Senator Arlen Specter Becomes a Democrat 1124
Akido37 was one of many readers letting us know that US Sen. Arlen Specter has changed parties to become a Democrat. This gives the Democrats 59 seats in the Senate, and 60 if and when Al Franken gets seated from Minnesota. However, Specter said in his announcement that he will not be an automatic 60th vote for breaking Republican filibusters. While the senator's move seems to have surprised many Republicans, it is understandable to moderate Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine, who said, "You haven't certainly heard warm encouraging words of how they [Republicans] view moderates. Either you are with us or against us." Specter noted that in his home state of Pennsylvania, 200,000 formerly Republican voters switched party allegiance last year.
And.... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:And.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Republicrat or Democan, the only difference is where their pocket change comes from (and it doesn't come from We, the people).
Sure, sure, they each use different issues to trap you into voting against the other guy (who really votes *FOR* anyone these days?). But each side knows they need the other and that no matter who has the majority the "big" issues can't ever be completely done away with (what would they run on then?).
Re:And.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Hahaha, good one. (Score:5, Insightful)
>90% of Americans think that way. It's funny to sit on the outside and see Democrats fear monger about the Patriot act being a horrible piece of legislation that the Republicans put into place, then instead of repealing it when they took power the Democrats use it to put Conservative Idealists on a list of possible terrorists.
Re:Hahaha, good one. (Score:5, Informative)
The right-wing extremism report was initiated by George W. Bush's White House, as a counterpoint to the left-wing extremism report issued earlier this year. The right-wing extremism report further did not identify conservatives as extremists; it identified two major groups within right-wing extremists, those being hate extremist groups like the Ku Klux Klan and single-issue extremist groups like abortion-clinic bombers. Agreeing with any of the issues does not mean that they called you an extremist, only that extremists have been known to share that issue.
Some squirrels are male and some squirrels are female. You are in all likelihood either male or female. This does not, however, mean that you are necessarily a squirrel. It's the same argument, except with 'squirrel' in place of 'extremist,' 'male' in place of 'hate groups,' and 'female' in place of 'single-issue groups.'
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Considering your own ideology to be more important than the wellbeing of everyone else is the hallmark of libertarianism.
Re:Hahaha, good one. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hahaha, good one. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes they can. Private industry can collude with others to prevent you getting a job. They can buy all the land around yours and refuse you access. They can pollute your land and kill you, then if you've got anyone left alive to sue them, they can beat them with hundreds of lawyers.
In fact, it is the government that can't take your money, your freedom or your life without good reason. Private industry feels no compunction against doing so.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And they really didn't care how many Iraqis would die if we pulled out of Iraq.
The problem with wanting a collapse is that they'll somehow pin it on capitalism (ie freedom) and then proceed to reduce freedom.
The worst kind of slavery is the one you choose for yourself.
Re:Hahaha, good one. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hahaha, good one. (Score:5, Insightful)
There are hundreds of regimes around the world doing worse. Some of them we even put in power. We do nothing there, why is Iraq different? THAT is the question. Why are we meddling there, and not in any place with real problems, like Somalia?
Re:Hahaha, good one. (Score:5, Insightful)
There are hundreds of regimes around the world doing worse. Some of them we even put in power.
You'd think we would have learned by now not to keep putting new regimes in power, just to have them become our Mortal Enemies (TM) 10 years later.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Hahaha, good one. (Score:4, Insightful)
Bush ran on "no nation-building," then proceeded to do exactly the opposite.
Re:Hahaha, good one. (Score:4, Insightful)
Old Saddam kept order by gassing everyone that disagreed with him. I can't really see Americans dropping mustard gas, which is pretty much the ONLY way you are going to "win" there.
Saddam gassed people to keep them from revolting, because if they wanted to change something, they had to revolt. The democratic way is to give people a way to change things without violence. Of course, if they don't accept the non-violent way, America has shown it is not afraid to kill them: see Fallujah
It is about OIL, it has ALWAYS been about OIL
Come back when you understand what the Iraq war is actually about.
The petro dollar is pretty much the only damned thing we have left in the country.
Demonstrating once again your naivete. The United States produces more than any other country, and has a strong industrial base. The only reason you could say that "the petro dollar is the only thing we have left" is if you don't actually understand how the US economy works.
Let us look at the facts, okay? ..... FACT- Iraq is made up of THREE completely separate groups that frankly can't agree on shit. These are of course the Sunni, The Shia, and the Kurds.
Let's look at the real facts. The power structures in Iraq are divided along tribal lines, not along religious lines. In fact, most of Iraq is secular. The fact that you think the Sunni/Shia division is most important shows that you've gotten your information only in passing, not from a deep investigation of the matter. In essence you know nothing about Iraqi politics.
"Inside every gook.......while we make deals with China(true evil) is not only BS, it is kinda insulting,okay?
Oh nice, fortify your position of ignorance with racism. Smooth. Not only have you demonstrated your ignorance on politics and foreign affairs, you've also shown you lack the ability to understand other people at all. Racist. I can't believe it. What kind of idiot are you? Wake up and enter reality already.
And the hawks will blame the dems for not letting them "win" when the simple fact is you can NEVER win.
They won't. Obama is continuing the war. You seem to have not noticed.
In conclusion get some sense in your brain before opening your mouth and you will be a lot more intelligent. May sound harsh, but seriously, if you don't get over that racism, there's a special circle in hell for you. In this life too (more importantly).
Re:Hahaha, good one. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Hahaha, good one. (Score:5, Insightful)
Nope. Nobody on 'my side' has ever wanted America to lose a war. Try again. Here's a hint: you may want to stop looking at politics as something with 'sides' and realize we are all in this together.
