No, you're not the issue here, nor are you a "bad guy".

Nor do I think I am, or Joe is, or any other person..and that's where I think we differ.. you seem to be wanting to vilify me because I disagree with you.

I think you have very strong opinions, and I respect you for that. I'm the same way, and quite frankly, I'd much rather see someone with strong opinions, and willing to stand for those opinions, than someone who's apathetic about something as important as choosing our next leader. Decisions like this shape our country's future, I think that's worth a bit of controversy.

I don't think you're very skilled in debate, and equate disagreement with discussion, which most certainly isn't the case. I don't think you're very open minded or interested in hearing any one else's opinion, which is a shame, given that we all have things to learn, and can learn from one another, and I would suspect that your narrow-mindedness extends not only from political issues to personal affairs.

But do I think you're the issue or a bad guy? No, I don't. As I said in another thread, I think we're all basically friends on this forum, we just may not agree with one another.

And with that said, I think probably the best way to sum the totality of our conversations here up is that we can agree to disagree.

Dee :)

LOL. Methinks perhaps it might be a good time to buy some stock in Excedrin migraine..! And just think, we're not even past the primaries yet. The "Big Show" is yet to come.. just wait until the big 2 are chosen! :)

Between the media coverage, the candidates themselves,and would-be political pundits here on the board, on second thought..maybe we -all- ought to buy some stock in the meds of our choice! :)

Then again, as I said to Rouse, it's definitely better to see folks who feel strongly about the election than it is to see a lot of apathy.

Dee :)

Dee; one thing is for sure, I’m not vilifying anyone especially you. Read back through this tread and you will see that, if anything, the exact opposite may true.
It is obvious that we both have our own opinion, and that is certainly fine by me.
However; I should point out that your assessment of my debating skills, and indifference (closed mindedness if you will), couldn’t be further off if you tried.

Obama and Hillary had their debate in Texas last night, and Hillary was turned into the bad guy too, when she ask Obama for the substance behind the rhetoric.
I’m not so sure I like the company; but maybe now Hillary knows what it feels like to ask a substantive question in an ultra liberal venue.

Obama’s answer to Hillary’s question on heath care, was to “fine” parents that don’t buy insurance for their kids. Now that should do-it; let’s start making it a criminal offense not mind the government when they tell you where, and how to spend your money.

Give me a break! The list goes on.

[quote=ROUSE;57706][font=Times New Roman]

Obama’s answer to Hillary’s question on heath care, was to “fine” parents that don’t buy insurance for their kids. Now that should do-it; let’s start making it a criminal offense not mind the government when they tell you where, and how to spend your money.

In all honesty, I have to confess, I didn't see the debate, at the time it was being aired - I got one of those lovely little reminders that life is what happens when you least expect it, a friend was involved in a serious car accident, and I was a little busy most of the night with calls between family and friends. With that in mind, and not knowing the context of the remarks you cite, I don't really feel like I can, in any fairness, refute -or- support them.

Obama's stated position on his website varies a little from what you're saying was said, so perhaps there's a little interpretation going on there, I'm not certain, as again, I didn't see the remarks myself. Rather than to cut and paste his stated plan for health care in it's entirety here in this post, however, I'll simply provide the link to it here:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/

Personally, as a parent of a younger child, I -want- my child to have health care coverage, and wouldn't need to be fined in order to provide it- nor do I think most parents would. The question here is affordability.. If programs are established, as Obama , according to his website, states that he wishes to establish, to make premiums affordable, and offer subsidies to those families, whether receiving medicare or not, who can't afford insurance, then I don't see why any parent wouldn't -want- to insure their child. It's just a responsible thing to do.

To my knowledge, Obama's not taking away the ability to -choose- what sort of health care your child receives, there will still be private policies available, and you can spend your money as you wish.. but he is providing a -way- , an alternate program for families to provide insurance for their children.

Personally, and here's my opinion and mine alone-this has nothing to do with politicos at all, this is purely Dee here, so you won't see any sources quoted :).....if a child is injured and needs medical care, and a parent is capable of securing care for that child, but doesn't.. that parent is prosecuted through the legal system for endangering that child's welfare. A parent is held to the responsibility of providing for a child's needs,and welfare... if -and note, I'm saying "if" here, adding in conditions -a parent has the -ability- , and the -capability- to provide health insurance for their child, if the cost of premiums are affordable enough for -all- , and there are no other complications, such as "Uninsurability due to preexisting conditions" , then yes, a parent should be -expected- to provide for their children. The problem is, and here is where that condition alert comes into play...at the present time, there are so many parents out there that *don't* have the ability or capability to provide health insurance for their children, nor are all children guaranteed insurance, as providers can deny coverage for pre-existing conditions left and right, and beyond that, there aren't nearly as many subsidies available to help those of middle income get insurance for kids as there need to be. Without the presence of those conditions I mentioned- the presence of ability and capability and the absence of uninsurability, it would be ridiculously unfair to fine parents for not providing for their children; however, if everyone had equal access to insurance, and affordability of insurance, I don't see why it's unthinkable that we should fine parents who simply choose to spend their money on luxuries rather than necessities for their children.

