Saturday, October 11, 2008

Confession of a Politically Ignorant Woman

I try to never discuss politics with anyone other than my husband and my immediate family. This is true for a few different reasons:

First, my fear of sounding stupid. The truth is, I know there are some die-hards out there who follow politics more than I do. I pretty much get everything I know off of Drudge Report. I don't have a television and I don't buy the paper. Mark seems to pick up a lot of information from class discussions, so I get a lot of second-hand information that way.

Second, I hate disagreeing with people. This goes back to my fear of confrontation. I don't like to cause ripples in the water. I'd rather just keep silent and smile than start a potential heated discussion with a stranger or acquaintance. Sometimes even with a close friend. Essentially, I'm a coward.

The sad thing is, I hate people like me. I mean, I don't necessarily love when people throw their beliefs in people's faces either, but there's a balance that I'd like to achieve. I would like to be the kind of person who feels comfortable having an educational discussion about politics. One where I am not afraid to be proved wrong, and I'm also not afraid to attempt to prove someone else wrong. It shouldn't be about winning anyway, but instead about educating. Of course, it takes two humble people to participate in that kind of discussion, and sometimes it just comes to a difference of beliefs or opinions.

This whole subject has come to the surface for me, of course, because of the presidential election. I seriously have no idea who to vote for. I was raised in a democrat home, and I've always voted democrat across the board. That's so embarrassing for me to admit- that I've always been a lemming. The last three years, though, since my conversion to the LDS church, I've been reevaluating my beliefs on a lot of things, including politics. I've developed a lot of conservative opinions, of course, due to my new religious take on life. Some people might see that as a continuation of my lemming ways, but I can honestly say that I've weighed out issues in my mind more than ever before. The problem is, though, that I can see both sides to almost every issue. And it seems that there's always more information to consider that changes the overall outcome of an issue. I feel like I could spend months just learning about one thing. It's so easy to just look at the styled position of a candidate's proposition, but when you lift and dig a bit, there is always another thing lurking underneath.

Sorry I'm talking so vaguely about all of this. That's probably a bit annoying. The thing I'm really trying to get at is that I'm not sure who I'm voting for and I'm frustrated. I don't care about political party anymore. I want to vote for someone who will:

1. Get us out of the financial crisis, without letting the people who caused it get away scott free, and without making us pay for their mistakes by raising taxes and cutting programs that make a difference in our communities. (This makes me want to vote for Obama.) However, will the tax cuts that Obama boasts about just move money from a productivity pool to a consumption pool? (This makes me want to vote for McCain.)

2. Know how to reestablish good relations with other nations. A lot of this is going to be determined, I believe, with how we proceed with Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Russia. Is that too broad of a statement? Anyhow, I am split on this one. McCain is experienced, but what does that matter if he carries things out the same way Bush has? But does Obama really know what he's doing? I was horrified that he announced that he would be willing to attack inside Pakistan with or without approval from the Pakistani government at the debate on national television. I understand that he means attacking al Qaeda and Taliban areas, but threatening President Pervez Musharraf on live television before he's even president and without meeting with him or meeting with congress...essentially just spouting off his mouth is so destructive. That's not the way to establish a good relationship.

3. Protect my religious values, which include an anti-abortion belief and a belief in marriage as a one woman, one man party. With pointy hats and a lot of noisemakers. That was so lame.

4. Healthcare. I don't exactly know how this one should go. I need to spend less time blogging and more time researching this. All I know is that I want healthcare, and I'd like to be able to afford it please. The $5000 refundable tax credit sounds good, but this makes me wonder. But is Obama's plan for more government involvement in healthcare a good thing? I really like that he wants to outlaw insurance discrimination against people with pre-existing conditions (my husband had cancer, so this would be great). Really, I'm just going to stop talking about this one because I'm just rambling about things I don't know very much about.

5. Education. I don't know much about each of their plans on this, but I know that I want better education for our country. That sounds lame. I should run for Miss America.

Just another note on this one: I'm planning to homeschool my children. I don't know that education in our country will ever be good enough for me to trust them with my children.

6. National Security. Again, I don't know what I'm doing here. But I just want to be safe. Like a bug in a rug.

Ok, so now that I've come out of the closet as ignorant, feel free to comment. I love links. I would especially love to hear about who you are voting for and exactly why. I want details.



esplinlin said...

I got to your blog from Melissa's blog, after reading
the comments about her support of Prop 8. Politics create strong emotions. She's my daugher-in-law.
Anyway, I thought I'd share a few thoughts with you.

1. The financial crisis will eventually right itself. The government got too involved with mandating mortgages for low income people who couldn't afford them. Then the government didn't regulate the market for credit default swaps, which turned from an insurance market into a high stakes financial gambling game. Americans at large contributed to it by carrying way too much debt. Given time, we'll recover from it. But taxes need to stay low, and government spending needs to stay low. On this issue, I come down on McCain's side because Obama is proposing all kinds of programs for which no money is available.

2. Good relationships with other countries depend on military strength, clear communications and moral intentions. How's that for a foreign policy?

3. Protecting your religious values is important. You are advocating protection of the family. You can be firm in your convictions without getting in contentious debates without anyone.

4. The more government stays involved in healthcare, the more inefficient it becomes. Then it costs more. I like McCain's ideas to start separating health insurance from employment, and to allow health insurers to sell policies across state lines.