Re:Hahaha, good one. (Score:5, Insightful)
okay, if we're going to play the "your side" game, you have to look at the other side as well.
The side you refer to 'thinking the Founding Fathers' were on to something also believes in the erosion of civil liberties, consolidation of executive power, silencing those who dissent, torture, revoking habeous corpus, forced religion, racial profiling and exclusion, warmongering, etc...
Read some of President Washington's work and tell me how ANYTHING from the last 8 years even remotely comes close to the Framer's vision!?!?
Face it, both sides are out of touch with the Founding Fathers. Both "sides" are corrupted abominations that offer little in the way of serious social stability with in the original frame work of our Constitution.
The Democrats have long understood and I think important elements of the Conservative movement (not the Republicans as of yet) now realize that we are fast approaching a 'there can be only one' point in history, where one side must finally confront and defeat the other.
Mean while I think the general population of the US is finally coming to the inevitable "there can not be only two" point in history.
There are way more issues than there are sides. Some of those issues the Democrats are more liberal, some of them Republicans are more liberal, hell some of them the Libertarians are more liberal on. Stop thinking of politics as a black and white game, all that type of thinking is doing is shrinking and isolating the once proud Republican movement. Learn to deal with nuance. Work to reform the party based on intellectual debate rather than 5 second sound bites of FUD and maybe we can see a healthy return of the Republican party.
-Rick
Re:Hilarious! (Score:4, Interesting)
No, I think Bush was a Fascist. Luckily public opinion and the Congress swung against him before the Unitarian Executive theory could get any further. But we still need to take a weed whacker to Presidential power and prune the crap out of that tree.
-Rick
nit pick (Score:5, Funny)
Unitary Executive, not Unitarian! If Bush were a Unitarian executive, he would be far more open minded ^_^.
Re:Reality based my ass (Score:5, Insightful)
Erosion of civil liberties? You mean the Patriot Act that Obama DIDN'T renounce once he was the one in the hot seat and would be responsible if something went FOOM!, is that what you are on about? The Patriot Act that DIDN'T actually do most of the things the crazies say it does?
I have not said a word in defense of the Democrats or Obama. They are as complicit as the Republicans, IMO.
The only solution is to push hard for a return to normal as soon as the Islamic threat is beat back.
Islamic threat!?!? We are not at war with the Muslim religion, we are at war with extremists who use religion as a tool. The number of violent Muslims is insignificant compared to the number of socially respectable and respectful Muslims in the world. Claiming that the entire Islamic nation is terrorist is nothing short of bigoted drivel.
As someone who leans Libertarian I find it distasteful but can't see a way around the problem.
Here's a thought, how about not getting into unncesary foreign wars?!?!
Are you insane or do you just believe if you repeat a lie enough it will become the Truth? Name one dissident who has been silenced.
Joseph C. Wilson would be the obvious choice, since his story actually did make it public. There were many more smaller stories that did not gather the same level of press over the last 8 years, and with all likelihood many more that had been successfully supressed such that you nor I would never hear of them.
many AMERICAN CITIZENS did BushHitler put in to gulags?
I have never compared Bush to Hitler. Although oddly enough I have heard a few right wing talk show hosts make that comparison to Obama. And the answer is at least one, John Walker Lindh. On the other hand, he did make some huge investments in new prison and internment camps our west, there deffinately appeared to be a concern expressed by the Federal government that a significant number of people would need to be locked up in very short order.
Try it in a real dictatorship and you can earn some actual Karma.
When did I say anything about a dictatorship? I said Fascist. Two entirely different arangements. While they can overlap significantly, the two are not mutually inclusive. Not only that, but where they hell does this arguement come from? I'm specifically stating that I think President Bush did more to move the country in the direction of Fascism than any other President that I am aware of. I dislike the idea of Fascism AND dictatorship, so I will do all that is in my power to prevent the slide of the government in that direction. What Chaves and Castrol due is immaterial to my concern of the US government. Just because social norms in their country are even more unacceptable to me doesn't mean I should compromise my views of social norms here in the US.
And I really don't think you even know what a phrase like habeous corpus even means if you think we have been violating it.
Habeous Corpus is a legal action through which a person can seek relief from the unlawful detention of him or herself.
How is that not an exacting contradiction to what we are doing through GITMO detentions and black site holdings? Hell, some of the GITMO prisoners have been legally cleared of wrong doing, yet we are STILL detaining them. Even US citizens like José Padilla have been denieghed the right to Habeous Corpus.
I don't know what rock yuo have been living under, but come on out in to the light.
I won't concede that waterboarding is torture
So then you would be in favor of the US making reperations to the families of the Japanesse whom we executed after WWII for using waterboarding as a form of torture on US troops? You are also stating that it is there for acceptable to have any person any where, be it a member of our military, a citizen
Re:Reality based my ass (Score:5, Insightful)
"I won't concede that waterboarding is torture"
Well that's big of you.
Perhaps you should go back to 1946 and tell that to the Allies before they hang 'innocent' (according to jmorris) Japanese officers for doing it. Also make sure you tell the US and Aussie POWs (especially the high ranking officers!) who were on the receiving end of it that you don't 'concede' that they were tortured.
Big fucking heros you American 'conservatives' are aren't ya.
Except when *your* on the receiving end of any of your bankrupt ideology.
"crossed the line to treason more than once"
Good god.
Was it treason when that fat fuck on Fox openly declared he hoped the navy rescue of that ships crew would fail? Or that your all critising Obama in *gasp* a time of war?!
Right.
Critising Bush = Treason.
Critising Obama = Patriot.
There's a reason your party is being completely dominated - You and your ilk and your muddled and *completely* morally bankrupt ideology ARE THAT REASON.