On a personal level, I've "been there, done that" as far as not being able to afford health insurance for my kids due to the high cost of premiums. Before entering the military, my husband's job simply didn't pay enough for us to be able to purchase the company coverage, and eat at the same time. We were lucky enough to qualify for state sponsored insurance at the time, but there were many in the same town I was in who weren't so lucky,and as a result were uninsured. My sister has a special needs child who spent the first 6 months of his life in NICU, and she and her husband had to fight the insurance provider they were contracted to through his employer to -keep- her son insured due to his "pre-existing condition". At this point in my life, I'm very grateful to have the medical coverage we have through the military (despite the occasional lack of quality in the care) , I -realize- how blessed I am, as I know what it's like to be without it... but I still remember how it was for us when we -weren't- able to afford health care, and the struggles we had, and because of that , yes, I'm hoping that -someone- will be able to help those who are in the same boat we were in at that time.

Do I think Obama has -the- answer for health care reform? No, honestly, like you, I see problems with some of his concepts.

We -do- need some kind of health care reform in our country, to have 45 million Americans without insurance,among that number, children, and thusly, potentially not receiving needed health care because they can't afford it, is a tragedy.

How do we solve that problem? Honestly, I don't know, and truthfully, I don't think any of the candidates there have the answers..I haven't seen any plan presented that I -don't- see problems with...but at least Obama is making an effort, in stating that he will expand the availability of government programs and health care subsidies to those of the middle income range who have no other options, an effort that I'm not seeing in an administration vetoing that same measure not once, but -twice- now, or in a candidate that promises to follow that "status quo".


Dee :)

[quote=ROUSE;57706][font=Times New Roman]
However; I should point out that your assessment of my debating skills, and indifference (closed mindedness if you will), couldn’t be further off if you tried.

Ahh, my friend, go back and read a previous post I made. Never have I assessed you as being indifferent. To the contrary, I have complimented you on being the opposite. To quote myself:

"I think you have very strong opinions, and I respect you for that. I'm the same way, and quite frankly, I'd much rather see someone with strong opinions, and willing to stand for those opinions, than someone who's apathetic about something as important as choosing our next leader. Decisions like this shape our country's future, I think that's worth a bit of controversy."


There is a -huge- contrast between narrowmindedness/closedmindedness and indifference.

To quote Webster's Online dictionary:

indifferent

a: marked by no special liking for or dislike of something <indifferent about which task he was given> b: marked by a lack of interest, enthusiasm, or concern for something :

narrow-minded

lacking in tolerance or breadth of vision

Given your conviction and willingness to stand by your beliefs as you've evidenced here, I don't think even a blind , deaf or mute man could ever accuse you of holding a lack of interest, enthusiasm or concern for the political arena.

LOL.. a lack of vision , and tolerance, however.. ehhh, that's a different story, but that's my opinion, and as I've said before, the old adage about opinions and their worth could certainly be applied to that. :)

Dee :)

Something to think about. Well placed sources in the Republican National Committee (RNC) have told McCain has already settled on Condaleesa Rice as his VP choice. The RNC thinks a black running mate may thwart a candidacy by Barak Obama or a Clinton/Obama ticket.
I don't believe it.

McCain's Running mates
http://newsbyus.com/more.php?id=11210_0_1_0_M

__________________
Just my humble opinion!

Now that’s something to think about.
John will need a booster for his ticket; his conservative credentials are certainly suspect to many. So, whomever he chooses needs to be impeccable in that regard, otherwise what real chose will be on the ballet.

Rouse

It would definitely mean that no matter who won this election, it would be bound to be a historic ticket.

Rouse is right (*G* Yes, you can faint now, I said it! LOL :) ) , McCain isn't exactly the poster child for the conservative, so whoever he chooses as a running mate should ideally be someone who is able to help in that area.


Dee :)

Parisok.. that article definitely brings up some interesting possibilities.

Speaking of running mates .. *cough* Has anyone else noticed that John Edwards is being very quiet, and still hasn't offered an endorsement to either Obama or Clinton?

Could he be waiting to be courted for a v.p. run?

Verry, verry interesting! :)

Dee