5. It sounds like your children are not yet old enough to go to school. You don't yet have to decide to homeschool them. If the public schools in your area are really bad, then homeschooling might be a good option. But of course you can't imagine sending a two or three year old off to school. But when they're five, they're ready to go. It's like looking at your 12 year old and thinking they'll never be old enough to drive a car. By the time they're 16, however, they're usually ready. Be patient, and let time run it's course.

6. Life is not safe. You can't be a bug in a rug. Trust in yourself and your husband that you can figure out how to take care of your little family. And trust that as your children grow older, that they will learn the skills necessary to care for themselves. You can't protect them from the world. They need to learn how to protect themselves. You can steer them in the right direction. All will be well.

I'm voting for McCain. I trust in people and the marketplace much more than government, and Obama's proposals are very far to the left.

Melissapher said...

I'm totally ignorant on many political issues. I really only talk to Chris about these sorts of things, because he knows economics and follows politics without much bias and he doesn't judge me when I say something totally naive or just plain ridiculous. I agree with my mother-in-law's comment fully. She's much more eloquent than I will ever be.

I'll be voting for McCain, because his ideas and politics lend itself for less involvement and less spending. Americans truly need to tighten their belts right now, democrats and their programs aren't what I have in mind.

Honestly I don't think Obama would be terrible, but hearing him speak reminds me of a dictator, everyone seems to eat up his non-substantial pontificating. Also, it pissed me off when he said paying more taxes was "patriotic". Taxing 50+% of the wealthy's income probably isn't what our forefathers had in mind. Just a thought.

I'm sad he didn't pick Romney as a running mate. I think he would have a lot of great advice to impart during the current financial situation. Oh well.

Thanks for your comments, and this post. This kind of discussion is always welcome.

Erica said...

girl, i'm not the best person to make comments about politics. it's amazing i know who the candidates are...although, how could you not since it's EVERYWHERE.

from my minimal knowledge, what i have a problem w/ is ALL of this $$$ used to campaign when really, it could be used for so many other things.

it's very interesting possibly i'm just paranoid, how convenient of the financial crisis right around election time. the war...never will know when it'll end. obviously, it doesn't seem to affect the nation as much as world I or II and it continues.

education...hmmm...possibly i realized how frustrating things are and if you don't know the system you're out of luck. underlying causes for me to go back to school to work in a different arena than the school system may possibly be that.

and to top it off, right before i read your blog, i was talking w/ my parents. my 6 year old niece (who is a doll) had to use the restroom. her teacher refused and leah ended up going in her pants in the classroom. humiliating? am i livid? the entire thomas family will be contacting that school.

okay, i've rambled on about lots and lots of things. i appreciate you vocalizing your opinion letting me realize that i need to know more about what's going on b/c it really does affect me.

Lauren said...

Dear Angie,

As a Political scientist who studies the candidates and both sides of the issue for hours every single day of my life I will share this with you.

Neither candidate is a great choice. I'm sorry, we ran into some really bad luck this election.

The economy will come back, but I have to say that you are mistaken about Obama cutting taxes. He only has plans to raise taxes, and create more programs that will cost more money. We will not get justice on the bailout - it just won't happen.

What it comes down to is your personal preferences. For me, the social issues are what decide my vote. Healthcare, education, abortion. I am pro-life, and Obamas stance on Babies that survive abortions is beyond horrible to me. I have also read Obama's sex education for kidergarteners and I quote "boys have penises, girls have vaginas, it feels good when you touch them. Masturbation is okay if you do it in private" - again totally offensive, and I don't believe the government should run education. As for healthcare - I feel a responsibility as a citizen of this country to pay taxes that help provide healthcare for those who need it, but I don't think the government has any business running healthcare either.

That being said I will not vote for Obama. However, I really don't like McCain. I feel like I'm choosing the lesser of two evils. One of them just happens to think its a good idea to kill babies and teach young kids to masturbate - that's a no can do for me.

Raquel said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Raquel said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Orange Juice said...

1) Sounds like Raquel is one of those liberals that can't really back anything up. Also, Lauren didn't say Obama's policies boil down to anything. All she said is that for two particular reasons it is a deal breaker for her.

2) It seems like all the commenters before Raquel are like Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck (conservative talk radio)--people who have some conclusions/arguments to make and can give reasoning for them, or at least try to. It seems like Raquel is like all those liberal talk radio shows that don't exist because they don't have any arguments that they can give reasoning to, or at least the reasoning that they have is just crap and doesn't sell. All liberals have is pathos, which doesn't work well if there is no immediate interaction.


Raquel said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mindy and Tyler said...

I also found your blog from Melissa's. I love how you break down your understanding of politics. It perfectly echos my own. I'm not sure who I'm voting for yet, but I just want to say that you can be a good democrat and a good Mormon at the same time.

Angie said...

Dear Chad,

I like Raquel better than you. If I had ten tongues I would stick them all out at you. Even if one of them was green because I never brushed it, which it would be because I eat a lot of avocados.



james said...


I got to your blog through Raquel’s blog and feel compelled to contribute to the comments.

Addressing your points

1. Getting us out of this financial crisis. The best tutorial I’ve encountered about what is going on is at

As to who is best suited to lead us out of this mess: would you rather have a man who went to Harvard Law on a merit based scholarship and graduated top of his class turned down many offers for $200,000+ a year jobs (big firm Lawyer ) to take a $40,000 a year job to help people

or a man who says that he is a bad student, who got into the Navel Academy only because his father and grandfather were 4 star Admirals and the Academy had to take him and who graduated bottom of his class.