It's a shame too, because I bet you only make up a tiny fraction of the party. It's always the extremists who are the noisiest and ruin it for the reasonable majority unfortunately.
Re:Reality based my ass (Score:4, Informative)
Unfortunately for you, the Supreme Court [wikipedia.org] and the stewards of the Geneva Conventions [icrc.org] disagree with you there. At a minimum, Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions provide a baseline of protections the United States must afford to every detainee.
Re:Hahaha, good one. (Score:4, Insightful)
Two futures lie ahead of us, one of an emasculated politically cleansed America where the State (i.e. national government) reigns supreme over pretty much everything, assigns everyone their place and everyone knows resistence to be futile as we spiral down to Third World status and keep going towards failed state.
I view this as what the Bush regime gave us. Trillion dollar increases in the national debt that our grandkids will be lucky to see gone. Sheer incompetence that shows the Republicans couldn't rebuild New Orleans in the amount of time that it took to rebuild all of Europe after WWII.
Or how about a 'politically cleansed america' where if you do scientific research or have a charity that doesn't follow the narrow government sense or morals you lose your funding. Science books are removed from schools and replaced with religious dogma. Neighbours are allowed weapons sizeable to a small army and shoot trespassers with impunity, yet a small swear word on tv results in government ordered fines and content sensorship.
Right wing republicans want a dictatorship in the US, run by religious law - very much indistinguisable from the likes of the Taliban.
Its the Republicans that need to wake up and change their attitude or get the hell out of the country before they destroy it.
Re:Hahaha, good one. (Score:5, Insightful)
New Orleans is squarely in Democrat hands, the Republicans haven't had anything to do with it. The fact that you don't know that just goes to show how good the media is at covering for them.
Really, though, I think jmorris was talking about CONSERVATIVES, which Republicans ain't. Which is why they lost so big in the last election cycle, their own "right wing" base won't support them.
Actually, Conservatives believe in not giving any charities government funding, regardless of belief.
As far as Scientific Funding.... Who was the first US President to dedicate Federal funds to embryonic stem cell research?
Actually that sounds pretty awesome. :)
Can you give an actual example of a Conservative Republican who wants that? I don't think so. Hell, I'd be surprised if you came up with an example of a Conservative Republican, period.
Ahh there's that tolerance everyone on the left said was missing during the Bush years. I feel so accepted for my differing viewpoints. Really.
Here's a news flash: At this rate, things are going to come to a head, one way or another. And only one side of this argument owns guns.
Re:Hahaha, good one. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, I realize that. But the person he was responding to was talking about Conservatives, not "right wing Republicans"...
Yes, I believe I was the one making that very point.
If you'd of said Pat Buchanan, you may have had a point. But Rush Limbaugh? Seriously? You're saying RUSH LIMBAUGH wants a theocracy? He gets CONSTANT heat from the religious right over how areligious his show is! Next you're going to tell me Bill O'Reilly is a Conservative!
Damn, we started up the Inquisition again? Why wasn't I invited!? I loved the Pit and the Pendulum!
Seriously, though... Lately the only "Agree with us or die!" point of view I've been seeing espoused vis a vis scientific belief has all been coming from the Global Warming camp...
Re:Hahaha, good one. (Score:4, Insightful)
Hahaha, oh I always love that fantasy world you live in. Fortunately for America, you are wrong, and we will do just fine. We will be out of this recession in a year and a half, and Obama will look like a genius. He will sweep the next presidential election in a landslide, and we will get Universal health care. This will do so much to restore American competitiveness that we will experience huge economic growth before he leaves office, ushering in even more socialism, as people realize it just plain works.
OK, now I can't tell which of you is trolling harder.
COME ON PEOPLE. There is not going to be some kind of dramatic, miraculous movement in any direction. God will not reach out of the heavens and give a sign indicating which way the United States of America should go -- largely because Americans ain't the Chosen People ;-). Stuff will be worked out to stop the recession/depression, and people will adopt it. Whoever invented it will see a fruitful political career, and their enemies will fall from power steadily. Life will go right back to normal. That is how reality works. Maybe we'll get universal health care, maybe we won't. It depends on who does what when in which context.
Learn some subtlety and nuance, ya partisan hacks!
Re:Hahaha, good one. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Hahaha, good one. (Score:5, Insightful)
Not in so many words, no. Many Democrats have, however, called for us to pull out of Iraq under conditions that are equivalent (in my, and many other people's opinion) to admitting that we've lost.
How is coming to the realization that we lost the same thing as wanting to lose? Did Japan's surrender that ended WWII before his entire country was destroyed mean that Emperor Hirohito wanted to lose? Did the fact that that James Madison signed a peace treaty with the British that under conditions that are equivalent to admitting that we've lost [wikipedia.org] mean that he wanted America to lose the War of 1812?
I wish as much as the most hardcore right winger that we were accepted with open arms in Iraq and that Iraqi citizens were willing to work with us to rebuild their country, but that isn't what happened. No one wanted to (or wants to today, for that matter) lose the war. What the Democrats wanted to do was stop sending our boys off to die overseas just to prove that invading Iraq was a good idea in the first place.
Re:Hahaha, good one. (Score:5, Insightful)
Being a libertarian, I don't really have a dog in this fight, I think that most politicians are crooks. But do you have any idea how irrational & childish you sound?
There is a huge difference between wanting your country out of a war & wanting your country to *lose* a war.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The Repubs just want it to fail in a manor that wakes people up so it doesn't happen again.
Like, a country manor outside of Derbyshire? That's a nice play for anything, even failure! It's a bed and breakfast as well.
