Now we know their names

fine.

i'll list policies on breaks between papers.

back in a few.

health care. (i preferred hillary on this one, but she's not running.)

our current system is expensive and inefficient. it's great if you're an insurance executive, but that's about it.

my doctor father talks frequently about his time practicing in a country with universal healthcare. people didn't wait until they were beyond sick to come in, because they could afford it. those people not only tended to be easier to treat and stay healthier, but treating them cost much less because it was possible to act preventatively.

look at the dismal state of our infant mortality numbers. it's embarrassing if not immoral that our powerful, wealthy country is unwilling to take care of its people.

i don't think john mccain's plan will do much to help very many people. on the contrary, i believe it will encourage insurance companies to greater lengths of profits over care.

Could you be any more clueless?

babel wrote: I never think that violence is justified but don't you think they are tired of being picked on?

BrooklynGigCenter wrote: [quote=metalnyc][quote=Livetotravel]There are many Repugs living in Park Slope - they started coming here in the get rich Reagan years and proliferated during the hay-days of hedge funds. Now that the perpetrators of great frauds on unsuspecting investors are being investigated by the scores - maybe, just maybe, the Repugs-come-lately will abandon Park Slope for good and return to Staten Island where they belong.

not that I'm originally from Staten Island, i do know plenty of people from there, including family. so why don't you go ahead and explain what that is supposed to mean. should i go back to Queens then? is Queens on par with Staten Island? my mom is originally from Brooklyn and dad from the Bronx, how do they stand in this hierarchy of boroughs? oh wait, that's right my mom is from Brooklyn so she is OK. whew!

why is it that Democrats, more often than not the Liberal sect, love to name call and get truly angry when someone disagrees with them politically? why can't they just have a dicussion?

I don't remember any Democrats screaming "Terrorist" or "kill him" at any McCain rallies....I think those were all YOUR buddies.

Sorry, the Secret Service said the story was bogus. More than one SS was in the audience and NOBODY heard it.

Stop reading the Daily Kooks. The whole secede from the Union is another bogus story by you. Ayers, Pflager, Wright, Farrakhan, Resko ...tells you a lot about a man who associates with these racists crooks.

BrooklynGigCenter wrote: [quote=transplant][quote=BrooklynGigCenter]

I don't remember any Democrats screaming "Terrorist" or "kill him" at any McCain rallies....I think those were all YOUR buddies.

They were screaming "Terrorist" at the mention of Bill Ayers. Seems appropriate, seeing as how he's, you know, a terrorist.

As for the "kill him" thing, apparently the only person who actually heard that was the reporter who wrote (read: made up) the story:

http://www.timesleader.com/news/breakingnews/Secret_Service_says_Kill_him_allegation_unfounded_.html

Funny how republicans bring Ayers up over and over again, when:
a. every time they do so, McBush's favorability ratings go down
b. they have nothing else to pin on Obama that's relevant
c. Palin and her husband belonged to an organization that wanted to SECEDE FROM THE UNION

You want to keep going, or are you ready to quit making stupid statements?

eggcream wrote: I thought liberals didn't care about morals? Our moral standing is only low to liberals. It's amazing how you libtards will defend terrorists and attack the Bush administration. The messiah himself said he'll sit down with iran's president with no preconditions.

[quote=BrooklynGigCenter][quote=transplant]Here we go:


[quote=babel]Never ending war is pretty cruel to the ones that are having bombs dropped on them and to the poor suckers who are being taken advantage of by being sent over seas to defend our "freedom".

Sorry, you're not going to win me over by attempting to engender sympathy for terrorists that would be blowing up themselves and innocents but for our bombs. Drop away. And in case you missed it, our army is made up entirely of volunteers. I think they'd be pretty insulted having you suggest that they were somehow tricked into joining the military, and for you to suggest that our armed forces are made up of dupes or ignorant rubes who didn't realize that they might actually be asked to fight is insulting to them.




