Poll - Democrat or Republican?

[Boo Boo Kitty 3]

I agree that it is not my right to impose my morals on anyone else. I would NEVER abort a baby, but I do understand there are worse things...

Parents that raise children that they literally hate and never wanted. That is where child abuse can begin. Mothers that have children after using drugs the entire pregnancy.

And yes, there are so many people that would love to adopt a baby, but I actually DO NOT agree with that when there are SOOOOOO many kids that are older that never get adopted because they are just too old. It is sad.

So while I think abortion is wrong for me, I also know it is the right choice in many cases.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

Pro-choice and pro-life are very often confused with pro-abortion and anti-abortion, but that is a huge mistake.

Pro-choice and pro-life are very often confused with immoral and moral, and that is also a huge mistake.

Jesus ministered to the poor more than any other group.

Many of the Pro-life people, especially the most radical ones, believe in protecting the life of every fertilized embryo until it takes its first breath. Then if the mother can not afford to provide food and shelter, she "should take personal responsibility" for her offspring. Many people who are pro-life tell me that they have both sympathy and empathy for new mothers who can not afford to feed and give their babies a home and medical care, yet they vote for politicians who cut Medicaid and food-stamps, and force women (who need to take care of their children who are less than school age) to work for their welfare, but then don't provide any means of day-care.

The so-called Christian Right does not act like Jesus in their treatment of the poor, whether the poor are adults or infants.

Many of the Pro-life people also have no problems with executing people convicted of murder and many of them want other crimes added to the list of capital crimes. Even though in 1999, a group of graduate students doing a class project found 13 of 25 death-row inmates (at one prison) were innocent and then found and tracked down all of the 13 people who had actually committed the murders, many Pro-life people have told me that if those 13 people who had been on death-row would have been executed (wrongfully), it would have been a small price to pay in order to keep the death penalty.

Many of the Pro-life people also have no problems with sending US military personal to drop bombs, launch missiles and invade other countries, even though that country had never attacked the USA, had no weapons to attack the USA and no means of delivering weapons to the USA (even if they had weapons). They will take for granted that the person in authority must be right and if he says it is ok to kill, then ok it is. Didn't the USA (and most of the civilized world) condemn Germany for that same blind faith in the authority of a man in the 1930's and 40's?

Many of the Pro-life people also have problems with allowing medical research that will help people that are living and breathing. The 16 cell embryo which is so small that 1000's could fit on this *, seems to have more value than a man dying from Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's, diabetes or a myriad of other illnesses. Does life begin at conception? Is a sperm cell alive? If not, how does it swim to the unfertilized egg? "Does that life have any meaning?" is a more important question. If anyone thinks that every embryo has a soul, I question that person's judgment of God's intelligence. Would a God who is so powerful and knowing bother putting a soul into every embryo? Does anyone really believe when a fertility clinic harvests 20 eggs and then fertilizes them, that God puts 20 souls into that petri dish. I think God is a whole lot smarter than that.

One can be pro-life and demand a strong defense, but one can not logical claim to be pro-life when they let babies starve, let innocent people die by execution, allow people to die of illness when medical science might be able to save them and also accept anything less than 100% proof that we need to fight a war.

Pro-life is just a meaningless title when used in this total context.

And being Pro-life is not any more moral than Pro-Choice if it means neglecting the poor, neglecting to make sure people accused of crimes are given fair trials, neglecting sick people and allowing needless wars to be fought, especially against countries 1/10 our size.

[patty103 0]

I agree with Carlene when she asked if you are better off than you were 8 years ago. No I am not and don't know anybody personally that is.

this country is in a mess, trillions of dollars deficit, in a war killing our boys where we have no business, Losing jobs to foreign markets everyday, and everybody got mad over Clintons Affair, seems kinda petty to me, after all I am not Hillary and it didn't concern me, he was just the one that got caught. And these Pubs preach morals and family values, makes me sick. Where are theirs, but I do believe in separation of Church and state, don't bring Politics in the pulpit.. Maybe I sound liberial, I don't mean to, I go to church every sunday, to pray for myself and others not to judge. Notice I said these Pubs, there is good and bad in both Races, good and bad in church and out of church. but as for me well I guess I have summed it up which side I am on and I didn't mean to ramble .

