Is anyone glad that Obama won?

Health care and employment should be unrelated. Just as public education and employment have nothing to do with each other. Just as a myriad of other services are unrelated to ones employment. Your fear of abuse of the system is unwarranted. The amount of people you are talking about, who are able-bodied but just refuse to work, is a tiny tiny fraction, and are inconsequential to the overall cost of universal health care. It will cost everyone less with a single-payer health system like medicare, than it does under the current system, which is only designed to make profit for insurance companies. It is the inefficiencies in that system that are killing us.

Yes, it is useless to keep arguing about how we got into Iraq, and it seems you agree that we were lied to about the reasons why we went. But it is relevant when the people who are arguing for our continued occupation are the same people who lied to us to begin with. They and their judgement cannot be trusted. Their motives are obvious. Oil lease agreements between US companies and Iraq, and a permanent presence there.

“I believe that the UN had a lot to do with this current issue. How many UN resolutions did Saddam comply with? None of them.”

Please tell me which ones he wasn’t in compliance with?
Destroying all of its chemical and biological weapons and all ballistic missiles. Well since there were none, I guess they did. Agreeing not to develop nuclear weapons. No evidence of a reconstituted weapon progam, so this one is good too. Submits a declaration of its weapons programs and voluntarily agrees to on-site inspections. Three for three. What else were they supposedly not in compliance with?

“The UN only has so much power and influence in the world when it comes to certain leaders. Saddam would not have complied with weapon inspections.”

I suggest you go back and research what actually occured back then. On Nov. 8 2002 the UN gave Iraq a final opportunity to comply with weapons inspections, and Iraq finally agreed. On Nov 27 2002 weapons inspectors returned to Iraq. Initial cooperation was difficult, but by February 2003 the inspectors were reporting that they had full access to any site without any warnings. On March 7, Hans Blix reported to the UN that: “Inspections in Iraq resumed on the 27th of November 2002. In matters relating to process, notably prompt access to sites, we have faced relatively few difficulties, and certainly much less than those that were faced by UNSCOM [U.N. Special Commission] in the period 1991 to 1998.”

It amazes me how many people do not realize that inspectors were on the ground until a week before the war started, when Bush ordered them to leave for their own safety, since he was about to invade the country and bombed it back to the stone age with shock and awe.

I know all about the history of Iraq and Iran. And they are now more closely alligned than they have ever been, thanks to this war. Both are majority shiite countries, and the only thing that caused tensions before was the sunni Saddam. This war, and our continued occupation has raised the radicals influence in both countries. But the majority of people in both countries are very moderate, and western freindly. But when you wage war on one, and threaten war on another, it will put a spotlight on the radicals, and make them far more relevant than they should be. I am sorry for the arrogant comment, but it is not our place to say the Iraqis aren’t capable of forming a democracy, so we will do it for them. Democracy comes from within a country, not at the point of a gun.

The reason you hear mostly negative things coming out of Iraq, is because it is a living hell over there. Even by the most conservative estimates, the Iraqi death toll has averaged about 2000 every month since the war began. If you were to extrapolate that to the population of the US, it would be 220,000 Americans dying every month. If we had that many Americans dying each month, do you think there would be any good news that would overshadow that fact? I don’t see how anything else could be even remotely relavent when that amount of violence is occuring. And our occupation is only making it worse. And the media is not reporting it at anywhere near the levels it should be. If they were, Bush would have been impeached, and we would be out of there already. Norm Chomsky is right, the media is big business. And they reflect not the needs of the public, but the needs of their corporate owners. And the GOP in control is good for big business, so their coverage of Bush and this war are extremely diluted. My foucs is no longer on why we are there. I want people to be held accountable, yes, but I also know that our coninued occupation is doing nothing to help the Iraqis, and Bush doesn’t care about the Iraqis, he only cares about oil lease agreements.

