NightCrawler
04-19-2007, 06:30 AM
I'd like to pre-emptively dedicate this thread to groupthink.

What is wrong with Obama? What do you like about his policies?

bob
04-19-2007, 06:35 AM
What is wrong with Obama? What do you like about his policies?

Well, if you look at his issues (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/) page he leaves out a lot of key issues out of his platform to draw away attention from the fact that he's very left-wing. He is for the Iraqi pull-out, which I don't agree with.

I do like that he plans to help further honor our Veterans, I have no problem with doing that.

I Bite
04-19-2007, 10:06 AM
Well, if you look at his issues (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/) page he leaves out a lot of key issues out of his platform to draw away attention from the fact that he's very left-wing. He is for the Iraqi pull-out, which I don't agree with.

I do like that he plans to help further honor our Veterans, I have no problem with doing that.



that is a big problem for me. How exactly are we to just up and leave Iraq?
"Oh, well, you guys have won, cause we're tired of fighting, see ya later." I really don't think that'll swing.

And, again, I have to agree with bob: i really like that he wants to honour our veterans more.

somasoul
04-19-2007, 04:51 PM
I think we have define what winning the war is.

we went to rid Iraq of WMD and Saddam. We did both. VICTORY!!!

aliengurl7
04-19-2007, 05:05 PM
I think it's a great idea to pull the troops out but I haven't looked into where he stands on other issues. But that's a good point that I like.

alienyouth9292
04-19-2007, 05:20 PM
i disagree with ^ but i'd like to know what he stands for in gay marriage and abortion....

bob
04-19-2007, 07:11 PM
I think we have define what winning the war is.

we went to rid Iraq of WMD and Saddam. We did both. VICTORY!!!

Yeah, but now we have to provide the country with stability. If we pulled out of Iraq right now a full-fledged civil war would errupt and you'd be left with what Somalia is right now, a nation which we had troops in and then pulled them out.

i'd like to know what he stands for in gay marriage and abortion....

Obama seems to be very coy on issues like that, but more than likely he is pro-abortion and for gay marriage.

Tromos
04-19-2007, 07:23 PM
Just my opinion, but I think he's a political infant who doesn't really stand a chance.

somasoul
04-20-2007, 04:42 AM
I think, like most politicians, he likes rhetoric as much as the next guy.

Protecting the Right to Vote
There is no more fundamental American right than the right to vote. Before the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act, barriers such as literacy tests, poll taxes and property requirements disenfranchised many Americans, especially minorities. More than 40 years later, there are still numerous obstacles to ensuring that every citizen has the ability to vote.

What obstacles, Barack?

This is standard political-speak. Tell people something is wrong with something don't identify what it is, then promise to fix it. Read all the canidate's websites, they are full of this jargon.

bob
04-20-2007, 06:50 AM
This is standard political-speak. Tell people something is wrong with something don't identify what it is, then promise to fix it. Read all the canidate's websites, they are full of this jargon.

Well, all politicans are long winded for whatever reason. But if you look at Sam Brownback's issues (http://www.brownback.com/s/Issues/tabid/60/Default.aspx) page, he really doesn't have much jargon on it.

Obama sometimes speaks without wearing a tie . . . that makes him hip.

alienyouth9292
04-20-2007, 01:48 PM
i think that he will get alot of young people's votes.....

DarkestRose
04-20-2007, 02:00 PM
I feel very mixed-up about Obama. I like what he proposes to do for the mentally ill very much. But I don't feel like I can, in good conscience, vote for him when he also supports abortion. Problem is that almost always, it is the Democratic pro-choice candidates that support the mentally ill.

alienyouth9292
04-20-2007, 03:41 PM
when they do that, i seriously think that they do it just to get votes.

DarkestRose
04-20-2007, 04:02 PM
I think that the Democrats are simply more issues-orieinted people. For example, Rosalynn Carter (wife of former President Carter) is very passionate about the mentally ill and I find her to be very genuine in her concern.

The problem I have with the Right is simply that things like mental health they could care less about. Mental illness is often put at the bottom of health concerns, even though the country is in dire need of better funding for mental health and better care for people who suffer from mental illnesses.

I feel that care for people with mental illnesses should not be a partisan issue. And Obama does plan to work to have it treated the same as every other physical illness like cancer, Alzheimers, etc, a move that is long overdue.

somasoul
04-21-2007, 05:47 AM
What's with you and mental health?

