<p>yes, some say it works well in european countries, but you must remember how small they are in comparison to the united states. also, about 2/3 of their salaries go to the government… americans already complain about having to pay too much to the government. Also, i love how some americans believe universal healthcare will work well in US, while our own nursing schools talk to their new nurses about how it will not work</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This seems to be much more sensible than the system in place in countries like Sweden, England, etc. I think I misunderstood you. I still believe free healthcare for everyone is a terrible idea though.</p>
<p>Brown man, you ask the age-old question: efficiency or equity?
While I agree that a social system as dramatic as, say, Sweden’s would not work if implemented in the US, but I do believe that some elements of it would improve ours greatly.
The US has some dire social problems that need addressing.</p>
<p>No of course no one thinks free healthcare for all Americans could work. That would be crazy.</p>
<p>
Out of curiosity- what?</p>
<p>I know the health care system is flawed and needs fixing. </p>
<p>More importantly, the US has some dire economics problems that need addressing. I just don’t think the economics policies of most Democrats cater to this. I feel like Republicans win out in this respect no matter how illogical some of their ethical stances may be (i.e. abortion, stem-cell research, etc.).</p>
<p>
I don’t know many Hillary supporters who refuse to vote for Obama. Of the 18 million who came out to vote for Hillary, I’d say 17 million are going to come out to vote for Obama, at least. There might be a few who switch to McCain, but really, if you support Hillary on any issues (health care, economy, taxes, environment, etc.) why would you risk having McCain in office while Obama shares Hillary’s views on most every issue? Whats with these crazy people who won’t accept the fact that Obama won the nomination fair and square. Hillary endorsed Obama. End of story and move on.</p>
<p>Even if there are 1 million people who aren’t going to show up to vote for Hillary, it really depends on what part of the country they are from. If they are from Cali, NY, NJ, or some other state Obama is going to win by over 20% of the votes, stay home. How many of the Hillary supporters who refuse to vote for Obama are really going to have any effect on the election? He’s leading by over 5 points in Pennsylvania and has good leads in Ohio and Florida. Everything is setting up for Obama to win. We’ll see what happens in the next few months, but McCain is just digging himself into bigger and bigger holes while Americans are starting to view Obama more and more as a real President (save the ones who think he is a secret Muslim).</p>
<p>I agree that Hillary supporters should vote for Obama, but many of them are cautious of Obama - if they weren’t, he would be leading by wider margins in polls. He has trouble with blue-collar workers and older people (both of which Clinton is strong with). Also, she’s strong with Latino voters, which are cautious of Obama as well, and women (who are starting to move towards Obama anyway).</p>
<p>I think it’s somewhat clear Hilary is not going to be VP. She’s speaking on the second day of the Democratic National Convention. No person running as vice president has ever spoken at the DNC before, and it just wouldn’t make sense for a future VP to give a speech at the DNC.</p>
<p>Well the VP hasn’t yet been chosen. The DNC can easily rearrange the schedule if Obama chooses Clinton. However, I doubt she will be the VP (but I can dream, right?).</p>
<p>After the comments Hillary made about RFK, one of my friends is scared that if she were to become the VP candidate, Obama would be assassinated by one of her insane supporters just so we could have a woman president. I don’t know why, but I never liked the woman. She was always my third favorite Presidential option after Obama and McCain though.</p>
<p>dontno, you accuse me of racial politics, yet you’ve been the race-baiter throughout this entire thread. “Barack Obama wants to be Black, the stats show Black people are this and that, yada yada ya…” </p>
<p>You don’t care for Barack, who cares? Your opinion about Blacks is just that, your opinion. I’m so sorry that I not only don’t agree, but am willing to sling just as much mud your way as you have with your senseless generalizations of Blacks, based on your “3 Blacks friends” and what you’ve gotten from the racist, biased media. You’re pathetic.</p>
<p>I know no one feels they have to defend Barack Obama or their Blackness from you, because you’re nobody important. You’re just a “wannabe.”</p>
<p>s.dot, go away. I’m sick of you and dontno b1tching at each other about race like a pair of sixth graders while we’re trying to have a mature discussion here.</p>
<p>^^Proceed. I just won’t allow some idiot to come on this board generalizing about an entire race of people cause he doesn’t like a candidate. Sorry if that doesn’t fit your approval, lol.</p>