I am not sure of the relevance to the discussion about voter intelligence. Everyone has the right to vote, otherwaise we are not a democracy (or more accurately, a representative republic). But you are right about somethings. I know all about the nixon/kennedy debate. Politics has become an appearance-over-substance game for a long time. And it has gotten worse with the advent of the reagan revolution, that completely deregulated every industry in the US. And the media is a big part of that. He allowed big corporations to merge into huge conglamerates, disregarded anti-trust laws, elliminated the fairness doctrine, and allowed a media company to own mutliple new outlets in the same markets, including tv and print media. News coverage didn’t used to be like that. Now it is infotainment, not news. You have to really search for real news. Most liberals I know are extremely informed about politics, because they rely on other means of news, mostly the interent. Most conservatives I know I are extremely misinformed due to their reliance on corporate controlled media for their news.

Yes, the Iraqi people came out to vote, and it was dangerous for many to do it. But so is going to the market in bagdad. And what they voted for was far from what we would consider a democracy. But the amercian press doesn’t report that. All they do is show all those purple fingers and say, “see everythinh is going great”, while completely ignoring the horrible conditions most Iraqis are living under. Far worse than under Saddam.

“Where do you get the idea that the majority of Iraqis want us out?”

There have been many polls done, here is one from last September:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6983027.stm It shows that the vast majority of Iraqi feel the surge was making things worse. Here is another that shows 7 of 10 Iraqis want US forces gone within a year: http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/250.php?nid=&id=&pnt=250&lb=hmpg1

There are many more. And now Bush is trying to get a long term agreement with the Iraqis to maintain a presence there when the UN authorization ruyns out in December. In May thousands of Iraqis protested on the streets of bagdad over that agreement. Iraqi lawmakers, representing a majority in the Iraqi parliment, told congress that any agreement that did not include a withdrawal timetable, and no permanent bases in Iraq would be rejected. From the AP: “In a letter to Congress last week, some 31 Iraqi lawmakers — representing parties that constitute a majority in parliament — said they will insist on ratifying the agreement as is required by their country’s constitution. They also pledged to reject any agreement that “is not linked to clear mechanisms” obligating U.S. troops to leave “with a declared timetable and without leaving behind any military bases, soldiers or hired fighters.” “

Sound to me like they want us to leave. We should honor their wishes. It is their country after all.

As far as Iran and nuclear weapons? They have none, nor the capability to make them anytime in the near future. I think we should be negotiating with them. But of course Bush only talks to his friends and not his enemies (except when they actually already have nukes like N. Korea, then he will talk to them). As I already said, the radicals are in control in Iran, and as long as we keep saber-rattling, they will remain in power. We are doing nothing to appeal to the more moderate elements in Iran.

I think you are a very well-intentioned guy, who seems to think things through. But you accept what you hear too readily, without doing much research.

“Huh? People choose to work or not work? What is this supposed to mean? Yes some people choose to abuse their bodies, and some people who take very good care of themselves still get sick. Are we to guage healthcare eligibility on how healthy your lifestyle is?” Healthcare eligibility should be gauged on whether or not a person can work or not. If they cannot work due to physical/mental limitations exceptions can be made. However, for healthy people who take good care of themselves working is not an issue. Anyone can find work it’s just a matter of how hard they are willing to work for it. If they can’t raise their family on minimum wage they should have understood that having children is a choice and someone’s educational level is a choice. Why must we keep making excuses for people who made poor choices? I’m fine with helping those people who cannot help the position that they are in, but I refuse to accept excuses from people who do nothing but complain and make excuses for their shortcomings. Now, this may be a problem that cannot be solved with facts and rhetoric. It looks like a difference of opinion. You support universal health care and I support health care based on employment and/or personal limitations. You were right about the Dems not supporting the use of force (61% opposing, to be exact). However, looking at the past will do nothing about the future. We can argue all day about how wrong it was to invade Iraq and how Bush manipulated facts to get support for the invasion and how he used 9/11 as an emotional motivator for the use of military force. But this does nothing to solve the issue at hand. I believe that the UN had a lot to do with this current issue. How many UN resolutions did Saddam comply with? None of them. The UN only has so much power and influence in the world when it comes to certain leaders. Saddam would not have complied with weapon inspections. For leaders like Saddam, military force or a violent revolution are the only ways to alter their course of action. Iraq was a perfect example as to why peaceful means, despite being highly favored, do nothing to alter a leader’s ways. “You are listening to propaganda coming from the same people whom you state that you didn’t agree with. I am sorry, but none of the things you predict here are going to happen, and the people saying these things have lost all credibility. Iran and Iraq already are closer than they were before we invaded. There is nothing our continued occupation will do to stop that.” I don’t listen to anyone’s propaganda. I don’t watch television or visit FoxNews or anything like that. I’m basing this on what I’ve learned over the years. Iraq isn’t stable enough to protect itself and Iran knows this. You might want to read a little about the historical relationship of Iran and Iraq.