[BJean 16]

Tired Old Man: yeah, what you said... that's what I meant to say. You go, man.

[MuffinTop 0]

...

How many social programs for Americans could we have run with 100 billion dollars?

...

100 billion sounds like a lot, but to put it in perspective, in 2005:

519 billion spent on Social Security

333 billion spent on Medicare

182 billion spent on Medicaid

(source: http://www.cbo.gov/budget/budproj.shtml)

I think most people want the same thing - life, liberty, & pursuit of happiness.

Social programs definitely have their place, but need to be limited so that they cannot be taken advantage of, and so that they do not create either an entitlement mentality or a dependency.

(Okay -- conservative republicrat/demican here)

-Jim

[Carlene 12]

Social Security and Medicare are not "social programs" and they would never have been part of the budget in the first place if administrations from both parties had not started raiding the SS fund as if it were their own personal cookie jar.

[MuffinTop 0]

...

The reason it is so expensive both for the seniors and for the tax-payers is because there is a provision in the law which makes it illegal for the US Government to negotiate medicare Rx prices with the Drug Companies.

Canada negotiates prices with the drug companies.

The US Veteran's administration negotiates Rx prices with the drug companies.

Insurance Companies negotiates prices with the drug companies.

The biggest purchaser of Rx drugs in the world, the Medicare department of the USA cannot negotiates Rx prices with the drug companies.

Was that a good piece of legislation?

As I understand it, the reason Canada gets cheaper drugs is because they have told the drug companies, "If you charge us the full price (that you need to recoup your costs + profit), then we will simply ignore your patents and produce generic equivalents anyway - the hell with you". US doesn't seem to be in that same position.

Unfortunately (fortunately?) the costs of developing a drug and getting it approved are horrendous. The bulk of which is paid for by the high prices those drugs are sold for in the US. Still, I'd rather be here in the US than in Mexico, where you never know if you're just buying sugar pills.< /p>

-Jim

[coltonwade 27]

Pro-life is just a meaningless title when used in this total context.

And being Pro-life is not any more moral than Pro-Choice if it means neglecting the poor, neglecting to make sure people accused of crimes are given fair trials, neglecting sick people and allowing needless wars to be fought, especially against countries 1/10 our size.

I agree 100% of what you said . You have SUCH a way with words TOM .:confused:

[coltonwade 27]

I agree with Carlene when she asked if you are better off than you were 8 years ago. No I am not and don't know anybody personally that is.

this country is in a mess, trillions of dollars deficit, in a war killing our boys where we have no business, Losing jobs to foreign markets everyday, and everybody got mad over Clintons Affair, seems kinda petty to me, after all I am not Hillary and it didn't concern me, he was just the one that got caught. And these Pubs preach morals and family values, makes me sick. Where are theirs, but I do believe in separation of Church and state, don't bring Politics in the pulpit.. Maybe I sound liberial, I don't mean to, I go to church every sunday, to pray for myself and others not to judge. Notice I said these Pubs, there is good and bad in both Races, good and bad in church and out of church. but as for me well I guess I have summed it up which side I am on and I didn't mean to ramble .

I Can tell you that we( as in my family) are better off Financally than 8 yrs ago . HOWEVER we Filled Bankcrupcy (Chapter 7) Which was the best thing that we could have done. BUT , HUGE BUT here. BECAUSE of the BUSH Administration People like me who had $55,000 in Medical Bills because of 2 eye surgeries my son had and ER Bills from my Chronic Migraines .... (BTW I had health insurance for one of those surgeries)... it is now Nearly IMPOSSIBLE to file Chapter 7 for the working class . If we had waited One day longer to file , we would not have been able to . We would have made TOO MUCH money (at the time $35,000) To file Chapter 7 they would have FORCED us to file chapter 13 , if it was OK'd for us to file chapter 13 after that. Chapter 7 was the BEST Thing that ever happened to us financally it allowed us to start over. But the BUSH admin. changed that. WHY ?? Because people had too much CC Debit . Instead of changing the laws so the CC Companies cant RAPE You with Fee's they hurt the working class.

2 weeks after our bankcrupcy was Discharged I got 5 count them 5 CC"S in the mail 3 of 1 of them was from a company I owed $1000 AND that I claimed in the bankcrupcy . GO Figure that out. ( I only had $1500 in CC Debit too ) .