<p>IDontno u keep accusing every smart black of getting into higher ed b/c of affirmative action. Let’s see what that’s called…anyone know? …oh that’s right, RACISM. U ****ing idiot u have no clue how smart some of these people are but u assume that because of their race they only got in because of AA. You should be ashamed. It seems like they are much smarter than you are.</p>
<p>Also who gave u the right to tell a biracial man that he can’t pick a race to identify with? If everyone treats him as if he’s black (which he looks like he is) then why doesn’t he have the right to see himself as black? YOU are the one being racist by saying a biracial has to act both black and white. You are the one perpetuating stereotypes and trying to own his race. He can do whatever the hell he wants and be whatever he wants. He doesn’t have to prescribe to ur racial map which is impossible to prescribe to anyway since to you he has to be 2 polar opposites at once. </p>
<p>And I HATE the campaign McCain is running now. He’s turned his campaign attacks into bashing Obama for his personality. He’s not bashing his policies, raising his own policies, or raising himself…he’s bashing Obama’s personality. He’s saying he’s too elitist for America, yet he’s the one coming from an extremely successful military family and he married into a fortune. It’s even having an affect on my grandma’s views…she’s like “Obama is elitist and people just have obamamania” (she used to support him but now is questioning him) and I go, “okay, what policies of his do you think are better than McCain’s?” And she replies “Well…I donno…but I just don’t think Obama is as good a person anymore.” This campaign McCain is running is ridiculous and America should be ashamed for falling for it. His 2 new ads 1) Say Obama is a celebrity 2) Say Obama is a messiah. This is what America has come to…trying to make a candidate seen less likeable…less able to have a beer with. What ever happened to the policies they would impliment?</p>
<p>And whoever said Repubs are much higher than Dems on economic policy isn’t paying attention. Bush IS the republican machine. McCain is going to keep ALL off Bush’s tax cuts and make even more. How much debt are we going to have to get into until another Democrat like Clinton saves us? You have to realize you are voting for the republican machine, not the republican ideal. Unfortunately, that’s just how it is. And you also have to remember this Republican machine comes with the Hawkish ideals. Where are we wasting an INSANE amount of money? The war in Iraq. The Repubs wanna invade other countries (like Iraq…I do agree with the other invasion tho) while the Dems want to use the money to make everyone in America have a chance to be healthy. Hard choice…</p>
<p>Also although Obama has been getting more press a majority of it is negative. [In</a> study, evidence of liberal-bias bias - Los Angeles Times](<a href=“http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-onthemedia27-2008jul27,0,6802141.story]In”>In study, evidence of liberal-bias bias)</p>
<p>"During the evening news, the majority of statements from reporters and anchors on all three networks are neutral, the center found. And when network news people ventured opinions in recent weeks, 28% of the statements were positive for Obama and 72% negative.</p>
<p>Network reporting also tilted against McCain, but far less dramatically, with 43% of the statements positive and 57% negative, according to the Washington-based media center."</p>
<p>It really is true when you think of it. I can’t think of many stories attacking McCain whereas I can think of many being critical of Obama. On Obama’s Euro tour I would always see them report on some big meeting or rally and then make a few critical remarks at the end. Maybe they do this so they sound balanced…but it seems to be the trend that they report on some huge event he does (which he has many of…prolly y others say there is a bias) but then say a few critical things at the end. </p>
<p>ps that reminds me…I saw a video critical of Fox News. Part of it showed how they kept saying that Barack n Michelle’s fist bump could have been a “terrorist jab”. lmao hilarioussss</p>
<p>Also more people still hate Clinton than Obama. I’m a poll freak (I check polling sites every day) so believe me when I say this.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I was the one who said Republicans are far ahead of Democrats for economics policies, and I guess you don’t read carefully. I said Bush’s economics policies are not in line with those of the republican party’s, and I said I’m not going to buy that as a counterexample:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Mccain is looking like a poor candidate because he has flip flopped after he was nominated. </p>
<p>I stand by my statement. Basic economics tells us that many economic policies that democrats champion such as minimum wage, rent control, welfare, higher taxes, etc. are inherently flawed economic ideas. I am not even going to argue with you about this; go take an econ 101 course or pick up an economics textbook at your local library and you’ll see.</p>
<p>It should be “head and shoulder above”, not "head and neck above’.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Dontno - those neighborhoods in Baltimore that you drove through with your windows up and doors locked, I worked in for several years. I can assure you people are terrified - children are terrified to walk out their front door. Adults are abused by the police and government. It’s bad. </p>