NightCrawler
04-21-2007, 05:53 AM
What's with you and mental health?
I have friends and family who have bipolar disorder, Down's syndrome, depression, or some other disorders/illnesses.

About 1% of America has schizrophrenia, supposedly. As well as over 15% suffer from depression. (though there is comorbity of diseases, so percentages overlap)

somasoul
04-21-2007, 08:25 AM
I have friends and family who have bipolar disorder, Down's syndrome, depression, or some other disorders/illnesses.

About 1% of America has schizrophrenia, supposedly. As well as over 15% suffer from depression. (though there is comorbity of diseases, so percentages overlap)

How is government going to help with these issues?

NightCrawler
04-21-2007, 12:06 PM
How is government going to help with these issues?
The government spends money. A lot of spending includes research funds to prevent illnesses and promote modern medicines. This would just be an extension.

somasoul
04-21-2007, 04:23 PM
The government spends money. A lot of spending includes research funds to prevent illnesses and promote modern medicines. This would just be an extension.

Gotcha.

We could use this example to justify anything Government does, though.

We could say: The government spends money. A lot of spending includes research funds to study the aquatic mating rituals of geese.

The government spends money. A lot of spending could provide every child in America access to Disney Character themed tooth-brushes.

The government spends money. A lot of spending could help curb the rescidivism rate of criminal ostriches.

All of these things could be excused equally using the current line of thinking.

The justification of the expenditures needs to be based on the guiding principals of the Federal, State, and Local jurisdictions of government. As such, there is nothing to suggest that the Federal Government should take on such tasks.

V-Ball Queen 32
04-21-2007, 05:02 PM
I'm not sure if I like him or not. He has some good points but not my vote. I never know what to think of politicians, and I don't agree with all of his policies anyway.

DarkestRose
04-22-2007, 02:27 PM
How is government going to help with these issues?

Just his power to pass and veto bills is a key because, if the president is one to be for mental health issues, then he plausibly will continue to pass bills in favor of people with mental health needs.

Also, I believe it is the president who does the health care funding. What he funds with what states have to work with and right now mental health is severely underfunded. This is especially true in Oregon where we don't have enough money for proper treament, we don't have enough money to admit many people into the hospital, we don't have enough money to have adequat staffing which means the staff has less time for each patient. The staff has also been having to work overtime. And the hosptial is rotting and we can't afford to upkeep the hosptial. We need the government to give as some good funding in this direction because it is a great need, but often neglected.

DarkestRose
04-22-2007, 02:29 PM
Gotcha.

We could use this example to justify anything Government does, though.

We could say: The government spends money. A lot of spending includes research funds to study the aquatic mating rituals of geese.

The government spends money. A lot of spending could provide every child in America access to Disney Character themed tooth-brushes.

The government spends money. A lot of spending could help curb the rescidivism rate of criminal ostriches.

All of these things could be excused equally using the current line of thinking.

The justification of the expenditures needs to be based on the guiding principals of the Federal, State, and Local jurisdictions of government. As such, there is nothing to suggest that the Federal Government should take on such tasks.

Does government not fund health care?

somasoul
04-23-2007, 05:02 AM
Does government not fund health care?

Yes.

But mental health issues are another beast altogether. First off, I don't believe in half of these disorders. I believe many people diagnosed really have no condition. (Concerning ADD: 17% of white boys are given medication to treat this disorder?!?!?!). Who is to say what the government can or cannot spend money on. Sex addicts? People who habitually give ostriches back massages? Multiple Personality Disorder (which is widely debated in Physcological circles)?

There would be no end to the creation of new disorders and drugs to supply everyone with. Physcologists, in the boldest marketing move ever, would create symptoms and diseases for common ailments (In Germany a girl was recently diagnosed with "School-Phobia"). Housewives who burn dinner might be diagnosed with "Overheaturia". People who fear clowns would be given drugs to help them overcome. Recently on TV I saw an Ad promoting a drug for "Social Anxiety Disorder", last I checked there was a thousands year old remedy............BEER!

Mental Health issues are the biggest scam in America today, methinks.

Voice of Truth
04-23-2007, 11:50 AM
The Federal Government does not spend State Tax Dollars. Most of the money that you are talking about, is spent at the state level. The Federal Government cannot and will not step on a sovereign state's rights to disperse and spend money.