Mindy

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

As I understand it, the reason Canada gets cheaper drugs is because they have told the drug companies, "If you charge us the full price (that you need to recoup your costs + profit), then we will simply ignore your patents and produce generic equivalents anyway - the hell with you". US doesn't seem to be in that same position.

I would like to see a link to this theory of Canada threatening to violate patent law.

Whether that is true, and I doubt it (because, I am able to buy Rx drugs in the USA much cheaper than Canadian drugs through my medical plan and my plan did not threatening to violate patent law, it just negotiated price based on massive buying power), the USA's Medicare Rx plan law could still have allowed (legal) price negotiating. Other departments of the US government are allowed to negotiate Rx prices and they get the drugs cheaper and dispense the drugs at less cost to the US tax-payers.

...the reason Canada gets cheaper drugs is because they have told the drug companies, "If you charge us the full price (that you need to recoup your costs + profit)...Unfortunately (fortunately?) the costs of developing a drug and getting it approved are horrendous. The bulk of which is paid for by the high prices those drugs are sold for in the US.

You mentioned above that Canada will only pay for "cost + profit", by which I would assume you to mean that Research & Development (R&D) costs are not allowed to be recouped by the manufacturers. Yes, R&D is a very expensive component of the price of any product, but for some products the amount is even larger. Because of the need to test drugs (and medical equipment), many studies must be conducted at huge expense to the drug companies. That system is costing the US tax-payer billions in Medicare Rx costs and the Medicare Rx recipients still have to pay high prices even with the plan (as compared to my drug plan), plus it is costing the average non-Medicare Rx consumer a lot of money, so why not change the system.

Why not let each drug company develop the drug and then let the FDA test it? Yes, it would cost the Tax-payers a lot of money for that program, but I bet it would cost less than the cost of the Medicare Rx plan and it would save everyone a lot of money for prescriptions, whether a senior on the Medicare Rx plan, a Medicaid recipient or a no-plan average Rx consumer. And it would still allow the drug companies their profit since the largest part of the R&D costs would be eliminated.

[Boo Boo Kitty 3]

Pro-choice and pro-life are very often confused with pro-abortion and anti-abortion, but that is a huge mistake.

Pro-choice and pro-life are very often confused with immoral and moral, and that is also a huge mistake.

Jesus ministered to the poor more than any other group.

Many of the Pro-life people, especially the most radical ones, believe in protecting the life of every fertilized embryo until it takes its first breath. Then if the mother can not afford to provide food and shelter, she "should take personal responsibility" for her offspring. Many people who are pro-life tell me that they have both sympathy and empathy for new mothers who can not afford to feed and give their babies a home and medical care, yet they vote for politicians who cut Medicaid and food-stamps, and force women (who need to take care of their children who are less than school age) to work for their welfare, but then don't provide any means of day-care.

The so-called Christian Right does not act like Jesus in their treatment of the poor, whether the poor are adults or infants.

Many of the Pro-life people also have no problems with executing people convicted of murder and many of them want other crimes added to the list of capital crimes. Even though in 1999, a group of graduate students doing a class project found 13 of 25 death-row inmates (at one prison) were innocent and then found and tracked down all of the 13 people who had actually committed the murders, many Pro-life people have told me that if those 13 people who had been on death-row would have been executed (wrongfully), it would have been a small price to pay in order to keep the death penalty.

Many of the Pro-life people also have no problems with sending US military personal to drop bombs, launch missiles and invade other countries, even though that country had never attacked the USA, had no weapons to attack the USA and no means of delivering weapons to the USA (even if they had weapons). They will take for granted that the person in authority must be right and if he says it is ok to kill, then ok it is. Didn't the USA (and most of the civilized world) condemn Germany for that same blind faith in the authority of a man in the 1930's and 40's?

Many of the Pro-life people also have problems with allowing medical research that will help people that are living and breathing. The 16 cell embryo which is so small that 1000's could fit on this *, seems to have more value than a man dying from Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's, diabetes or a myriad of other illnesses. Does life begin at conception? Is a sperm cell alive? If not, how does it swim to the unfertilized egg? "Does that life have any meaning?" is a more important question. If anyone thinks that every embryo has a soul, I question that person's judgment of God's intelligence. Would a God who is so powerful and knowing bother putting a soul into every embryo? Does anyone really believe when a fertility clinic harvests 20 eggs and then fertilizes them, that God puts 20 souls into that petri dish. I think God is a whole lot smarter than that.