“How freakin arrogant. So we invade their country to depose their tin pot dictator, destroy what was left of their infrastructure, kill hundred of thousands of them, but their opinions don’t matter? How many more people need to die in this mess before it is no longer worth it? I think we passed that point a long long time ago.” Why do you consider me “arrogant”? Like I said, Iraqi citizens don’t understand how to properly operate a democratic government. Their opinions matter, but just like a lot of countries in the Middle East, they lack the ability to cooperate and form large groups that seek to change things. There is a huge democratic movement in Iran, but they haven’t been able to come together and create a democratic force. The United States, regardless of the atrocities that you’ve mentioned, are assisting with the restructuring of Iraq’s infrastructure and their economy. A democracy will not appear over night. In my opinion, a lot of US citizens are clueless and only pay attention to terrible news coming out of Iraq. How many times do you read the news and notice happy things in the headlines? The news outlets only print negative news because, as Noam Chomsky explained in Manufacturing Consent, the media has become a business rather than something that performs a civil service. People would rather read about lying politicians, people dying in war, and rising gas prices rather than read about recent military successes and decreases in the total number of casualties. You’re not going to hear about the police properly arresting a guy or giving a speeder a ticket well-deserved ticket. You’ll only see video of police abuse and excessive uses of force. Sure they happen, but not as often as people think. The same holds true for Iraq. You have to focus on the future of Iraq, not only the legality of the invasion and the manipulation of the truth that the Bush Administration forced on the American public. Sure, Iraqi citizen involvement is important, but they don’t yet understand the inner workings of a democracy.

“What the hell is this supposed to mean? Alll voters should learn as much as they can about a candidate. What does that have to do with the fact that the majority of Iraqis want us to leave, and so does the government we installed.” This is purely rhetorical. This is why I don’t believe that voting should be mandatory. People do not learn as much as they can about a candidate before voting. You’re seriously mistaken if you think that people, at least in the US, vote having done a lot of research. Look at 2000 and 2004. Do you think that all of the Bush supporters looked at the fine print before casting their votes? No. 70% of American voters vote based on catchphrases and what they think about the appearance of the candidate. Look at the first televised debate between Kennedy and Nixon in 1960. Nixon clearly and factually held his own, but because of his poor appearance (he had a knee injury that put him in the hospital which caused him to loose a lot of weight and he hadn’t shaved that morning) people clearly liked Kennedy better. I’m not saying that Nixon was better than Kennedy, but people held his physical appearance against him and turned their attention towards Kennedy. You can look that up and find out that my statistic is accurate. People in the United States are NOT intelligent voters. A lot of them vote purely on race, sex, and political party affiliation. This is a huge reason why I don’t support either of the two major parties. I’ll vote for a candidate, sure, but my ballots show no sign of consistency whatsoever. Sure, you and I may be the exception, but we are in the minority. A lot of people also tend to vote for the candidate most likely to win, expecting that they’ll win a prize for getting it right or have bragging rights over those who voted for the loser. I’ve spoken with a lot of people who seem passionate about presidential candidates and my opinion of them changes as soon as they open their mouth. The voters in the US have no excuse as to their lack of political knowledge. Information is everywhere, but people refuse to capitalize on things that many people in this world will never see or experience. Citizens in Iraq came out to vote knowing that their life would be in danger if they did vote. How many Americans would vote if their life could be in danger if they did vote? Not many. Because of the Iraqi citizen interest in their future, I believe that they will embrace a democracy and learn to work with it. But this will take time and patience. Where do you get the idea that the majority of Iraqis want us out? Have you seen massive protests? Have you read about them? No. Why is that? They lack leadership and the ability to form massive groups that seek change. This is why they were unable to get rid of Saddam during the 40 year reign of the Baathist Party.
Take a look at the news about Iran. The UN is against military force as is Russia. However, I personally believe that Russia is against Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon and won’t do anything if Iran is attacked. They only speak up because they have a close relationship with Iran and not speaking up for Iran would jeopardize their relationship. What do you think about Iran and their pursuit for nuclear energy/nuclear weaponry?