They both have respected economists who support their policies
They both claim that they will reduce taxes, and they both claim that the other will increase taxes

Contrary to popular belief Federal spending typically increases with Republicans

Know how to establish good relations with other counties.

A unilateralist and a multilateralist...

One candidate thought that the war in Iraq would be “a cake walk” and that the situation in Afghanistan was under control, publicly said that we should invade North Korea and has said that we should not talk with Iran has pushed for the invasion of Iran and publicly sang “bomb bomb bomb Iran”. He has supported the current policies that have made our country a pariah.

One Candidate has always said that the war with Iraq was a mistake, would not be easy and is a distraction from the “war on terror” ; Wants to talk to other countries and thinks that war should only be a measure of last resort;

The statement from the democratic debates "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," seems to me to just be a simple recapitulation of American policy. There has never been an American administration that would not do this. As to the criticisms that this is threatening Pakistan, he was not saying that he would invade, just that there is no safe haven for terrorists.

3. Protect my religious values...

Protect everyones values?

Today in the USA women have the choice as to what to do with their bodies. Many states are realizing that their state constitutions protect peoples freedoms as it relates to who they may marry. Some people want to limit others freedoms I think this is an un-American and un-Christian thing. One Candidate agrees with me and one doesn’t

4. Healthcare

I think the problems with the Healthcare system are many fold. One big problem is insurance companies have a profit incentive,standard business rules, survival of the fittest thinking, as all business should, which is anathema to a medical care system which needs to have the health and wellness of people its goal, survival of everyone. One candidate address this issue one gives insurance companies more power.

Another problem is rising costs, both candidates attempt to address this one.

there are many other problems but these two are the biggies.

neither wants to nationalize healthcare, one claims that the other does.

5. Education

I’m not clear what their positions are on this is, but I think the two of them are about the same.

6. National Security

Both candidates have military generals that support them, people who know a lot more about this subject than me.

But one seems eager to go to war and the other seems reluctant, I like the reluctant one.

here is some blatant propaganda.

james said...


The reason there is no liberal talk radio is because we want news not propaganda, we are thinkers not followers, liberal talk radio is neither needed nor wanted.

tam said...

Hey Chad,

How's it hanging?

a liberal

tanyaa said...

I've been pretty disgusted with PZ Myers during the whole "religious symbol desecration" piece of performance art. It should go without saying that I've been disgusted with the so-called Christian zealots on the other side, since I'm disgusted with them 24/7.But I've changed my opinion about PZ and what he did. What follows is going to be pretty long and very theological, so I'll put it after the jump.I'm glad I didn't post on this earlier, because it's so much easier to just describe a mental journey than it is to make you go through it with me. PZ really went over the top with his reaction - no, he didn't make any death threats, but I still like to pretend that our standards are higher - especially when he declared that the doctrine of transubstantiation was invented as a way to inflame medieval Christians against their Jewish neighbors.
Internet Marketing

Melissapher said...

Dang! Raquel, why did you delete your comments?!? I was really wanting to hear your 'rational reasoning' and mean comments!


Mark said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Angie said...

Thank you all so much for commenting (even you, Chad. Even if you are a bit of a party pooper. Get it...a Democratic party pooper? ...and that's why I don't tell jokes.) You've given me so much information to think about. I'm so grateful. Keep it coming!

Fish Nat!on said...

I think that both choices are poor choices. My vote will be decided by the supreme court. Meaning, there are justices that are likely up for retirement. The judges in this country are more powerful than they ever were meant to be, and have too much influence in our lives to be chosen lightly. And my vote will go to the douche who hopefully will not appoint ultra liberal, activist judges. As an appointment for pretty much life, I feel like that is the most important issue. I mean, whichever douche gets elected, he will have plenty of advisers and whatnot to attempt to guide him through our mucked up economy, and the plethora of other problems facing this country. I feel as though either man will do an equally lousy job. However, the justices are what concern me.

I hate politics. it is all opinion based. I have heard strong, seemingly legitimate arguments for every single thing said amongst these comments from all wise liberals, and staunch gun slinging conservatives. It all boils down to opinion. Which is why I hate it. Because I read opinions and get pissed. Because they aren't my opinions. And sometimes i get pissed at myself, because other opinions make my opinions look stupid. But then other opinions validate my opinions, thus making those who previously made me feel stupid, look stupid. Its all a big game, dogs chasing tails. It all boils down to core beliefs, and one's definition of what is good, bad, evil, wrong, whatever.

good effing luck.

Fish Nat!on said...

ps i like your love angie stuff, and would like to think of a way to incorporate it into the mag possibly

Mark said...

Alright, I'll put in my two cents even though I talk to you every day about politics and we snuggle together while we watch the debates.

The economy:

I am not an economist. Econ 110 doesn't give me the right to say I know best. I think both parties are pretty adamant about fixing this financial mess and I think both candidates would do a good job stabilizing the economy. Personally, I think less government intervention is better, and a push for less regulation will put us back in the black. James, I don't think a Harvard degree matters much when the other candidate has way more real world experience than the other. Not a valid argument in my book.