This is the beauty of our Republic. Now while the Federal Government can decide how much money a state can get as a grant, unless it is added as pork barrell spending and named as such, it will be bankrolled right into the general fund and spent accordingly.

If you want to affect mental health issues, you will have to vote for local candidates in your local elections and state elections.

DarkestRose
04-23-2007, 02:43 PM
That is true. I was thinking about how the Federal Government can give grants, so it helps to have one that cares about mental health issues. But it is true that most of it, like the Oregon stuff, is at state level.

DarkestRose
04-23-2007, 02:49 PM
Yes.

But mental health issues are another beast altogether. First off, I don't believe in half of these disorders. I believe many people diagnosed really have no condition. (Concerning ADD: 17% of white boys are given medication to treat this disorder?!?!?!). Who is to say what the government can or cannot spend money on. Sex addicts? People who habitually give ostriches back massages? Multiple Personality Disorder (which is widely debated in Physcological circles)?

There would be no end to the creation of new disorders and drugs to supply everyone with. Physcologists, in the boldest marketing move ever, would create symptoms and diseases for common ailments (In Germany a girl was recently diagnosed with "School-Phobia"). Housewives who burn dinner might be diagnosed with "Overheaturia". People who fear clowns would be given drugs to help them overcome. Recently on TV I saw an Ad promoting a drug for "Social Anxiety Disorder", last I checked there was a thousands year old remedy............BEER!

Mental Health issues are the biggest scam in America today, methinks.

But there are some anxiety disorders which are very real and very disabling, such as OCD, panic disorder, etc. Not mention diseases like bipolar disorder, depression, and schizophrenia, etc. And they're sicknesses that need to be treated so that people can better and move on with their lives.

T3-
04-23-2007, 05:12 PM
Obama is perhaps the most liberal candidate in the race, considering his ONE term voting record in the senate, heck he's worse than Kerry, Kennedy, AND Clinton...

somasoul
04-23-2007, 07:40 PM
But there are some anxiety disorders which are very real and very disabling, such as OCD, panic disorder, etc. Not mention diseases like bipolar disorder, depression, and schizophrenia, etc. And they're sicknesses that need to be treated so that people can better and move on with their lives.

OCD? I don't believe in that, either, not most of the time anyway.

Panic DIsorder? I thought that was called "Being a Woman".

DarkestRose
04-23-2007, 07:52 PM
It's different than what you think.

OCD is caused by an imbalance of the neurotransmitter serotonin, which helps nerve cells communicate. People with OCD also have metabolism in the basal ganglia and the frontal lobes of the brain, which can cause the rigid thinking and repetitive movements included. People with OCD also have a high amount of the hormone vasopressin. And it's hard to deal with because it sucks all the fun out living when you can't do anything without obsessive thoughts and compulsions making everything a hundredfold harder than it should be. Mental illness is painful enough for any person to live with without having to do deal also with the outside stigma, misinformation and poor treatment and research efforts.

Tromos
04-24-2007, 05:25 AM
Mental Health issues are the biggest scam in America today, methinks.

Strange. Didn't we think much the same thing about cancer a few decades ago?

NightCrawler
04-24-2007, 08:14 AM
Gotcha.

We could use this example to justify anything Government does, though.

We could say: The government spends money. A lot of spending includes research funds to study the aquatic mating rituals of geese.

The government spends money. A lot of spending could provide every child in America access to Disney Character themed tooth-brushes.

The government spends money. A lot of spending could help curb the rescidivism rate of criminal ostriches.

All of these things could be excused equally using the current line of thinking.

The justification of the expenditures needs to be based on the guiding principals of the Federal, State, and Local jurisdictions of government. As such, there is nothing to suggest that the Federal Government should take on such tasks.
You realize that it is completely absurd to compare mental health to any of those. Mental health is for the voting public, and it is a problem which NEEDS aid. Toothbrushes, studies on ostriches and geese... come on. Those are NOT necessary. Don't even bother making such a fallacious comparison.

NightCrawler
04-24-2007, 08:25 AM
Somasoul. Let me advise you to take a course called "Abnormal Psychology"...

bob
04-24-2007, 09:48 AM
Well, I think what it all comes down to is that he goverment can't do everything. This isn't socialism, its democracy. The government is too big as it is.