“I don’t feel that healthcare should only be for those rich enough to pay for it. However, I feel that it should be for people who work and I also support FREE healthcare for children of US citizen parents. Children cannot choose who their parents are, but a lot of people in this country can choose to work or get an education to pursue a better career. I think that healthcare should be available for employees working at least 20 hours a week and that the government should help their employers get reduced rates for providing healthcare for their employees.”

Why are you being selective about who should recieve health care. Why should employment have anything to do with it. What about people who get layed-off due to their jobs going oversees? Do they not “deserve” health care? What about people who are self employed? Why should they have to bear the burden of paying for their health care when those who are not self-employed get coverage free?

“People choose what to put in their bodies, people choose to work out or not work out, and people choose to take unnecessary risks in their lives.”

Huh? People choose to work or not work? What is this supposed to mean? Yes some people choose to abuse their bodies, and some people who take very good care of themselves still get sick. Are we to guage healthcare eligibility on how healthy your lifestyle is?

“Why should I pay for people who are negligent and irresponsible?”

This is a ludicrous argument. Some people are negligent about their health because they DON”T HAVE HEALTHCARE. There has to be an emphasis on preventative healtcare, and most healthcare systems around the world do this. When you add profit motive to the mix, the incentive is to not do preventative medicine, as there is no return on investment to them if people are healthier. Even if their are people who are negligent and irresponsible, they represent a drop in the bucket of total medical costs in this country.

“If people want to live a better life they should know that hard work pays off and that laziness and bad choices have consequences.”

And there are lots of people who are in situations that they did not create themselves. Your pick-yourself-up-by-the-bootstraps approach is not an accurate picture of the issue. You act as if the fact that anyone who doesn’t have healthcare is completely their own fault. That is a strawman…

“Sure, there will be plenty of exceptions with this. However, I think each of those exceptions should be looked at very carefully to see whether or not it is truly an exception.”

To do that kind of screening would proabaly cost more than to just provide the healthcare in the first place.

You are trying to argue that universal healthcare is somehow unfair to healthy people, because they are not getting out what they put in. Going back to the commons argument, do people who don’t drive still have to pay for the roads? Do people who don’t have kids still have to pay for schools? Do people who don’t fly still have to pay for the FAA? Do people who have never been the victim of a natural disaster have to pay for FEMA? Healthcare should be no different.

“Regarding the article that I ‘quoted’…complete mistake. Thanks for pointing it out. I was responding to my friend’s blog and I was reading my latest issue of Foreign Affairs magazine.”

It was a good article, you should read it all the way through.

“A lot of people blame Bush for the Iraq War and I can see their argument. However, it was the elected politicians that voted to give him the authority to use force as he saw fit. “

Ok, I admit too many Dems went along with it, but not a majority of them. But if you every actually read the war authorization, it required Bush to do many things before he launched any invasion. Namely he was supposed to get a second vote of the UN security council. But he knew it wouldn’t pass, so he never did. He was also supposed to exhaust all diplomatic solutions. Since the inspectors were on the ground at the time, reporting that they were getting complete cooperation from the Iraqis, and they needed more time to complete their inspections, I would say he did not exhaust all diplomatic solution. Instead, Bush said no, and ordered the inspectors to leave so he could begin bombing. Bush was also supposed to provide proof that Saddam was involved in 9/11. Not just associated with AQ, which they claimed but was not true, but that he was directly involved with 9/11. Bush sent a letter to congress just prior to the war start in which he lied and said that Saddam was directly involved with 9/11.