International relations:

I think Obama has a slightly more compelling strategy with a little more diplomacy, but I fear he will make war such a last resort that "peace" peace will end up costing us more that a war would.

Protect Religious Values:

McCain will definitely protect my religious values. In our county, you can't equally protect everyone's values. It is impossible. My values are more important to me than anyone else's values, so I will support the man who will uphold MY vales.

Health Care:

The more government regulates health care, the worse the health care becomes. Government might be able to get the funds to provide people with health coverage, but the more they control the more money slips through the cracks. I agree with McCain. Health care is a responsibility not a right.


Public education in this county is a joke. Growing up in a town/school where liberal views reigned supreme, I saw first-hand that the education it produces SUCKS!!! Obama's "no child left behind" program is a great example of liberal education where everyone learns at the pace of the dumbest child, thus raising an overall dumber generation. The idea that every child can have their potential unlocked by great leaders is naive and unproductive.

National Security:

More military = more security.

The end.

Lauren said...

Dear Angie,

I wish I had checked back earlier to see the hateful comments that were thrown my way.

love, Lauren

Angie said...


Just to clear things up, there was never any hateful comments toward your post. All Raquel said was that she didn't agree that Obama's policies should be boiled down to teaching children to masturbate and killing babies. She didn't say it rudely, but just expressed an opinion. In my opinion, Chad over-reacted and attacked her for just tactfully expressing her view. It was Chad that brought an antagonistic vibe to the thread, not Raquel. Raquel removed her post so as to not offend anyone else needlessly. I really do wish you could have read it because it was in no way attacking you, just stating her support for Obama.

ryan and stacy beck said...

Angie, so don't know if you care for my opinion and really I don't have as much time to commit to a reply as I'd like...I've got letters to editor to write for prop 8 and well, we're busy out here on the front lines. Its been scary, but a true testament to the cause. So I will say that I agree quite closely with what was said by "esplinlin" althougth I don't have the years or experience to sound like a parent figure telling you.

I majored in political science in school and loved it. I dreamed of the day I'd be a California Supreme Court Judge and run for political office. Then as I entered the politics of the legal world and realized how distorted and frustrating it was I got discouraged. I decided I didn't want a part of it. This election and especially Prop 8 has helped me to realize the power we have as individuals in a democracy. Yes we have problems but we have so much to be thankful for. When making political decisions I have learned to turn to the scriptures and to the Lord. I've had distinct experiences and concerns in my political debates where immediately after I attended institute and received an answer in the scriptures. There is much of politics in the BofM and it helps us to understand the differneces between wicked and righteous leaders. As for moral issues like abortion and marriage the Lord will definitely give us an answer. The church has set guidelines on abortion and marriage. Finacially they advise us to be frugal, live within our means which to me seems to fit with a more republican stance. I believe its true that most democrats and I get the feeling especially Barak Obama wants to spend a lot of money, money we don't have. Programs are important, but so much of what the government does includes beuracracies that waste tons of money and don't solve social issues. I think there needs to be more support of private institutions and churchs to help deal with social issues. My beef is that I'm a hard working person that got hit with this mortgage mess who's trying to faithfully make their mortgage payments and not take advantage of the government or bail-out programs all the while watching my house value go down by 100,000 because government and banks got greedy and loaned billions of dollars to people for homes they couldn't afford. There are alot of accountability issues. But nothing will be done to help us so we pray for the best and work to pay extra on the principal. In the end I think the moral issues matter the most--they will to the Lord and in the next life. Prop 8, I believe, is part of the refining process and separating the wheat from the tares. It takes a lot of courage to donate money in times like this, to give several hours a week to going door-to-door, calling, waving signs in public, etc. Its been gut-wrenching getting laughed at by the opposing side, but when the Lord asks--we do (or at least he hopes we do).

Wow this is a book. So I say go to the scriptures. As for homeschool I'm about there, but I'm gonna wait it out I've got 5 years before a decision has to be made. If not, I'm running for school board member and that's where I'll start my political campaign.

The most important thing we can do is preserve our freedom to vote and live in a democracy and too much government takes that away. THe founders were inspired we know that from revelation. So get out and vote to the best your ability! And Yes on Prop 8!

Orange Juice said...

James, I rest my case. Thanks for proving my words correct. There is a fundamental difference between talk radio and news radio. News radio has nothing to do with thinkers, while talk radio is pretty much thinkers.

Also, women have a right to do what they want with their body, but not necessarily with a baby's. I say choose life, cause your mom did. People can choose who they want to be with and live with, but marriage, by definition, is a union between a man and a woman. If it is same-sex, then it is called something else.

Also, I want to know where you got your information from about Obama's Harvard education. What merits did he have? (Minority?) Do lawyers not help people? And check some of your citations, they seem not to work correctly.

Lastly, to everyone,
I don't apologize to anyone who gets offended--this is politics and if you take offense, then don't participate. I am not opposed to any person on here, but rather political views. Politics is a naturally heated subject. If you can't walk the walk, then don't try to talk the talk.

james said...

I hope that it’s ok that I keep writing here if it is not appreciated I will stop. But since I was addressed directly I will respond.



The littlest posable intervention required to prevent the world economy from freezing up is billions of dollars of government help, put simply, the entire world banking community will stay in a state of deadlock and no business will be able to do business unless all banks are guaranteed, all banks have stopped loaning money to other banks.