Re:Hahaha, good one. (Score:5, Insightful)
"socialism" doesn't mean what the bulk of americans (ie "you") think it means. Most of Europe, Canada and South America are "socialist". We say "socialism" and you hear "communist dictatorship" which is something completely, completely different.
Sort of like how "liberal" is slanderous to you guys... so weird.
Stop thinking in black & white, flush the cold-war era propaganda from your mind, and you'll find there are some excellent lessons to be learned from a system not driven wholy by greed.
Re:And.... (Score:5, Insightful)
YEAH! Like universal health care, and an end to the 35% of health care expenditure that goes to parasite insurance companies! WOOT!
(Just for reference, the US is the only western country to tie health care to one's employer. It is a strange combination, that has many perverse effects such as separating the consumer from the one paying the health care bills, and turning the bill-payers into care-denial organizations. The macro effect is that we spend more of our GDP on health care than any other country in the world, yet our population dies sooner (about 3 years' shorter life span).)
Re:And.... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not sure if you are only counting government spending, or also private spending by individuals and companies.
Obviously, there would be more private spending on health care in the US than in other developed countries. But let's just look at government spending:
If you add up all the government spending on health care in the US and in Canada, including federal, state/provincial, and local/municipal governments, and then divide that total by the population of the respective countries, you'd see that government spending on health care, per-capita, is higher in the US than in Canada! In one sense, that means that the US is further down the path to socialism than Canada is (not that I think that either of those countries are very socialist in any practical sense). In theory, a switch in the US to Canadian-style health care systems should allow for lower government expenditures...
Re:And.... (Score:5, Informative)
You feel sick, you go to a doctor without worrying about "prior condition" exclusions resulting in termination of insurance or non-coverage. You get hurt, you go to a hospital, without worrying about your care being delayed while they shunt you over to someplace else because you don't have the right kind of (or maybe any) insurance, or discovering that your insurance has gotchas such as only paying for 2nd+days in hospital (all the expensive stuff happens on the first day).
Not happy with the universal health insurance? You can still go to a private practitioner and pay for it yourself. But, because you are negotiating up front, the costs are much lower than the US, and come without some kind of arcane billing system designed to confuse the end user. And the care providers don't want an insane billing system and are much more likely to give you a rollup all-in-one bill amount before you start.
Re:And.... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:And.... (Score:5, Interesting)
To say this system works better is ridiculous.
Unless you measure health outcomes, rather than user experience. I agree the user experience sucks, and while private care is not entirely unavailable here it is generally only available to the ultra-rich and politically well-connected.
However, by any measure you care to name--longer lives, lower infant mortality, lower morbidity...--we have considerably better health care outcomes in Canada than Americans have, and we pay less for them.
Critics of the Canadian system don't actually care about health care outcomes, which is why they always focus on the lousy user experience. The curious question is: if they don't care about health care outcomes, why are they bothering to get all worked up about the system in the first place? They could avoid all the inconveniences of our system and get EXACTLY THE SAME CARE as an uninsured person in the United States without ever leaving home.
Re:And.... (Score:5, Informative)
To further clarify, this is true even controlling for the fact that there are groups that tend to have worse health outcomes in the US and which are less numerous in Canada. So even comparing between just middle-class white people in Canada and the US, you get significant differences in those metrics.
Re:And.... (Score:4, Interesting)
That's why your population health indicator averages suck. The USA "private" system is geared provide the most expensive treatments to the rich people who can afford it; the rest get mediocre treatment that bankrupts them because they're not in the financial class the treatments are geared to, or are allowed to deteriorate until their condition is so critical that the taxpayer can be stuck with the bill from an emergency room.
You see a similar effect in Crown-owned power utilities in Canada that subsidize/encourage energy conservation through the use of low power appliances, better home insulation and heat efficiency, use of more efficient lighting, etc. We've had those kinds of programs for decades. In the USA, the private corporations want you to increase your power consumption until they overtax production capability and get brownouts, because that allows them to maximize profits for their current infrastructure investment. The resulting scarcity means that they can crank up rates without changing costs without worrying about decreased consumption, and thereby increase their profits. Of course, NIMBY opposition to any power project really helps in maintaining that scarcity. But for every US NIMBY, there's gotta be at least one guy who insists he needs a single occupancy SUV to drive to their urban job, keeps their swimming pool heated year-round, or who still uses appliances and lighting from the 60s or earlier. Arguably, some of the "NIMBY" concerns regarding quality-of-life and environmental impact of new power generation are valid.
If there's one thing that should be taken away from the current mortgage and credit crisis, it's that market economics are often superior when you can get solid competition between players, but fail miserably when costs, risks, and responsibilities/end goals aren't aligned/tied to profit making. The current US private health care system is a lot more like the latter than the former. The HMOs and hospital transfer as much of the risks and financial responsibilities to patients, employers and the taxpayer as they can get away with (and since it's a small cartel of HMOs they get away with quite a bit). The reason why private health organizations are so against a public system is that it would re-align risks and responsibilities with costs and revenue. Now, certainly some of the risk should be on the patient to provide an incentive to live in a healthier manner and keep health costs down, but the patients need information on how to do that. The US system financially discourages the care providers from providing that information as a service as long as the economy can support continued premium increases by HMOs instead. That's a critical structural problem with the USA's private health care system. Public health care systems suffer from the usual problems of government bureaucracies, but those can be more easily dealt with than fundamental structural flaws.
Re:And.... (Score:5, Informative)
I have lived for several years in both the US and in Candada, and my experience has been that Canada's health care system does work better than the US one. There are problems with it, but in general I found that both the quality of care and the administrative details that I had to deal with were both significantly better in Canada than in the US. Your milage may vary.
