Edwards is into the whoel nanny-state thing it seems. He wants to force you to go to the doctor.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070903/ap_on_el_pr/edwards

 

The appropriate paragraph:

This guy just scares the s*** out of me. But so does Mrs. Bill Clinton - and she's going to win anyway.

Edwards is into the whoel nanny-state thing it seems. He wants to force you to go to the doctor.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070903/ap_on_el_pr/edwards

 

The appropriate paragraph:

it's not as bad as everyone thinks. it just means that it's mandatory to get vaccinations and PREVENTIVE care like that.

 

plus you wouldn't have to pay for it so... who cares?

You can't force people to go to the doctor, but if everyone in this country received proper preventitive care, the amount of money we spend on health care would go way down.

plus you wouldn't have to pay for it so... who cares?

Newsflash - you still have to pay. Do you think Doctors are just going to donate their time? We'd all pay - just a matter of how and when.

 

This is one of the reasons Edwards has a following, and why he would be an awful President - the guy convinces people that there is some mystical pile of gold waiting for the "working class" in America, that the mean rich people are unlawfully withholding. Its just not there.

 

Newsflash - you still have to pay. Do you think Doctors are just going to donate their time? We'd all pay - just a matter of how and when.

 

This is one of the reasons Edwards has a following, and why he would be an awful President - the guy convinces people that there is some mystical pile of gold waiting for the "working class" in America, that the mean rich people are unlawfully withholding. Its just not there.

Exactly right. And so does Mrs. Bill Clinton, which is why she is just as scary.

 

You can't force people to go to the doctor, but if everyone in this country received proper preventitive care, the amount of money we spend on health care would go way down.

That is very true. That can be accomplished in many ways, but you can't FORCE people to go to the Doctor. You can make preventative care cheaper and easier to get, and I hope we do that.

 

That is very true. That can be accomplished in many ways, but you can't FORCE people to go to the Doctor. You can make preventative care cheaper and easier to get, and I hope we do that.

If the uninsured don't go bankrupt when they get sick, God kills a kitten.

If the uninsured don't go bankrupt when they get sick, God kills a kitten.

Again, people have choices. It's all up to the individuals. Healthcare (a high level policy) is available to most who choose to get it.

Exactly right. And so does Mrs. Bill Clinton, which is why she is just as scary.

Really? She seems awful pro bidness to my eyes.

Really? She seems awful pro bidness to my eyes.

Yea, Chinese bidness.

 

Yea, Chinese bidness.

 

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0WD..._16/ai_66471950

 

When China joins the WTO, Clinton said, ''it will open its market to American products...and our companies will be far more able to sell goods without moving factories or investments there.''

 

Who knew that meant American political influence, and not an actual good?

Newsflash - you still have to pay. Do you think Doctors are just going to donate their time? We'd all pay - just a matter of how and when.

 

This is one of the reasons Edwards has a following, and why he would be an awful President - the guy convinces people that there is some mystical pile of gold waiting for the "working class" in America, that the mean rich people are unlawfully withholding. Its just not there.

 

wrong. repealing GWB's tax cuts for the rich puts money right back into the system and that's the money he plans to use for this.

 

wrong. repealing GWB's tax cuts for the rich puts money right back into the system and that's the money he plans to use for this.

You are missing the point. Its still NOT free. It still costs money.

 

wrong. repealing GWB's tax cuts for the rich puts money right back into the system and that's the money he plans to use for this.

Ignorance is bliss.

 

Ignorance is bliss.

 

It certainly helped this President get elected, twice.

wrong. repealing GWB's tax cuts for the rich puts money right back into the system and that's the money he plans to use for this.

 

Google the multiplier rule of economics and get back to me on that, check out supply and demand.

And while I am a big fan of soft science, economics is inexact.

And while I am a big fan of soft science, economics is inexact.

 

Some things are pretty common sense. If you lose more of your paycheck you spend less money. If everyone spends less money, the economy contracts. It isn't rocket science.

Some things are pretty common sense. If you lose more of your paycheck you spend less money. If everyone spends less money, the economy contracts. It isn't rocket science.

 

If spending money is the key, then it doesn't matter who spends it, public or private. The government at least has restrictions and usually has to buy American. Of course, it doesn't buy votes, whcih is why some politicans love tax cuts.

 

And common sense also tells us that those loans have to be paid back, with interest. An economy based on borrowed money, is at risk. Why you are in favor of giving yourself a dollar today, so that your daughter has to pay back $5 later, doesn't make sense. If we can't afford it today, what makes you think we can afford the bigger price tag later?

If spending money is the key, then it doesn't matter who spends it, public or private. The government at least has restrictions and usually has to buy American. Of course, it doesn't buy votes, whcih is why some politicans love tax cuts.

 

And common sense also tells us that those loans have to be paid back, with interest. An economy based on borrowed money, is at risk. Why you are in favor of giving yourself a dollar today, so that your daughter has to pay back $5 later, doesn't make sense. If we can't afford it today, what makes you think we can afford the bigger price tag later?

Which is exactly why we don't need governmental health care, and other huge expenditures in the government's hands.

 

Which is exactly why we don't need governmental health care, and other huge expenditures in the government's hands.

 

That is a very good point.

Fresh off a couple statements in the past week or so that have just made him look foolish, Bill Richardson goes back to the issue where he may well be the strongest candidate: Iraq, and the fact that he's the only major candidate to say "get every U.S. soldier out".

Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards have suggested that there is little difference among us on Iraq. This is not true: I am the only leading Democratic candidate committed to getting all our troops out and doing so quickly.

 

In the most recent debate, I asked the other candidates how many troops they would leave in Iraq and for what purposes. I got no answers. The American people need answers. If we elect a president who thinks that troops should stay in Iraq for years, they will stay for years -- a tragic mistake.

Fresh off a couple statements in the past week or so that have just made him look foolish, Bill Richardson goes back to the issue where he may well be the strongest candidate: Iraq, and the fact that he's the only major candidate to say "get every U.S. soldier out".

I don't know if that is his strongest issue. But just curious, what statements are you referring to that were foolish?

 

I don't know if that is his strongest issue. But just curious, what statements are you referring to that were foolish?

Well, the one from this week was him saying something along the lines of Iowa was first in the caucus and primary season...

"Iowa, for good reason, for constitutional reasons, for reasons related to the Lord, should be the first caucus and primary."

 

And to top that off...his defense of those remarks when he was asked later what he meant...he didn't even go with the "Botched joke" one...he just came out and said "oh that was just pandering".

"That was an off-the-cuff comment about the importance of Iowa. This was an Iowa crowd — I'm trying to score points, I'm moving up in the polls. So I don't consider that a mistake — that was an off-the-cuff comment, and I stand very strongly behind the fact that Iowa and New Hampshire should be first."

Not the biggest gaffe in history, but certainly something that would have gotten him laughed at had he been higher in the polls.

Well, the one from this week was him saying something along the lines of Iowa was first in the caucus and primary season...

And to top that off...his defense of those remarks when he was asked later what he meant...he didn't even go with the "Botched joke" one...he just came out and said "oh that was just pandering".

Not the biggest gaffe in history, but certainly something that would have gotten him laughed at had he been higher in the polls.

Thanks.