As to Obama’s Harvard degree... it just speaks to his ability to learn, and McCains real world experience? he himself said that he does not no much about the economy and if you look at his record on matters related to the economy it bears that out. Getting elected to the Senate just means that you are good at running for office, and getting reelected to a safe district means little. But yea look at his record and his words. I do not think you should take my word on any of this, or McCain or Obama’s either but do non-partisan research and see what you come up with. Just be open and prepared for what you find


We seem to almost agree here, but I have to say that I agree that war can make a country safer but only if it is willing to completely exterminate its enemy, 100% Destruction of the enemy, genocide, anything short of that will not fix the problem. But there are other solutions.

Religious Values?

I totally disagree with you, and frankly what you suggest frightens me. That mindset is what prevents me from associating to closely with Mormons, a fact that saddens me.

Everyone values are currently protected by the Constitution as much as they can be protected by a government. Protecting religious values is a personal thing, protect your own values, whatever they might be. Just do not try and impose your “values” on me.

Health Care

Our healthcare system is broken because there is not enough regulation, there I said it. Look around the world at systems that work and you will notice one thing, Government regulation that promote parity. Why in the US are the infant mortality rates, rate of un-insured and cost of care, the highest in the first world? Put the US system side by side with ANY other first world country. What we have here is a joke, a very very sad joke.

It is easy to say that government intervention is bad, and it is easy to cherry pick from other systems and only look at there problems, but I challenge you to do a system wide comparison and show me a system that is worse than ours. Please do not say that there are waiting list for care in Canada and England, there are waiting lists for care in this country, but worst there are large segments of the population that can not get care in this country, yes people who can not get health care except for in the emergency room.


I can not even go into that here... but I suspect we agree

Nation Security

More Military=more security?

great statement that seems to have common sense cache, one example?

That was the mind set that destroyed the Soviet Union, allowed Germany to over run France, Started WWI. The examples stretch to the start of history i hope we can learn from past folly

Enough military + enough diplomacy= security

The end? These topics are never fully enough explored

aenon. said...

Dear James,

When was the last time you had to wait a couple of months to get an MRI?

Probably when you were in Canada.

james said...



followers of Rush call themselves dido heads,

If you call the straw man arguments that rule talk radio reasonable arguments then we do not have enough common ground to probably even have a civil conversation.

The problems with “Talk Radio?” so many fact checking, heavy censorship, Giant egos, mob mentality, hate talk, and on and on. but simply it is nothing more than propaganda costumed as conversation. There are no thinker on talk radio.

“The reason there is no liberal talk radio is because we want news not propaganda, we are thinkers not followers, liberal talk radio is neither needed nor wanted.”

We want news from the radio, (and entertainment). Conversations are dialogues between real people, disagreements and agreements. Talk radio is free of that. Radio is one source for news, not the only one. And anyone who trusts one source is a fool.

As to a woman’s choice... I do not dictate to any woman what she can do to her body, I feel sorry for any woman in your life if you feel that you have the right to tell them what they can and can not do.

What information are you talking about? I get my information from many sources and never just one.

Are you one of those people who believes that Barack Hussein Obama is a secret Muslim and that he attended a Wahabi Madrasa?

My sister, who is one of my best friends, is a lawyer. My uncle, a lawyer, talked me out of law. And yes some lawyers do help people, and some people think the they can better help people in other ways.


james said...


one more thing, as to your definition of marriage, I would agree that there are many people that define it that way today, but that definition has no real historical relevance. That said I agree that no one should be able to tell a church who they should marry with their ceremony. And it is ludicrous to think God would honor a state sanctioned contract just because the state sanctioned it. So... why do you care who the state lets enter into a contract(marriage)?

Lauren said...


Please don't worry. I was never upset in the slightest, more amused, but I do want to clear something up.

I never said Obama's policies boiled down to anything - that was an assumption made on someone elses part.

However, I stand by exactly what I did say. I do not believe that people who are pro-choice are all baby killers.

I was referring specifically to the Legislation that Obama is trying to pass that would REFUSE and make it UNLAWFUL to administer medical treatment to babies that have survived abortions. That, plainly said, is that Obama feels it is best to let those babies die.

The second part of what I said is that Obama thinks it is a good idea to teach children of kindergartener age to masturbate.

Again, I do not take that back. I have read Obama's curriculum. I know what it says. I have also taught children of Kindergartener and first grade age for over a year. If you can show me a child of that age that is interested in or knows anything about masturbation I assure you they are the acception not the rule.

Therefore, when those children are sat down by an authority or teacher in a class room setting and told that it feels good to touch their penises and vaginas, and it is okay as long as they are doing it in private - that is teaching them to masturbate.

I never dared suggest that the vast reaching policies of either candidate could be condensed to anything. But, I fundamentally disagree with TWO of Barak Obama's SPECIFIC policies, and I stated so, because those TWO policies have more than any others determined my vote.

My point to you Dear Angie in my original post was to tell you to vote based on the issues that meant the most to you. Because as you said in your post about proposition 8, if we all voted that way, we truly would be represented as a nation.

djinn said...

McCain is a spoiled chid who got through the military because of his family connections. He has a terrible temper, lives the sort of bubble that 100 million gives one, doesn't know the difference between the Shia and the Sunni in Iraq, and would be a complete disaster. A complete disaster.