One can be pro-life and demand a strong defense, but one can not logical claim to be pro-life when they let babies starve, let innocent people die by execution, allow people to die of illness when medical science might be able to save them and also accept anything less than 100% proof that we need to fight a war.

Pro-life is just a meaningless title when used in this total context.

And being Pro-life is not any more moral than Pro-Choice if it means neglecting the poor, neglecting to make sure people accused of crimes are given fair trials, neglecting sick people and allowing needless wars to be fought, especially against countries 1/10 our size.

AMEN! :confused: You said it perfectly!

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

Another Holier than Thou, self-righteous Republican has bit the dust.

I have been working for, have personally met and share my E-mail wisdom (:faint:) with Tim Mahoney, who is running for Florida’s District 16 Congressional seat.

The incumbent, Mark Foley has one of the highest percentages of voting the way President BuSh would like in the US House of Representatives, but today the 6 term congressman who came into office in 1994 with the "Contract for America" class of Republicans, resigned after it was revealed that he wrote e-mails to a 16 year old male page.

[KariK 0]

Ya I just saw that on the news Old Man, what a super freak!

[Carlene 12]

What a hypocrite this guy is!!! The following is from MSNBC News...

Foley, as chairman of the Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus, had introduced legislation in July to protect children from exploitation by adults over the Internet. He also sponsored other legislation designed to protect minors from abuse and neglect.

"We track library books better than we do sexual predators," Foley has said.

I saw an interesting movie recently wherein the plot turns around a young girl who seeks revenge against an Internet stalker/pedophile. It's called "Hard Candy". I think a lot of men would find it very disturbing, but I was rooting for the kid, let me tell you!

[green 6]

I am a foreign national, a Canadian, and so I am commenting from the outside. I am surprised by those states who vote against the right to choose for these are invariably the same states that are cheap when it comes to the care of this very child who they claim that they want to save. Women who have money usually have education as well. They are less likely to find themselves accidentally pregnant and when they do find themselves pregnant, well, they can afford to go to a state that does provide easy access to abortion. It is inevitably the poor and under-educated woman who, upon finding herself pregnant, is going to also find herself up a creek without a paddle if she is living in the wrong state. She must have the child and yet she will get inadequate pre- and post-natal care. The child will grow up in an environment where he or she is undernourished and has no access to a quality education. These states, those which inevitably are the conservative states, are effectively breeding an underclass through denying their women the right to choose and, at the same time, denying them an adequate social safety net.

On some of the earlier posts on this thread people have commented that the Republicans are the moral party and that is why they vote for them. How can this be? This is a party that marches hand in hand with big business and doesn't seem to care about either the middle class or the working class. The trillions of dollars that this government is spending in Iraq could give your country universal health care or level the educational playing field. Are the Republicans moral simply because they don't approve of women's right to choose and because they toss around the term family values? And who is against family values for that matter? Is anyone in the world against the family? Everyone loves their family and understands that the family is something to be cherished. It is always important to look behind a slogan that pushes the buttons in order to see if it actually means anything.

As for universal health care, something which we have up here in Canada, here is the scoop: if you live in a major city you will receive good if not stellar medical care. My health care is stellar. I live in Toronto. Those who tend have problems are those who live in thinly populated areas of the country. Canada has thinly populated areas; we are a polar nation and our overall population is small. It is difficult to attract doctors to work in the outback and far more difficult to install hospitals with big-ticket diagnostic machines. Privatized medicine is not going to change Canadian demographics. The goods go where the population is. This is how economics works.

What we hear about your health care system is this: if someone in your family choses the wrong disease you can end up on the hook for hundreds of thousands of dollars. Declaring bankruptcy is no longer an option. What my brother, a doc who practices in the States, says is that he has to adjust how he would ideally like to treat his patient to fit that patient's financial profile. This was never a constraint while he was practicing in Canada. It is possible that you are receiving disinformation about our medical system from your politicians and the business interests which animate them. And there are rural folk who will have problems with our system but they won't fare any better under privatized medicine. Mind you, our climate stinks.