DarkestRose
04-24-2007, 04:28 PM
I don't the size of government is a problem. I think it's the structure. Right now the modern structure for, say, mental health is really messed up. We don't need more government, we just need the government we have to fix the structure into one that helps people get better treatment. Like Tracy said though, this is more at state-level.

bob
04-24-2007, 06:15 PM
Well yes, but that would all depend whether you believe that free healthcare is a right.

Tromos
04-25-2007, 04:53 AM
There's no such thing as free health care.

The people in countries with government-subsidized health care pay through the nose for it with their taxes.

You grumble about the U.S. government taking 25-30% of your gross pay in taxes? You could move to the Nordics where the health care is provided by the government - and they take 75-80% of your gross pay in taxes!

Everything has a price.

kittygirl
04-25-2007, 02:28 PM
I'd vote for Obama before I'd vote for Hilary. That's as far as my opinion goes

dawn of light
04-25-2007, 08:35 PM
You grumble about the U.S. government taking 25-30% of your gross pay in taxes? You could move to the Nordics where the health care is provided by the government - and they take 75-80% of your gross pay in taxes!
The highest possible tax rate for Manitobans is around 46.4% [only if you make over 120k a year].

A tax rate of 75-80% isn't a requirement for government-paid healthcare.

Edit: 46.4% includes the federal and provincial tax rates. Other provinces range from a combined tax rate of 39%-47.2% if you make over 120k per year.

I Bite
04-25-2007, 09:07 PM
OCD? I don't believe in that, either, not most of the time anyway.

Panic DIsorder? I thought that was called "Being a Woman".

Very mature.

fire-inside
04-30-2007, 05:22 AM
In the event he wins the primary election to gain the Democratic nomination - he will have my vote. Until then, I fervently support Hillary Clinton.

NightCrawler
04-30-2007, 06:51 PM
Rachel, could you explain some important points to consider him? I'm not at all sure where my vote will fall.

fire-inside
04-30-2007, 10:36 PM
Rachel, could you explain some important points to consider him? I'm not at all sure where my vote will fall.
Honestly Jonathan, I know very little about his policies currently. At this point, all he has going for me is that he is a democrat. I made the mistake of voting republican in the last presidential election and I believe it has gotten us into nothing but a world of hurt. I do believe he may be a little too young politically and might not have the experience presidency would require. But who knows.

As I said, I currently support Hillary Clinton for the democratic nomination. I believe and support her in her policies and feel that she is adequately equipped for the role.

alienyouth9292
05-01-2007, 11:43 AM
Honestly Jonathan, I know very little about his policies currently. At this point, all he has going for me is that he is a democrat. I made the mistake of voting republican in the last presidential election and I believe it has gotten us into nothing but a world of hurt. I do believe he may be a little too young politically and might not have the experience presidency would require. But who knows.

As I said, I currently support Hillary Clinton for the democratic nomination. I believe and support her in her policies and feel that she is adequately equipped for the role.




so i'm guessing that u vote straight democrat, no matter what?

it's not really about the name of their party, it's their own beliefs and views. just because you are mad at Bush, you want to vote for the corrupt wife of a president that was impeached??

fire-inside
05-01-2007, 02:55 PM
just because you are mad at Bush, you want to vote for the corrupt wife of a president that was impeached??
No, I want to vote for a woman I believe can do the job. It has nothing to do with her party. It has everything to do with her wealth of experience. I want to give my vote to the canidate who pushes for equal pay for women, a pull from Iraq, making health care affordable for all Americans, fixing No Child Left Behind, tightening the borders, saving the environment, and gay rights.

I'd vote republican again. But I do not want to make a vote based on party like I did last time. Currently, the only canidate I see with the same policies I believe in is Hilary Clinton. Show me a republican with a better take on those policies and he can have my vote.

DarkestRose
05-01-2007, 03:00 PM
Her policies do sound good^. Not to be one of those "core issues" people but, although I presume that she is a pro-choice candidate, do you know what her actual policy on abortion will be?

bob
05-01-2007, 06:50 PM
.

NightCrawler
05-01-2007, 06:54 PM
.
I agree with your stance, I really don't like your tactic. I think this was uncalled for.

bob
05-01-2007, 06:55 PM
I agree, it was uncalled for. But abortion is a touchy subject and I can make rash statements from time to time.

alienyouth9292
05-01-2007, 06:58 PM
it is a big matter that some politicians are scared to tackle...

bob
05-01-2007, 07:02 PM
it is a big matter that some politicians are scared to tackle...