To esplinlin's points 1. you are blaming the victim. There is an actual villain in the works, Senator. Phil Gramm, who passed legislation allowing unregulated derivatives in 2001. This allowed banks to think that they had a way to regulate risk--hence they made those stupid mortgages which made quite a bit of money in the short term. Phil Gramm is McCain's major financial advisor. Tank the american economy, get a promotion. Coolio, The Wall Street Journal says 80% of the fraud in mortgages was produced directly by the financial institutions themselves. It's unfortunately complex, but you are blaming the victims. The financial markets have to be regulated. Deregulation is not some magic word that you sprinkle on top of arguments for extra glittery sheen. They're tremendously complex, they depend on this rickety scaffolding that we have created over the, uh, centuries to keep our massive markets running.

point 2. McCain doesn't seem to know a thing about the middle east. Nothing. Except staying in Iraq is pretty good idea.

4. Medicaid has 3% overhead. It's tremendously efficient. Read. Something. We, the US spend twice what any other country does on medical care and show up in the international rankings at about (from memory0 27th? Just above Costa Rica? Surely we could do bettr.

5. Sweet Angie, you confess to not knowing a whole lot? and you're in Provo? What are you afraid of?

Bush and his buddied tanked the economy totally. but his rich buddies made out like bandits. McCain is all about rich buddies (remember that fortune?) You are voting against your best interests. You are voting against your own interests.

What is this baffling belief that voting for McCain will lead to lower spending. Bush has pushed the deficit to unheard of levels. What will change?

The whole business about Obama and aborted babies is all nonsense. Nonsense. There was already a law in place, sigh. Besides, really there's no such thing as "partial birth abortion" all those laws have done is make delivery in emergency situations much more dangerous. Thanks for hurting women and not helping any children that had any chance of survival.

Fish nation, we have the scariest, most activist judges I think this country has ever had. They are activist. The vote against the settled law, they decided Bush v. Gore on embarrasingly thin grounds, that is, they just made it up because they felt like it.

djinn said...

on, and aenon, if you don't have insurance, it takes forever to get that MRI, here in the good ol' U. S. of A.

djinn said...

There is no legislation that Obama is trying to pass to make it illegal to save aborted babied born alive. What bill is this? Do you think he's a muslim, too? Obama is Pro-choice, as am I. As are all anti-choice women who get abortions when they need them because of their "special circumstances." Turns out political belief doesn't much affect an individual woman's behavior.

esplinlin said...

to djinn: I'm not blaming the victims. People who couldn't afford their mortgages got sucked into the mess by Congressmen, who wanted to buy votes at the expense of the poor. The only way to expand the housing market was to make loans farther and farther down the income ladder, and then have the government guarantee them. That was all fine and good until housing prices went down and the value of the homes exceeded the cost of the mortgage. That leaves the government stuck with the guarantees. When people are not induced to spend more than they can afford, they make better choices. If you want to blame people, start with Chris Dodd, Barney Frank and Chuck Shumer.

McCain proved his character in Viet Nam. As to formal education, it doesn't measure a person's judgment. Only experience show's that.

As for health care. government intervention complicates it immensely. Insurance companies make it more expensive by intervening. Markets
work to increase efficiency and reduce costs, and
anything we can to reintroduce market concepts will help. My husband is both a physician and an economist, and we discuss this often.

Finally, to ryan and stacey beck, I agree with you completely. Read the scriptures, study the issues out in your own mind and pray about it.

djinn said...

Esplinlin, you are looking at the mostest tiniest part of the current financial fiasco. Unfortunately the actual explanation is immensely complicated, but can be boiled down to the Bush II regime deregulating new forms of financial devices whose actual risk was not known. (must also give some blame to Clinton here for partially repealing GlassSteagall) Everything else is a side show. This gets confusing fast. BUT DON"T BLAME THE VICTIM. Or do, but, sheesh, read about credit default swaps, leveraging to an insane degree, Paulson protecting his buddies at Goldman Sachs, oh forget it.

djinn said...

How did McCain prove his character in Viet Nam? He was a major player/party boy--who skated by because of his immensely powerful father and grandfather. He the was a POW. when he got out he resumed his party boy ways, cheated on his wife, divorced her for an immensely wealthy heiress (only after the first wife was in a disfiguring auto accident). Being a POW makes you a hero. It tells nothing of your qualifications for president. In fact one of his fellow POW buddies has come out against him in a big way because of his really apparently terrible temper.

Maria said...

Waiting a few months for an MRI would be bad for people who already have health care in this country. For people who have nothing, millions and millions of them including babies and children, waiting a few months is better than never getting anything. The Christian thing to do, the patriotic thing to do, is to give a little of what you have back into the pot so that those who are truly suffering can have just a little bit. I will happily wait a little longer for the MRI if it would allow the millions of uninsured to get basic health care. Share, even when it hurts to share.

Besides, providing basic health care to all, including preventative care, saves money in the long run because we aren't using taxes to pay for emergency room services for uninsured people who go there to get PREVENTABLE diseases treated. Sharing, in this case, will ultimately save the tax payers money.

Fish Nat!on said...

An MRI is just an example. What about something that, waiting a few months for, means death. Would you be so willing to wait then?

Why should everyone have to wait? Should we punish the majority because a minority can't always afford health insurance? Should we compromise the quality for all, and take everything down a few notches to help a few? And sure, 40 million isn't exactly a few (although that number is debatable) however it is still less than 1/7 of the population.