Re:And.... (Score:5, Informative)
The Daily Mail is not a balanced source for debating health care in NHS (I'm not American, but I think citing Fox News for gun control laws would be similar?).
In any case, in the third sentence, "this demonstrates how much dental care has deteriorated under Labour". They're criticising the way the current government is running the NHS, not universal health care.
"He pointed the finger at the general difficulty in finding a Health Service dentist since the Government introduced a 'botched' contract in April 2006." -- again, blaming the government.
"The crisis in NHS dentistry is one of this Government's most shameful legacies"
In the second article "A spokesman for NHS East Riding of Yorkshire said Mr Boynton's case gave an 'inaccurate scare-mongering picture of dental service provision in East Yorkshire based solely on the claims of one man'", which sums up the Daily Mail nicely.
Note that at no point in either article does the newspaper suggest switching to a private system. They want the government (well, the next government) to fix the current system, but none of the main parties in the UK want to end universal health care.
Try searching for David Cameron (leader of the Conservative party, the major right-wing one) and his experience with the NHS wrt his terminally ill son.
Re:And.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The correct term is universal health bureaucracy, there is no care involved.
Says the guy who obviously hasn't yet had to face a serious health problem without coverage or with inadequate health insurance. I know, you shouldn't be made to suffer just because of the poor choices made by others to have genetic disorders, evil employers or the lack of foresight to grow older.
If you think having government administered health coverage vs. private coverage will result in more bureaucracy, then you just haven't had to deal with your health insurance provider yet.
Re:And.... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:And.... (Score:5, Funny)
The correct term is universal health bureaucracy, there is no care involved.
Yeah, why would anyone want Universal Health Bureaucracy when our current system of Private Health Bureaucracy works so well
Re:And.... (Score:5, Informative)
Unfortunately for you, the facts are plain. Americans pay the most for our health care, per capita. Four times as much as any other country. And we have one of the worst health care outcomes, as measured by average life expectancy, child mortality rate, and so forth. Our outcomes are worse than some third world countries. So, for four times the cost of the next most expensive health care system, we get a third world health care system. You can speculate all you want, but your speculations are proven worthless by the real world.
Right now, you have private insurance companies, dedicated to nothing more than profiting off of your suffering, deciding whether you get care. Do you honestly think that is better?
Re:And.... (Score:5, Insightful)
While I agree with you in principle, I think your numbers might be a bit off. The ones I find indicate the U.S. is paying between 20% and 50% more than the next highest country (per capita). U.S. citizens pay about twice as much for health care as the average of all the other industrialized countries. However, it places second to last in terms of effectiveness among the industrialized nations, only beating New Zealand. World-wide the U.S. ranks 37th world-wide according to the WHO, and the only North American or European country it seems to beat in terms of health care results is Mexico.
So yeah, the U.S. system is a raw deal for U.S. citizens.
Re:And.... (Score:5, Informative)
No problem [umaine.edu], since you asked so politely.
Re:And.... (Score:4, Insightful)
As they say around here -- good luck with that. And besides, you are probably dead by the time it goes to court. And, its cheaper for the (for profit) insurance company to pay out the 1 case that happens to sue and win and deny coverage to (your guess it) increase their profits.
BTW, those losers who are "wasting your retirement funds" -- you mean the ones in your 401(k). How good is the "free market" doing for those these days. Oh, sorry... I forgot, those were run by greedy overpaid bankers.
Re:And.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Um, if my health insurance provider screws me over, I can sue them. You can't sue the government.
Why not? British people occasionally sue the NHS (National Health Service). It doesn't make them very popular -- they're taking public money if they win -- but there's nothing to stop them suing, and sometimes they win.
Amtrack, Postal Service, Social Security... Nope, they all suck.
Because your right-wing governments don't fund them properly.
I don't want my health care decisions handed over to the same group of losers that are wasting my retirement funds.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought it was the insurance companies and the banks that wasted all the money, and it's the insurance company that's deciding your health care.
Re:And.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Amtrack, Postal Service, Social Security... Nope, they all suck.
Because your right-wing governments don't fund them properly.
While your general point stands, I just want to point out 2 things: Amtrack sucks, but it's not for a lack of funding - it's the direction, priorities and technologies of Amtrack that make it sucky.
And the second thing I'd like to point out: USPS is an excellent company, looking at the end product, and that is delivered letters and parcels. USPS is cheaper than UPS but they won't destroy the contents of your package (while UPS, for some odd reason, just seems to enjoy to make some, at least little, damage to your shipment/parcel). And USPS is the only postal service that has proven to be 100% reliable - and I have received more than a thousand parcels through them. My opinion of the Finnish post is good, but not as good. Canadian Post resulted to be awful. Egyptian postal service is pure scam - you'll be lucky if every third parcel gets through, fucking bunch of criminals. Croatian post is halfway decent, actually (on par with Deutsche Post/DHL), but nothing like USPS or Finnish post. Royal Mail: too little experience to make a judgement, but their ParcelForce is expensive like hell. For that money they should wrap every parcel in gold foil.
So, anyhow, you can tell I'm a big fan of USPS.
Re:And.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Anecdotes are not evidence. And oddly enough, everyone who is against universal health care has an anecdote just like yours. You guys must all be well traveled!
I have an anecdote too. My wife broke her ankle recently. She spent eight hours waiting in the emergency room. Her primary care physician is so booked up, she couldn't get in for a month, even with a broken ankle. And we HAVE health care coverage.
The fact is, we pay four times the amount of the next most expensive health care system in the world. And measured by life expectancy, child mortality rates, and so on, our health care system provides outcomes similar to a third world country.
