to drive the message home.

A picture is worth a thousand words.

[HarmNone]

I've suggested that our hospice program get involved with teaching children the dangers of drug/alcohol abuse. Problem is, many people believe that exposure to the actual horrors of diseases brought about by the abuse of these substances are too graphic for children to see. Another problem is that patient privacy comes into play. The patient would have to agree, and that's not likely with most of these patients, including those in the ER.

[ElanthianSiren]

I'm all for field trips to local prisons, ER's on friday/saturday nights, and local detox facilities to drive the message home.

A picture is worth a thousand words.

Also volunteering at rehabilitation centers. My mom worked as a counselor in Philadelphia when I was younger, and I often went to work with her on the weekends.


I've suggested that our hospice program get involved with teaching children the dangers of drug/alcohol abuse. Problem is, many people believe that exposure to the actual horrors of diseases brought about by the abuse of these substances are too graphic for children to see. Another problem is that patient privacy comes into play. The patient would have to agree, and that's not likely with most of these patients, including those in the ER.

With due respect HN, the many are full of shit. Do they want kids to see it first hand when it's happening to someone close to them or themselves because they were ignorant? I agree with the confidentiality aspect though. I don't remember any of the above ladies' names even, but I'm sure with older kids that would be an issue.

-M

[Artha]

Schools should hire people who've been clean for a few years to come and talk, truthfully, about what they went through. I think it'd make kids not want to do anything hard, certainly.

Back on the original topic:
Democrats' victory unnerves Baghdad (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-0611090066nov09,1,156236.story?coll=chi-politics-stories2&ctrack=1&cset=true)


Rasha Tariq, 23, a college student, said she found herself near tears when she awoke Wednesday morning to the news that the Democrats had won the House and were on the cusp of taking the Senate.

[HarmNone]

With due respect HN, the many are full of shit. Do they want kids to see it first hand when it's happening to someone close to them or themselves because they were ignorant? I agree with the confidentiality aspect though. I don't remember any of the above ladies' names even, but I'm sure with older kids that would be an issue.

-M

I certainly agree that the many are dead wrong; at least, they are in my opinion. I believe that if a young person could see what it's like to die of liver failure, or to go through DTs, or end up ventilated after cardiac arrest (that's assuming the victim pulls through at all), it would bring home the point far better than words could ever do. That's why I suggested we get involved.

I'm looking into the possibility of videos that will not endanger patient confidentiality (no names, faces covered, etc), but haven't gotten confirming words yet on whether or not this is feasible under current HIPAA standards.

[Artha]

Show them Trainspotting.

[StrayRogue]

Schools should hire people who've been clean for a few years to come and talk, truthfully, about what they went through. I think it'd make kids not want to do anything hard, certainly.



I disagree. I know a lot of people who found their drug years to be fantastic. A number of famous people feel this way as well: Johnny Depp, HST, Bill Hicks etc.

I have no regrets whatsoever about my years of excess.

[Back]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thenewswire/archive/ap/rumh.jpg

[Sean of the Thread]

Schools should hire people who've been clean for a few years to come and talk, truthfully, about what they went through. [/url]

http://harrisonchappelle.tripod.com/Images/tyrone.jpg

[Artha]

I disagree. I know a lot of people who found their drug years to be fantastic. A number of famous people feel this way as well: Johnny Depp, HST, Bill Hicks etc.

I have no regrets whatsoever about my years of excess.
For all every famous person, you have 10 people who could be in a Faces of Meth slideshow.

[Gan]

I've suggested that our hospice program get involved with teaching children the dangers of drug/alcohol abuse. Problem is, many people believe that exposure to the actual horrors of diseases brought about by the abuse of these substances are too graphic for children to see. Another problem is that patient privacy comes into play. The patient would have to agree, and that's not likely with most of these patients, including those in the ER.

There are ways to get around HIPPA in the ED.
Privacy issues in prisons arent that prevalent.
Social rehab programs might be another matter, and one I cant address specifically since my exposure there is limited to prison setting rehab environments.

[Back]

Not ONLY are Dems getting dead people to vote... they are getting them to run for office also.





Dead Ringer: Deceased Candidate Wins Election With Voters in Dark (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003380483)


Things were so bad for Republicans this week in the midterm elections they couldn't even beat a dead man in North Carolina.

A candidate for a county board there, who was still appearing in newspaper ads the weekend before the Nov. 7 election, earned an easy victory, gaining 12,000 votes — despite being dead for a month.

Union County elections officials knew about his death for weeks, but did not inform voters, even though the newspaper ads and endorsements continued.

"We are instructed that it's not our job to do that," said Shirley Secrest, elections director.

The late Sam Duncan was the top vote-getter Tuesday for two seats as supervisor on Union County's Soil and Water Conservation board. He was running for re-election as his four-year term expired.

The Democratic Party distributed literature and sample ballots backing Duncan near the polls on election day. Democratic Party officials said they didn't know Duncan had died when they placed the ads and printed the literature, but did not know later.

[Gan]

The only good Democrat is a dead Democrat?

[CrystalTears]

"We are instructed that it's not our job to do that," said Shirley Secrest, elections director.
JOB OPENING!

[Latrinsorm]

And yet he was good enough that someone saw the need to assassinate him.Like you wouldn't shoot the leader of the free world if Jodie Foster asked you to. :gimme:
The late Sam Duncan was the top vote-getter Tuesday for two seats as supervisor on Union County's Soil and Water Conservation board. Come on, who knows more about soil? ZING!

So what hour are we on now?