This is the letter Bush sent to congress:

March 18, 2003 Dear Mr. Speaker:

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH

“Hypothetical situation: Would you let your neighbor’s kid, with a history of causing mischief, baby-sit for you or housesit for you? No, you wouldn’t. “

I don’t get the anaology. Who is the kid supposed to be?

“Bush only exercised the power that OUR elected officials gave him. You can say that war is only war if Congress votes for the use of military force. However, by giving Bush the power to use force only took the war based on Congressional powers out of play. I don’t approve of Bush’s performance in office, but I feel that the public is greatly misinformed regarding how this whole thing came to be.”

Bush did not have that power, but the political atmosphere at the time enabled him to get away with it. As I already showed you, he did not comply with that authorization, and therefore did not have proper congressional approval.

“I didn’t agree for our reasons for the invasion. However, the United States is there and it is OUR responsibility to ensure that Iraq is left with a functioning government and an effective police and military force. To leave now will only jeopardize their autonomy and we would be leaving a very unstable and powerless country to be taken over by Iran or overthrown by some radical Islamic regime. Iraq must be able to defend itself and it is our responsibility to ensure that that becomes a reality. Look at the Middle East, how much of a chance would a vulnerable country have in that part of the world? Look at Iran in 1979 and 1953. Iran has always had problems with Iraq. What makes you think Mahmoud Ahmadinejad doesn’t have a plan to take over Iraq once the US military forces leave? “

You are listening to propaganda coming from the same people whom you state that you didn’t agree with. I am sorry, but none of the things you predict here are going to happen, and the people saying these things have lost all credibility. Iran and Iraq already are closer than they were before we invaded. There is nothing our continued occupation will do to stop that. That is, unless we stay for ever, which is what Bush and McCain want.

“I believe that Iraqi people’s opinion matters, but only to an extent. They don’t understand what an accountable, democratic country is or how it will work for them. It will take time, education, and patience to ensure that this takes place. Pulling out now jeopardizes this. “

How freakin arrogant. So we invade their country to depose their tin pot dictator, destroy what was left of their infrastructure, kill hundred of thousands of them, but their opinions don’t matter? How many more people need to die in this mess before it is no longer worth it? I think we passed that point a long long time ago.

“Which voter would you have more faith in: A voter who merely looks at the candidate and votes because “he looks trustworthy” or someone who has read the issues and fully understands how the politician will function when elected? I hope you see my point.”

What the hell is this supposed to mean? Alll voters should learn as much as they can about a candidate. What does that have to do with the fact that the majority of Iraqis want us to leave, and so does the government we installed.

“In response to your statement that we should respect their wishes to leave: If they want us to leave, they should be able to demonstrate that they can control their own country, punish those who violate the law, protect their citizens and those in power, have a functioning economy, and have the ability to take care of the citizens. If they can’t do that or provide proof that they can, we need to stay.”

WE HAVE NO RIGHT TO OCCUPY A SOVREIGN NATION AGAINST THERE DULY ELECTED GOVERNMENT’S WISHES. Even Bush has said if the government asks us to leave we will. Well we are getting very close to that point. I am sure he will go back on that promise.

“I respect your opinion, but I think that you should grasp the seriousness of the situation in the Middle East.”

I completely grasp the situation, I think much more than you do.

yes I am I just hope he makes it to the white house although I relly did want hillary to win so experianced and badmamajama, she is no where near 60 years old and vanhalen618 why do you hate hillary so much her and barak obama are practially the same after all there both democrats how would feel if obama did pick hillary would you still hate her

mattman81, What exactly are you expecting him to layout. The most any candidate can do is layout proposals for what the want to do. They still have to rely on congress to draft the legislation, and it will not look exactly as he proposes it. Either you like the ideas he has or you don’t. A website is not going to be the difinative answer as to someones abilities.

Have you been this critical of McCain’s or any other candidates plans on their website? I am sure none of them have anymore detail than Obama.

Just a few quick repys to you other comments:

Health care should be a right, not a privaledge. It will be cheaper for everyone if we had universal healthcare. The only one who will lose are the insurance companies.

