I haven't commented on these forums in awhile mostly because the conversation seems to always revert to the same thing. The people who are conservative call liberals idiots who hate America and the people who are "liberals"(technically it's progressives) generally revert to their talking points.
What I would like to hear is thoughts on the issues without sounding like Fox News or MSNBC. I want to hear what you guys think about things as individuals.
For example, I want to know why expanding Medicare is a bad thing. Why was invading Iraq a good or a bad thing? Do people who vote Republican really believe that Sarah Palin was a good choice. Why does it matter if a man marries another man (politically speaking that is).
I want to hear all viewpoints, but I want to hear YOUR viewpoint that YOU came up with on YOUR OWN. We'll never break the grip that politicians and corporations have on us unless we start finding common ground on issues that are important to everyone in America.
I'll start by answering the Iraq question. From the beginning I viewed invading Iraq as a bad thing for several reasons: 1) It was a distraction and took resources from what should have been our main objective: getting Osama bin Laden and stopping Al Queda. 2) The rationale for the invasion kept changing. It was being sold as a response to 9/11, which made no sense, and which told me that the real reasons were being hidden and undoubtedly based upon enriching someone. 3) The possible gain was not worth the clear and predicted loss, a loss predicted by Daddy Bush.
MM's personal opinions:
1. Why expanding Medicare is a bad thing.
It's not. Medicare covers retirees. Medicaid covers poor people. There's a big gap in the middle. I know too many people living in that gap. It's ridiculous that health insurance is tied to employment -- not everyone can or wants to work for companies of 50+ people.
Close the gap. I'm in favor of single-payer healthcare.
2. Why was invading Iraq a good or a bad thing?
Bad thing. Really bad thing. For all the reasons PP gave and you gave.
Not to mention the devastation we caused to the Iraqi people and their country.
I wonder where we'd be if we'd concentrated all that effort on Afghanistan from the get-go?
3. Do people who vote Republican really believe that Sarah Palin was a good choice.
I cannot answer that as someone who "votes" Republican (have done, but not in 2008 presidential election).
However unqualified SP was/is to be a "heartbeat away from the presidency" McCain catapulted her onto the national stage. She has served an immensely useful purpose for the TP. Look at all the Congresspeople and TP governors who got elected in 2010. Gotta wonder of that wasn't really the strategy all along...
4. Why does it matter if a man marries another man (politically speaking that is)?
Politically speaking it concedes that people who don't think or act like "us" have rights. It confirms the really threatening thought that everyone's world and worldview are not Bible based or nostalgiazing for the 1950s (TV sitcom version).
It's the thin edge of the wedge, Cody. The very fabric of our country will fray and tear.
I mean, really.
If we allow two "homos" to marry, who knows what moral erosion will follow?
Women voting? Blacks voting? People of different ethnicities/colors procreating with each other?
Oh wait. Those atrocities have already occurred....
BTW - Sorry if my responses sound like MSNBC talking points. It's just the way I think/talk. In soundbites.
Can't help it. It's in my nature. You should see the teleprompter in my living room!
Haha, its fine. I was really just hoping for a conversation based on personal opinions/beliefs as opposed to partisan bickering based on what some pundit said.
I have just agreed with a person I know to be on the opposite side of many issues from me, Wayne Brown.
You guys continue. I hope you get a dynamic response to your thread, Cody.
Gotta go edit a market analysis showing why the HEALTH CARE safety net system in my region is broken and what they're gonna do to fix it.
I understand your desire to make healthcare more available to the masses but nothing the government is doing is going to change the actual cost of it. Obamacare basically takes what is available and runs it through insurance exchanges dividing the costs of coverage into premiums. Those premiums will be zero to folks below the poverty line and will be subsidized to a degree up to around $60K...still, if it is coverage like we normally see from a corporate level, the cost of that coverage is around $8 annually and that does not include the out of pocket deductions which typically amount to around another $3K annually. That $11K annually amounts to around $920 a month for an unsubsidized household...not overly affordable and short of ordering the healthcare industry to operate totally in the red, not likely to come down We also have a big difference here in that the insurers was actually be the insurance companies who normally just manage the administration for a fee for corporate insurance programs (self-insured companies paying against their bottom line) and advising them on practices in the industry. Thus those providers will have to make a profit if they are to be there in the future. Finally, there is nothing addressed in terms of litigations which is a huge factor in healthcare cost now...the frivilous lawsuits will continue, you can count on that. This legislation is nothing short of a red herring bearing all the promise of a utopian move yet in reality delivering little or nothing except a growing debt burden on the rapidly growing national debt....possibly to the tune of $600 billion dollars a year. Thank God for debt-neutral healthcare programs! WB
I agree with you on excessive litigation, Wayne.
And not just in the HC arena.
We have become a nation of litigating fools.
How many class action suit announcements do you receive in the mail every year? I seem to be in line to make money from a variety of evildoers I never even knew did me wrong!
Meanwhile, the courts -- at every level -- are backlogged.
So they try to siphon as many cases as possible into alternative dispute resolution.
Or in the case of your heath care (check the fine print of your policy, it's there), binding arbitration.
Goliath, by default.
And those cases that are actually heard in a courtroom are totally stacked by those who know the system and how to game it (read: contribute to the judges' pet causes).
You really think that as a little person you get your day in court?
No one but the damned awyers.
by Aya Katz3 years ago
I've often been accused of being arrogant, and it's usually by people who disagree with me about something. I've noticed that some of my favorite historical personages have also been accused of arrogance. What exactly...
by ahorseback2 weeks ago
Any Takers on This ? Defenders ? Was that a Freudian slip ?
by Susan Reid2 years ago
If you are insured through your employer, the answer is no. If you are an individual or small business owner, please share your thoughts.Did you know there will be online health care insurance marketplaces...
by mio cid4 years ago
In the latest of Mitt Romney's string of gaffes he says that our healthcare reform to help those who don't have health insurance is to call an ambulance and take them to the emergency room.
by SparklingJewel6 years ago
I received this today in my e-mail...If you didn't have a good enough reason to fight this so-called healthcare scheme, now you do! Refuse to be chipped like a dog! This is buried in the...
by Credence23 years ago
"Solving that conundrum exposes one of the ugly little secrets of the Republican right today — and one of many reasons why that movement no longer merits the honorable title of "conservative." For...
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.