Yes, as you can notice it is conveniently missing from Obama's site.

DarkestRose
05-01-2007, 07:03 PM
I was actually wondering if she was going to be the kind of pro-choice candidate that alleges the pro-choice stance but to work toward making abortions take place less often. Or if she is not sympathetic toward the pro-life movement at all. I'm not quite sure where exactly she stands on the issue or how she plans to affect it.

bob
05-01-2007, 07:07 PM
I was actually wondering if she was going to be the kind of pro-choice candidate that alleges the pro-choice stance but to work toward making abortions take place less often. Or if she is not sympathetic toward the pro-life movement at all. I'm not quite sure where exactly she stands on the issue or how she plans to affect it.

Hilary's position on abortion. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Hillary_Rodham_Clinton#Abor tion)

DarkestRose
05-01-2007, 07:11 PM
A lot of her stance on abortion I just cannot agree with and I wouldn't feel comfortable voting for her.

bob
05-01-2007, 07:13 PM
No, I also don't like her stance on gun control, Iraq, and stem cell controls. And even though I do like her unwavering support for Israel, her stance on Immigration, and even her stance on the death penalty. It isn't enough to overturn what I disagree with her on.

DarkestRose
05-01-2007, 07:17 PM
Abortion is a biggie for me because I don't want to ever feel like my vote contributed to help innocent people die.

Edit: We might have to start a Hillary Clinton thread.

DarkestRose
05-01-2007, 07:56 PM
I do like her support for the social security and Medicare programs. Her energy policy is okay since I like how she's trying to make conservation efforts. I like that she supports the Internet Neutrality. I really like her work for a universal, affordable healthcare system because I think the mentally ill could benefit from that. I appreciate that she supports Israel. I like her stance on crime: supporting the three strikes and you're out policy for violent offenders and support of treatment facilities for drug addicts.

I'm not really into her support of the death penalty. I don't like her gun control policy either. I myself never plan to use a gun but I think gun control policies really only affect the law-abiding people since criminals do not care about gun laws. I dislike her stance on stem cell research.

I don't quite know if I agree with her policy of pulling out the troops just yet. I hate war and would rather have them all home, but I don't know if things are stable enough in the Middle East for us to pull out now without bad ramifications. If I thought we could pull out without that happening, I would be cool with it, however.

I still don't know how I feel about education vouchers. I can see pros and cons on both sides. I am still ambivalent on immigration issues as well.

bob
05-01-2007, 08:12 PM
Edit: We might have to start a Hillary Clinton thread.

We should probalby just have it clumped into a 2008 Election thread.

DarkestRose
05-01-2007, 08:13 PM
^Tru-dat.

bob
05-02-2007, 10:33 PM
Sam Brownback (http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=2022024955) :)

DarkestRose
05-02-2007, 10:40 PM
I like lots of his views, but he doesn't mention anything about health care. I looked at his official site by the way.

bob
05-03-2007, 10:25 AM
I like lots of his views, but he doesn't mention anything about health care.

Are you a universal health care advocate?

Just curious.

DarkestRose
05-03-2007, 03:46 PM
I'm focused on mental illnesses, wanting better treatment in hospitals for them, better aftercare and rehabilitation, better funding of psychiatric hospitals and research efforts to better understand mental illness.

But I really don't know about that. I know I want people to be able to get treatment if they need it. Beyond that, I'm not sure.

bob
05-03-2007, 09:32 PM
Well, you're not going to find a candidate that has the mentally ill included in his platform as a key issue because it isn't one that the majority of Americans are focues on. That doesn't mean the candidate doesn't care about the mentally ill though. You have to look at the candidates stance on health in general.

So did eveyone hear how Obama now has security guards because he is "African American"? I find that to be a huge leap to say that people are going to be more violent towards him simply because he's an African American. I think we're past the days where skin color invokes hostility for the most part. I mean, in some areas maybe not, but Obama would never visit them anyway, so I find having security guards this early in the political race to be a rather silly precaution but I guess I have no say in the matter.

riz
05-05-2007, 09:03 AM
I think we're past the days where skin color invokes hostility for the most part.

It's actually more prevalent than you might think, even in areas in the northern US where I'm from, where you'd not think there would be a lot of it.