Our presence in Iraq is doing nothing to resolve the sectairian fighting. We are accomplishing nothing, and we need to leave as safely and as quickly as possible.

As far as experience goes, Bush had no experience either, and look how that truned out. Someone with years in DC is not what we need right now. Obama is more than capable of leading this country. He already has proven his ability in the primary campaign. It was no small feat for him to beat the Clintons and to raise the kind of money he has. He has demonstrated great organizational skills along with an uncanny ability to energize people.

He is the real deal!

I think it depends on what you mean by major changes. There certainly will not be much change in the economy. That damage is already done, and it will take time to recover. But in foreign policy I think we will see sweeping changes. He will work hard to restore our image in the world. And just the fact that he is not Bush, or a Bush wannabe like McSame, will be a big improvement. What I really like about him is the way he is handling himself and how he is embracing the subject of national security. He isn’t running away from the issue and just conceding the point to the republicans. Even though everyone is touting McCain as the one with the better experience, Obama is more than willing to take him on over it. National Security will be a key part of his platform. When was the last time you saw a democrat do that?

What am I expecting Obama to lay out? Well, have you read John Edwards 82 page book detailing what he plans to do and how he plans on accomplishing them? Basically, that’s what I’m looking for in a candidate. Have you been to Ron Paul’s website? If you decide to go there you find out a vast number of things that he plans to do and how he will do it.

I would like to respond to your other comments, if I could. First off, health care should not be a right. I’ve made a video explaining why it is that I feel this way. It makes sense and provides solutions that help everyone.

As far as Iraq goes…I didn’t support the invasion of Iraq because the reasons for doing so were false and extremely blown out of proportion. However, leaving Iraq will make things worse, in my opinion. You ask, “Why”? For one, they have a very ineffective police force. Removing our troops now will make it very easy for someone to pull overthrough the government that took almost 4 years to put into place.

Two, history has shown that the Middle East is extremely unpredictable. Having a stable democracy in the Middle East will be extremely beneficial for the United States and other countries as well.

Three, your assumption that our being in Iraq is doing nothing to resolve the fighting between the different sects. I, in response, would ask you to read Steven Simon’s article titled, “The Price of the Surge.” It clearly states that your claim that the violence has gone up, not stopped, or increased is, in fact, an incorrect assumption. Another major issue affecting the war is the inability to come to a solution because of partisan politics. Lastly, I might as you to consider what happened in Iraq in 1919. Great Britain was in Iraq and was trying to “civilize” the country. There were massive acts of violence and the Britain army suffered many losses. However, the citizens called for a pulling-out of the troops and to let Iraq take care of itself. Well, I don’t need to tell how that turned out. 40 years of Baathist control is hardly the outcome that we, or the Middle East, can afford to accept.

Barack Obama is a great man with much potential. However, I don’t personally believe that he is ready to take office.

I am! Im republican too! Well now I dont know what I am lol

Jimahl. Thanks for responding and I will respond as soon as I finish my finals. I should be able to respond after this hectic week. Take care.

Thanks for clearing that up. Your statement pointed more towards the “pretense” definition. Your use is much more pleasing.

Amoeba…Do I need to clarify what I meant by pose? How about when someone says, “I can’t do that because it could POSE as a problem.” I hope that clears up any confusion that you may have.

“Sure, it’s great to see a young black male pose as a possible candidate for this country”

wow…”pose” what a strange choice of word…

yes I am! Im republican too, well now I dont know what I am!

To me, it doesn’t really matter. I think that he will defeat McCain in the fall, but I have had problems with him since the beginning. Sure, it’s great to see a young black male pose as a possible candidate for this country. However, I don’t see how he has drawn up plans to perform this so-called “change”. I’ve read his website and it doesn’t go into detail how he plans on doing anything that he has promised over and over again. I don’t agree with universal health care, I don’t agree that we should pull out of Iraq altogether (even though I disagreed with the Iraq war from the start), and I don’t think that he has the experience to sit as the president of the most powerful country on the planet. I’m open to criticism so don’t be shy. LOL

Glad, but not betting on any major changes as a result of his presidency. Domestically he won’t do much unless the Democrats make huge gains in Congress and have a broad coalition of support across the country. That’s possible, but not likely. I’m mainly looking forward to changes in policies on war and diplomacy.