Americans who think like this are the reason why our moral standing in the world is so low. And if you think that a positive moral standing is unimportant, then you're clueless. It affects everything we try to do throughout the world....it affects our world relationships in everything from finance to military options to our response to terrorism and so much more. We are supposed to be the beacon of light in this world, and the last several years of unending war have brought us to where we are today. And you can't tell me with a straight face that the world is better now than it was before Bush took office. And it's not just the terrorists' fault.

And what kind of pre-conditions did McCain require when he sat down with Pinochet? Here's an article that ran today:

John McCain, who has harshly criticized the idea of sitting down with dictators without pre-conditions, appears to have done just that. In 1985, McCain traveled to Chile for a friendly meeting with Chile's military ruler, General Augusto Pinochet, one of the world's most notorious violators of human rights credited with killing more than 3,000 civilians and jailing tens of thousands of others.

The private meeting between McCain and dictator Pinochet has gone previously un-reported anywhere.

According to a declassified U.S. Embassy cable secured by The Huffington Post, McCain described the meeting with Pinochet "as friendly and at times warm, but noted that Pinochet does seem obsessed with the threat of communism." McCain, a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee at the time, made no public or private statements critical of the dictatorship, nor did he meet with members of the democratic opposition in Chile, as far as could be determined from a thorough check of U.S. and Chilean newspaper records and interviews with top opposition leaders.

At the time of the meeting, in the late afternoon of December 30, the U.S. Justice Department was seeking the extradition of two close Pinochet associates for an act of terrorism in Washington DC, the 1976 assassination of former ambassador to the U.S. and former Foreign Minister Orlando Letelier. The car bombing on Sheridan Circle in the U.S. capital was widely described at the time as the most egregious act of international terrorism perpetrated on U.S. soil by a foreign power.

At the time of McCain's meeting with Pinochet, Chile's democratic opposition was desperately seeking support from democratic leaders around the world in an attempt to pressure Pinochet to allow a return to democracy and force a peaceful end to the dictatorship, already in its 12th year. Other U.S. congressional leaders who visited Chile made public statements against the dictatorship and in support of a return to democracy, at times becoming the target of violent pro-Pinochet demonstrations.

eggcream, you have taken an intelligent thread filled with good thoughts and ideas and differing viewpoints and turned it into a 7th grade class. shame on you.

BrooklynGigCenter wrote:
Contrast that with the speaking skills (or lack of) of Bush, or with Palin. Articulation is the product of a bright mind, and the ability of Obama to link many issues into a larger overview reflects an extremely intelligent, curious mind.

Stephen Hawking = not a good speaker.

I know I'm gonna hear from the moderator on this, but I have to say this anyway.

Only a complete asshole would criticize a program that made an honest attempt to provide affordable or even free healthcare to poor children.

And here's a real consequence of the financial meltdown we're going through...poor people always end up getting the short end of the stick, don't they?

Socialism is BAD, right? Except when it benefits the rich!

sweet tea wrote: anyway, stephen hawking IS very good at articulating his thoughts in words. just not so good at forming those words with his body.

yeah, i thought of that, but he was the only famous person i could think of that was highly intelligent and had some speaking issue, unless you guys know my boss.

i give you credit for thinking they could even read it

i thought you asked for issues-based reasons to support obama. that is one. obama is better than hillary on this one -- or any democrat -- because he is currently on the ballot and she is not. what do you want me to do, write in jesus?

i have already said why i think being a good speaker isn't immaterial, but thanks for godwinning this anyway.

The comparison of Palin and Hawking is hysterical. He's explained the black hole between her ears.

BrooklynGigCenter, I don't think your comparison is entirely apt. McCain sitting down with Pinochet, with or without conditions, is hardly a big deal. The federal government (and especially, but not solely, Republican administrations) has loved dictators as long as I can remember. After all, dictators maintain the status quo, and thus preserve markets for American manufacturers (those few who are left).

We love dictators!! (not me personally, however)

It's the leftists and radicals that the US government fears most. See whether McCain will sit down with them...

yeah, i thought of that, but he was the only famous person i could think of that was highly intelligent and had some speaking issue

Gee, I wonder if the fact that you could think of only ONE highly intelligent person who's not a good speaker (and that only because he is not *physically* capable of clear speech) ought to clue you into anything ...