<p>Driving through an area does not give you any credibility whatsoever to speak about it. </p>
<p>Also - your argument about Jews and Chinese possesses one fundamental flaw: they immigrated here by choice. The Hispanics today are amongst the poorest as well. No doubt in a few generations they will emerge into a prominent middle class. </p>
<p>Two cultures of people descend from histories that do not allow this upward mobility because they had the U.S. forced upon them and values were established that prevented upward mobility: African Americans and Native Americans. </p>
<p>You are obviously very young and still learning the complex ways of the world. It’s important at your age to try to adhere to a strict ideology so you can attempt to grasp the chaos of humanity. I hope as you grow and work your way through college that you come to see how much more complex reality is than your black and white opinions. And, in so doing, I hope you find some degree of sympathy for those not as fortunate as you.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because they understand that all life exists as one whole, and if part of that whole is suffering then so too is the part that is not. Your body would not work very well if your arm and leg competed against each other for blood and one had to lose. </p>
<p>That’s why people are willing to help others beyond themselves and their immediate families.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And OJ was innocent right? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yea I had my windows locked so I wouldn’t get robbed. It was a practical decision. I also went to public school. Was it the teacher’s or the principal’s fault that almost every single fight involved a “terrified” child from these same neighborhoods? Was it the teacher’s fault that these same “terrified” children continually interrupted the lectures? Was it the teacher’s fault that these “terrified” children refused to follow rules like cutting in the cafeteria line, breaking the dress code, smoking weed in the bathrooms during class, leaving the school grounds? (Just to be clear, I’m not saying these behaviors are exclusive to blacks. Surely there are plenty of white kids who evoke the same frustration. But the percentages are heavily skewed towards this being predominantly black behavior patterns. And believe me, anyone who attended a public school in the entire country has almost identical experiences.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think you misunderstand me. I do have sympathy for many of these kids’ and the depravity of their home environments, the lack of appropriate parental units, parents and relatives on drugs, etc. But it’s so easy to blame this for all the troubles of black America. It’s not the government telling them to take drugs, who father children from multiple women, or internalize the values of rap music (which I happen to like ironically). Personal responsibility is the main impetus for success and until the black community understands that, adopts middle class values, and stops harping on a “history that does not allow upward mobility”, then they’ll go somewhere.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So because 300 years ago blacks were brought here beyond their control (actually were forced into slavery by their own African leaders), black people now can’t have success? More of the same liberal excuses. Values were established that denied them upward mobility and then subsequently ABOLISHED in the 60’s. It’s over, move on! The thing keeping them back is garbage like this from white liberals who want to make excuses.</p>
<p>s.dot: God I hate you. I only characterized you as an “affirmative action” admit because it’s a clear implication of your discourse. Everyone knows that black students (and Hispanics) have a much lower standard for admission. You clearly only got in because of this. Look at it this way, what did you get on the SAT? It’s probably over 100 points lower than the Cornell average. Almost no white students (and surely no Asian) students would have been accepted with such a score.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This has nothing to do with Barack OBama. you’re the one trying to pigeonhole him into discrete racial boxes. Socially, he may be black, but not culturally and not genetically. That’s all I’m saying! I’m also not generalizing an entire race. Statistics are viable. I think soccer_guy posted statistics of heavily black areas and subsequent crime rates. In my stat class, I got an A+ (highest grade out of 120 people). you probably didn’t because you most likely spent the whole class period arguing with whitey professor over the racist generalizations his evil numbers were making. Seriously, stop praying to your Michelle Obama poster and read a book.</p>
<p>I don’t mind the arguments you’re making if you make them well. I disagree, but I can respect an articulate appraisal of racial politics. You on the other hand engage in denial or name calling. Read applejack’s post for the polar opposite of your inanity.</p>