I just don't like the idea of screwing over everyone, to benefit the minority. People should be responsible for their own insurance. Sometimes people make poor life choices, which land them in situations that are less fortunate than others. We all shouldn't have to pay for the mistakes of some. I am currently an uninsured American. I passed a kidney stone a few weeks ago. when the pain set in, I was terrified that it was my apendex, and that I was going to be royally screwed because of my lack of insurance. However, I don't think that anyone owes me anything, or that I should have it automatically provided. My current life choices have placed me in this uninsured position, and it is up to me to dig myself out of it. I agree that changes need to be made, and there needs to be some regulation. But universal health care isn't the answer. There is a really good reason why people leave their countries and come here to be cared for. For goodness sakes, ask physicians what would happen with socialized medicine.

Maybe this is an unchristian attitude. But whatever. I believe in accountability, and personal responsibility. And there is WAY to damn little of that going around in this country.

I guess all I am saying is, in the end, I choose quality over quantity.

Maria said...

So, those babies we all want to protect....It's their problem, their responsibility to deal with the fact that they don't have health care? And, oh well if their parents are too sick to work because they have untreated diseases that could have been prevented with education and preventative care? People without health care are very expensive for the tax payers, and a lot of them are not irresponsible slackers. People who get laid off but can't get insurance because they guessed it...a health problem? People who work two jobs but still can't afford insurance?

And what sort of quality care do you think they are going to be offering you when you tell them you have no insurance? Wouldn't it be nice to be able to afford to take care of yourself responsibly? When your appendix does burst and you are handed a bill for $50,000 and can't pay it, the tax payers pick up the tab.

Not providing health care to all is not only wrong on a personal human moral level, it's a financial disaster.

Also, why don't you apply the same logic to education? Should we get rid of all public schools and no longer guarantee every child an education? Does it even make sense that we guarantee every child an education but don't care if they're to sick to thrive? We already have a number of socialized programs (banks now too) that are very popular and successful. Why not health care?

djinn said...

Fishnation, we're 27th in the world (in the 20s at any rate) when it comes to health care. You're not getting quality over quantity, you're not getting either.

Fish Nat!on said...

Maria, did you even listen to what you just said? There are a number of socialized programs that are popular and currently working well? Banks?? Really??? The more the government meddles in things, the worst they get generally. Education is a perfect example. Have you ever talked to a teacher? Being related to several, and having several friends who are, I hear nothing positive about the government taking more initiative and sticking their noses in teachers' affairs. No child left behind anyone? The perfect example of government meddling that causes way more problems than solves. Does it assure that each child succeeds at at least some minor level? sure it does. but at the expense of the rest of the children.

djinn, what is this magical list to which you refer? have you even delved into what it actually means? if you are talking about "fairness of finincial contribution" then boy Columbia and Cuba sure rank up there highly. I mean, in Colombia a poor person only pays the equivalent of 1 dollar per year, while a wealthier person pays 7.6 dollars. Gosh, lets all move to Colombia. Two shining beacons of socialism. Unfortunately, the US ranked in the 50's there, which dragged us down to that awful number in the 30's (it's actually worse than you thought). Where the US does rank number #1 is in responsiveness. "Responsiveness includes two major components. These are (a) respect for persons (including dignity, confidentiality and autonomy of individuals and families to decide about their own health); and (b) client orientation (including prompt attention, access to social support networks during care, quality of basic amenities and choice of provider." Have you ever had medical care for something? My wrist was broken pretty horribly a few years back (thank god i did have insurance) and they did a pretty damn good job about fixing it. My wrist works at least 95% as well as it did before being broken. I shudder to think what would have happened had I had to wait months to receive that operation, or had some Colombian doctor who zipped through a cheap, government sponsored medical program attempt to do it. You have to look at the numbers, and why many of these places rank more highly. A great deal of it has to do with cost, not quality.

A lot of our problems have to do with high administrative costs among health care systems, where money is just pissed away, and not put to better usage, thus driving up cost. Also the lack of computerized systems connecting doctors and pharmacies. There are plenty of problems to fix that would drive down the cost of health care before actually having to take the drastic step of socializing it.

Health insurance does not mean universal access to health care. In practice, many countries promise universal coverage but ration care or have long waiting lists for treatment.
Rising health care costs are not a uniquely American phenomenon. Although other countries spend considerably less than the United States on health care, both as a percentage of GDP and per capita, costs are rising almost everywhere, leading to budget deficits, tax increases, and benefit reductions.
In countries weighted heavily toward government control, people are most likely to face waiting lists, rationing, restrictions on physician choice, and other obstacles to care.
Countries with more effective national health care systems are successful to the degree that they incorporate market mechanisms such as competition, cost sharing, market prices, and consumer choice, and eschew centralized government control.

Although no country with a national health care system is contemplating abandoning universal coverage, the broad and growing trend is to move away from centralized government control and to introduce more market-oriented features.

The answer then to America’s health care problems lies not in heading down the road to national health care but in learning from the experiences of other countries, which demonstrate the failure of centralized command and control and the benefits of increasing consumer incentives and choice.

Maria said...

Socialized programs: free public education, social security, unemployment benefits, medicare...Do away with them all? These are all federal programs paid for with taxes.