Your 'friend' in England must not have realized he can get top quality private health care there, and that it costs less because the hospitals bill directly. Maybe you can tell him?
Parent poster is wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
"In other words, if you're not near death, you can't see someone who can actually help you"
Last year I had an earache. I knew I wasn't dying but it was a bit annoying. I phoned the doctor's surgery, they gave me an appointment that evening. I went to see the doc and he checked my ear, gave me a prescription for ear drops which I took to the chemist and it sorted out my minor infection.
Parent's poster is wrong. You don't need to be near death to see somebody who can help you.
Oh these Americans, so over dramatic.
Perhaps that was the problem, I wonder if the American friend went to the local doc and explained "OH MY GOD DOC! I've been sharing a house with a SMOKER, for TWO WHOLE DAYS, I think I've got CANCER, and I AM DYING!". I can imagine a British doc saying "yes yes well calm down, have you had any extreme symptoms? No? well, let me do a check... everything seems in order. How about you ask your friend to stop smoking in the house or perhaps you move to another flat. Get out and take up a little exercise as well."
I think the doctor would be sitting there thinking that if the problem was the guy was living with a smoker, why didn't he move and so solve his problem?
As another poster has noted, we have public health services in the UK but also private doctors, nobody stops you going to a private doctor if you want to pay.
(ok I've been a little jolly in this post and apologies I am sure your friend was in distress and I wish them well... but you did set me up a bit there. You suggest that "health care is something to be earned and not a right" and then complain your friend who'd been living in the UK for only one year couldn't get free specialist treatment. Why didn't he go and pay for a private specialist?).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
He's hasn't been an automatic vote either way as it was. From a practical standpoint, nothing has changed. The big news here is that Specter thinks the Republicans are more likely to push a hard-right primary challenge (which they almost certainly go on to lose in the general election, given Specter's district) than Democrats are to push a hard-left challenge (which they might win).
Shift in dynamics (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Shift in dynamics (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Shift in dynamics (Score:5, Insightful)
They are SO upset that they lost the election and they're going ape shit. Instead of trying to push their message with resonable thought, they force it on you with words of communism and "fascism."
The more they do it though, the less people they will inevitably get to vote for them. You might get some simple people to believe the nonsense but not a thinking person.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They seem like crazy nut jobs here, too. Every time I hear another insane rant about "Obama's Fascist Regime" it pushes me further and further away from the Republican party.
They are SO upset that they lost the election and they're going ape shit. Instead of trying to push their message with resonable thought, they force it on you with words of communism and "fascism."
So 100 days of Republican bitching has more of an effect than 8 years of relentless Bush Bashing?
Re:Shift in dynamics (Score:5, Insightful)
So 100 days of Republican bitching has more of an effect than 8 years of relentless Bush Bashing?
In retrospect, the left clearly did not bash Bush enough. Two failed wars, deregulation of banks that have destroyed the economy, deregulation of industry which has lead to increased polution, removal of personal civil rights, the loss of our standing in the world... This vs. Obama's slight change in the tax structure to let the super-wealthy bear a little bit more of the burden, and the attempt to provide federal assistance through the depression.
The noisy ones on the extreme right wing of the Republican party should be ashamed of themselves, including but not limited to the folks on Fox who have clearly sold their souls.
Re:Shift in dynamics (Score:5, Informative)
I agree with your premise, but the banking deregulation that (at least partially) led to the current situation was done under Clinton.
Re:Shift in dynamics (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Shift in dynamics (Score:5, Insightful)
That's pretty much it. The Republicans have been reduced to the anti-Democrat party. As long as Obama remains reasonable and intelligent, the Republicans are left with crazy and stupid.
I'd like them to take a little time, and find the party that used to be smart and conservative rather than the party that panders to the bottom half of the electorate.
Re:Shift in dynamics (Score:4, Insightful)
Sadly, I'm pretty sure that "majority" doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.
Pro Tip: Don't feel like you have something to say just because the word "fascism" comes up in a discussion about republicans and you fancy yourself clever.
Re:Shift in dynamics (Score:5, Interesting)
This will be interesting though! Just for yucks, I went over to fox news to see what they had to say about it, and their first headline read "Specter abandons millions of GOP voters to join the democratic party." I think that's pretty funny since Specter himself says the GOP voters are abandoning the GOP. That is, he says 200k registered republicans switched parties in the last election in pennsylvania. (They've got something else up now about him being a party pooper.)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Shift in dynamics (Score:4, Insightful)
I bet he won't change his voting behavior much, arguably, the citizens of PA are going to benefit now because it is ensured that their representative can at least voice their concerns and those concerns are going to be heard and there's some chance they will be acted on. There's little chance of that as a Republican.
For the future elections, the republicans could still vote for him even though he's a democrat now. I'm a registered Democrat and I voted against Diane Feinstein in every election when I lived in California because of her stance on criminalization of reproduction of digital works. My boss usually voted Democrat too but he not only voted for Schwarzenegger against the Democrat Davis in the special election because of Davis' corruption but voted for Bush the first time too because he couldn't stand Clinton pardoning his friends at the end of his term. While I recognize where you're coming from with that sentiment, I think we as a country, but especially the Republicans, need to move past this us versus them mentality and emphasizing wedge issues. All U.S citizens are "us" and I'm not a terrorist if I disagree with you.
Re:Shift in dynamics (Score:4, Informative)
Eh. Specter is an old school reagan-ish republican. He's pro-choice, pro-environment, and pro-immigration. He's crossed party lines repeatedly over the last few years: he was 1 of three senate republicans to vote for the big stimulus package.
The stimulus vote pissed off the republican leadership, with Steele going so far as to threaten not to contribute to his campaign fund. He's had republican challengers in the primaries for the last 2(?) primaries.