Like I’ve said before with Hilary being 60 years old I’m sure she doesn’t even have a period anymore. And having a period doesn’t affect your thought process so how is she going to screw up our country?? Most girls who say being on their period makes them b*tchy are liars, it’s really not all that bad especially if you’ve had them for years & years you learn how to cope with them pretty well.

“changes in policies on war and diplomacy.” thank goodness. How wonderful that will be.

Looking forward to it…

Cool. I’m glad that it did. Take care.

Here is a video that I made regarding Obama’s proposed universal health care plan.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38j0vJf3mMc

:) :) :) :) very glad!

Me too. He is a breath of fresh air in our poluted political system.

Yes yes yes… I am glad. .. very glad… looking forward for him to go to the white house…

Me too! Team Obama all the way:)

Loose should actually be lose. Sorry for the typo.

I’m glad too.

:)

Jimahl- Ah, it feels good to be done with finals. I was going to respond to a few of your points. I don’t feel that healthcare should only be for those rich enough to pay for it. However, I feel that it should be for people who work and I also support FREE healthcare for children of US citizen parents. Children cannot choose who their parents are, but a lot of people in this country can choose to work or get an education to pursue a better career. I think that healthcare should be available for employees working at least 20 hours a week and that the government should help their employers get reduced rates for providing healthcare for their employees. People choose what to put in their bodies, people choose to work out or not work out, and people choose to take unnecessary risks in their lives. Why should I pay for people who are negligent and irresponsible? If people want to live a better life they should know that hard work pays off and that laziness and bad choices have consequences. Sure, there will be plenty of exceptions with this. However, I think each of those exceptions should be looked at very carefully to see whether or not it is truly an exception.

Regarding the article that I “quoted”…complete mistake. Thanks for pointing it out. I was responding to my friend’s blog and I was reading my latest issue of Foreign Affairs magazine.

A lot of people blame Bush for the Iraq War and I can see their argument. However, it was the elected politicians that voted to give him the authority to use force as he saw fit.

Hypothetical situation: Would you let your neighbor’s kid, with a history of causing mischief, baby-sit for you or housesit for you? No, you wouldn’t. Bush only exercised the power that OUR elected officials gave him. You can say that war is only war if Congress votes for the use of military force. However, by giving Bush the power to use force only took the war based on Congressional powers out of play. I don’t approve of Bush’s performance in office, but I feel that the public is greatly misinformed regarding how this whole thing came to be.

I didn’t agree for our reasons for the invasion. However, the United States is there and it is OUR responsibility to ensure that Iraq is left with a functioning government and an effective police and military force. To leave now will only jeopardize their autonomy and we would be leaving a very unstable and powerless country to be taken over by Iran or overthrown by some radical Islamic regime. Iraq must be able to defend itself and it is our responsibility to ensure that that becomes a reality. Look at the Middle East, how much of a chance would a vulnerable country have in that part of the world? Look at Iran in 1979 and 1953. Iran has always had problems with Iraq. What makes you think Mahmoud Ahmadinejad doesn’t have a plan to take over Iraq once the US military forces leave?

I believe that Iraqi people’s opinion matters, but only to an extent. They don’t understand what an accountable, democratic country is or how it will work for them. It will take time, education, and patience to ensure that this takes place. Pulling out now jeopardizes this.

Which voter would you have more faith in: A voter who merely looks at the candidate and votes because “he looks trustworthy” or someone who has read the issues and fully understands how the politician will function when elected? I hope you see my point.

In response to your statement that we should respect their wishes to leave: If they want us to leave, they should be able to demonstrate that they can control their own country, punish those who violate the law, protect their citizens and those in power, have a functioning economy, and have the ability to take care of the citizens. If they can’t do that or provide proof that they can, we need to stay.

I respect your opinion, but I think that you should grasp the seriousness of the situation in the Middle East.

i <3 Obama.