One proposal for health care is to let all insured Americans keep their current insurance, except laws would be reformed so that companies couldn't shut quite so many people out or make huge profits causing premiums to be unaffordable. Those currently not insured would be guaranteed the right to obtain insurance from a group policy sponsored by the federal government (or they could buy private insurance if possible for them). This government option would be affordable for the purchasers and for the country because preventing/treating disease is cheaper than paying for emergency room treatment and care of what ends up being much sicker people.
It's also affordable because, by virtue of having millions of people participating, the risk is spread across a large group (the idea behind any kind of insurance). This is what one of our presidential candidates is suggesting.

It's not true that there would be one federal health care program. No current proposal asks citizens to give up their insurance from private insurance companies if they don't want to. The idea is to make health insurance possible and affordable for everyone.

One thing to watch out for: if you eventually do get health insurance they might refuse to ever treat you for any problems relating to a previous injury. So for example, should you get arthritis in that once broken wrist and need surgery---the insurance company can refuse to pay for it. If you develop diabetes or asthma or heart problems before you get insurance, the insurance companies may shut you out when you want to sign up no matter how much you're willing to pay. Your family and the taxpayers will foot the bill---and you will not be getting fast high-quality treatment.

It's important to keep in mind how you would feel about all this if you were sick (or if your child were sick), broke, and no insurance company would accept you, or if you simply couldn't afford the insurance. That's what's going on for millions of people in this company. It's a little too convenient to write them off as lazy slackers.

Maria said...

Also, don't confuse Bush's No Child Left Behind with education being a guaranteed right for all American children. I totally agree that Bush's No Child program is one of his disasters. And, I am a teacher.

djinn said...

So,Fishnation, your point is that poor people should die? And their kids? Too bad for them!

Maria said...

Let's keep the conversation respectful.

Fish Nat!on said...

That's me. The baby killing poor hater.

The bottom line is, I support the constitution, which has no provision for taking any money away from one person and giving it to another. We can thank FDR for that. We can thank him for all of the lives made stagnant through the welfare system. God bless the great society. And someday, we shall thank Mr. Obama for socialized medicine and for helping the small business owners of the nation to "share and spread the wealth around." Which, funny enough, is preached but not practiced by him. Look at Obama's and Biden's tax records. Neither of them have given more than 3 or 4 grand to any charitable organization over the last 5 years. How's that for benevolence? I guess they do really care about the poor of the US. As long as they can get the rest of us to foot the bill.

Don't get me wrong; I'm no lover of John McCain. Neither of them uphold the constitution. Both have fought to pass laws unconstitutional. But I guess with the right supreme court, anything can become "constitutional."

raffy taffy said...

I think all the socialists that have commented should just move to a socialist country instead of trying to socialize mine. I for sure don't want to live in socialism--it is kind of in opposition to what and why this country is what it is. Don't we live in a republic where majority rules. Like, say, if the majority doesn't want gay couples to be legally married, then they can't get legally married and all that marriage entails, because that is what the majority wants.

I understand all the arguments for helping those that either can't or don't help themselves, but when we start forcing the majority to cater to and help the minority, by goodness, we have become socialists. To hell with socialist programs. The reason why this country is so great is because of the freedom it provides, because of the accountability and responsibility it allowed its citizens to assume. And since they knew they were responsible for what they did, they worked hard to create the wonderful society we live in. When you know you can just sit on your ass and still get money, health care, and food on your table, how the hell can you expect yourself to be accountable for your actions. When the government will pay you as a single mom, but if you choose to get married (and make restitution for your promiscuity) you will no longer get paid from the government because you are no longer single, how the flip can you expect people to really take responsibility for their actions. You can't.

So don't try to make my country full of lassies and lowlifes who can't and don't want to help themselves. Please leave before you destroy my country and usher in Armageddon.

Maria said...

I don't think it's fair to imply that fish nation is a lowlife sitting on his ass not wanting to help himself. I'm sure he has a good reason for not having health insurance. It's really expensive and sometimes hard to find a company that will take you on. We can disagree without being unkind. And, we can change the laws so that health care is more affordable and accessible.

raffy taffy said...

Way to get curt Maria. But if you really think hard about it and really read Fish's comment, he chose to be in the position he is/was in. Rather, I'm talking about a socialist program that gives people incentives to not want to help themselves. That type of program is retarded if you ask me.

And if you are so worried about letting people have affordable health care, since you are so compassionate, then why don't you stop worrying about people that actually have health care and start worrying about people that don't even have health care, e.g. Africans. Then once everyone has health care, maybe you can try to argue that it should be socialized.

Maria said...

More than 50,000,000 Americans don't have health insurance. That's conservative.

raffy taffy said...

Maria, there is a big difference between health care and health insurance. I suggest you look into that.

Maria said...

You are absolutely right. Health insurance and health care are two different things. If an uninsured person gets hit by a bus, after he goes bankrupt he will still get a minimal level of health care. It will be payed for by tax payers. Socialism, no?

Ciao forever!

djinn said...

the uninsured person hit by the bus will only get help for life-threatening injuries. If he's just sick and can't work, for, say, a chronic condition caused by the bus, too bad for him.

djinn said...

Not to mention that many hospitals have closed their emergency rooms. They don't have to help.

djinn said...

And the person could have been insured, but was fired for being unable to, you know, work. Instant uninsurance.

djinn said...

Oh, and those horrilble horrible socialist countries have the highest living standard and happiness standard in the world. Let's not go there.