I think they did a good job of making him feel unwanted, and frankly, they can suck it up.
No sir (Score:5, Insightful)
"Eh. Specter is an old school reagan-ish republican."
There is nothing even remotely "Reagan-ish" about Arlen Specter. The only principle Specter has ever had are the ones that keep Arlen Specter in power. Though it puts the GOP in a painful disadvantage in the Senate, I am well and truly glad to see him gone. Besides the shiny new (D) beside his name, the only difference in Specter is that now he'll have to stab the Republicans in the front.
And Democrats, while you're happy about your new supposedly filibuster proof majority, consider this; if history is any indication, sooner or later you'll need Specter's vote on something. And he'll screw you guys too. When a whore leaves her husband for another man, does she ever really stop being a whore?
Re:No sir (Score:4, Insightful)
You don't know a damn thing about him other than that he doesn't always vote with the groupthink.
I know a litte about him from reading Slashdot [slashdot.org]: he urged renewal of the PATRIOT Act [slashdot.org] and sponsored the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights Act of 2008 [slashdot.org]. Am I allowed to say he was a Republican jackass before he became a Democrat jackass, or does that make me a sheeple?
Sure, he's done some good things over the years. A stopped clock is correct twice a day, right? That doesn't make him a good guy. Paul and Kucinich at least stood on principles, but I'll be darned if I can see what Specter ever stood on beyond political expedience. He's a fickle little punk, always has been, and always will be. That isn't something that just started last week.
Re:Shift in dynamics (Score:5, Insightful)
The leading competitor in the republican primary against him was Pat Toomney- an ultra right wing nutjob. He was going to take the primary due to the number of Pennsylvanians who reregistered as D to vote in the presidential primary, but he had no chance against any D in the general. Specter polls very well with both democrats and independents. If he wins the democratic primary (likely), he's an automatic win for the democrats against any republican likely to run. The only person who could possibly win the seat from him is governor Rendell (D), who won't be running.
Re:Shift in dynamics (Score:4, Informative)
Wait... (Score:5, Funny)
...Specter was a Republican to begin with?
Can't win as a Republican... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Can't win as a Republican... (Score:5, Insightful)
To quote a smart man, "Gee - big surprise."
The GOP has shrunk a great deal in the last 4 years. Moderates and Independents left the party. Millions of them.
The result is a GOP that is far more conservative than it was as recently as the 2004 election.
BushCo drove so many sane people out of the GOP that the only people left are of the dyed-in-the-wool variety.
Such a party is not going to nominate a moderate. Specter knew that. Everybody knew that.
The people of PA have re-elected Specter many times. By switching parties he's preventing a small group of very conservative voters from restricting the people of PA from electing somebody they've supported over and over in the past.
This would all be moot if PA, like most states, had open primaries where registered dems and indies could vote in the GOP primary if they chose to do so.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I had to laugh when I read, "they're becoming more conservative" because that's what Bush was for the last 8 years. It's a little late to be saying you don't like it. He might as well come on the record and say we shouldn't invade Iraq....oops, late on that one too. Switching primaries is an interesting approach. I guess his voting record can or will sink him.
Bush was a conservative? Compared to Stalin, sure, Bush was a conservative. On social issues, sure, Bush was a conservative. But on the economy? No. Conservatives don't grow the government. Bush did.
Ugh... (Score:4, Insightful)
While I may support Democrats more than the Republicans, I find the general principle of changing parties mid-term a disgusting and cowardly betrayal of trust.
You were elected as a Republican, for better or for worse. You should either finish your term as one, or if you can no longer consider yourself a Republican, resign. At the next election, feel free to run as a Democrat or whoever the hell you want. But for this term, you should act for the people who elected you. That's the principle of representative democracy.
I'd even accept the compromise of, when one leaves or is kicked out of the party, he/she should have the right to stay as an Independent member until the next election. But joining a party different from the one you were elected under, in the middle of your term, should be outright unconstitutional.
Re:Ugh... (Score:5, Funny)
I find the principle of political parties disgusting and cowardly.
If you vote for the party, you deserve to get raped by your representative.
He was elected as Arlen Specter, and he's the same Arlen Specter he was last week. If you voted for him solely because of the R next to his name, you don't deserve a vote at all.
Purpose of partisan politics (Score:4, Insightful)
You are basing your argument on the classical philosophy that a vote, when cast for a person, essentially places trust in that person to serve as he or she sees fit, for the duration of his term.
I call that position bullshit and reject it in principle. I refuse to place unconditional trust in a politician, or be so naive as to believe that he is indeed there to serve his constituency. Politicians will always do what is in their self interest (wow, just like the rest of us). That's why we have the party system, so we have an extra layer of protection. We don't JUST vote for Specter, just like we don't just vote for any Republican. We vote for both. We vote for Specter AS LONG AS he maintains the principles of the party he was running under, in this case, Republican.
Partisanism has lots of problems, but I firmly believe that the extra layer of safeguarding against do-what-I-fuckin-like politicians makes it worthwhile. We don't place unlimited trust in the guy, we only vote for him as long as he maintains integrity to the party under which he ran.
If someone WANTS to run under the platform of "unlimited trust", he should run as Independent. There's a reason why almost nobody gets elected as one.
Re:Purpose of partisan politics (Score:5, Insightful)
That's why we have the party system, so we have an extra layer of protection
Nonsense. The party system we have was not designed. There is nothing in the constitution about political parties, and in fact George Washington argued strongly against political parties in his farewell address. Our party system evolved for one reason and one reason only, because it is easier to get elected if you're in a party than not.
We don't place unlimited trust in the guy, we only vote for him as long as he maintains integrity to the party under which he ran
Political parties don't fix this issue, they just shift it. Instead of placing trust in the guy you vote for, you place trust in the party you vote for. I don't see how one is better than the other. Well, I do, considering that a person can have a conscience and a political party cannot, I'd rather trust the person. (Of course, since it's politics, I don't really trust anyone.)
Re:Purpose of partisan politics (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah. As much as I think this is about Specter getting re-elected, it's also true that he didn't leave the GOP so much as the GOP left him.
Re:Ugh... (Score:5, Insightful)
Nonsense. Party lines are more harmful than they are helpful. Also, he doesn't ONLY represent republican voters in the state, he represents ALL the voters in the state. So your notion that switching midterm is disgusting is just plain stupid, and hows your zealotry along party lines.
Personally, I'm inclinded to go with the founders, who believed parties were a bad idea. I think our history shows that to be true, and I'm in favor of doing away with political parties all together. Explain your ideas, don't just say "I'm a republican!" (or democrat).
Re:Ugh... (Score:5, Interesting)
Neo-Conservatives (Score:4, Insightful)
This just goes to show that the neo-cons have brought the Republican party to its knees. When are they going to learn. They now have the "fiscal conservative" religion, but there is a lot of doubt whether they can follow through with what they can say.
Fiscal policies aside, their doom was being so darn war driven. Not that the Dems aren't, but they took it to a new level.
Specter would have been smarter to have went independent. Does he really need a party? He has the name recognition.
Re:Neo-Conservatives (Score:5, Interesting)
It's a bit too simplistic to call all the people responsible for the Republicans' fiasco neo-cons.
The Republicans looked very powerful around the time of GW Bush's first election, but what they had is something we old time Democrats knew a lot about: a big tent coalition. We had the cultural elite and labor, and Reagan figured out that that was a fracture line he could split Democratic support along.
The difference is that the Republican coalition had even less coherence than the Democrats, and underwent spontaneous implosion as they tried to put together an agenda that pleased everyone in the tent: Westerners of a libertarian bent, the old economic and intellectual elite of the Republican party, the evangelicals, the flat out racists. That's why they could never control spending, they were too busy keeping everybody in the tent happy. They fooled themselves into thinking they were cleverly doing this temporarily so they could "starve the beast" until such a time the system began to fall apart. That was stupid. You can't starve the beast. If you try, then when things start to fall apart it just reaches out and eats you alive.
Still, if you want to find a scapegoat, look the the Southern social conservatives. It was their backing of the messianic mission of the neo-cons that allowed them to hijack foreign policy.
Nixon invited the old enemies of the Republicans economic elites into th party, the old Dixiecrats. They became powerful, like the far out religious parties in Israel, because they were the key to power. They're the ones that run the Republican party; not the people who elected Eisenhower. It's too bad, because the old economic and intellectual elite of the Republican party weren't such a bad bunch, if you kept an eye on them. The country needs people like that, even if you didn't want them to have unchallenged control over policy.
But those old time Republicans don't have any place to go now. The Republican party has been redefined out from under them. It's now the party of anti-intellectualism, xenophobia, and racism, all things that were anathema to those old time conservatives.
Maybe it's time for a Grand New Party.
Re:Neo-Conservatives (Score:4, Interesting)
Exactly how many neocons are there? I don't think there are enough of them to give any party electoral success. I don't even think there are enough of them to even run a party.
I'll tell you who the neocons were. They were the intellectual dregs of the old liberal movement, the very nation-building nutcases old time conservatives loved to hang around the liberals' necks. Then the Republican party brought all the anti-intellectuals into the fold, and in fact elected one to the presidency. George W. wasn't a neo-con. He wasn't interested enough in the world to have a position. But you have to have positions, and so he turned to the neo-cons because they had an intellectual agenda that sounded just the ticket for a president who wanted to go down in history. He was right, in an ironic way. In any case, he and his other conservative advisors apparently didn't realize these people were the ancient enemies of conservatism, but you can't blame the neo-cons if people choose to listen to them.
You're right that "social conservative" is perhaps far too broad a brush. It's really the anti-intellectuals in that movement that are to blame. C.S. Lewis was a social conservative, but he also said "When a nation thinks its cause is God's cause, it's wars become wars of annihilation." He'd have known better.
First of Many (Score:4, Insightful)
You know, this is a good move for Pennsylvania. Spector has been demonized by his own party for some time now. VERY wierd for a 30 year senator in a party that embraced Ted Stevens so fondly.
One of the important parts of all this is that Democrats agreed not to run a candidate against him in the primaries. The GOP has at least 3 candidates they wanted to run against him in the primaries before he made the switch.
The thing about the GOP that really sucks is that it eats it's own when it loses. Spector is not the only senator who has been castigated by his own party in a state that is becoming more progressive. Don't be surprised to see this happen again in the next 12 months.
M
Mixed value. (Score:4, Informative)
1. his presence will serve as a brake on more progressive legislation.
2. being a Democrat will prevent the Dems from offering up a more progressive candidate to oppose him had he stayed Republican.
3. He'll likely vote as a "liberal" Republican, ie: with the interests of capital in economics, in the interests of no one in particular (i.e. who ever pays his bills) in social issues.
Good:
1. He'll likely vote with the Dems about 60% of the time.
2. This will force the Republican party (now the property of ignorance and corruption) to be more considerate and thoughtful of their positions.
3. This could lead to someone like Snowe defecting as well, which would really bury the Republican part, possibly for good, as it could split between the Bible Thumping retard faction and the neocon fascist faction, which would work to the benefit of the Democrats.
RS
As someone from PA... (Score:3, Interesting)
It's a joke. Who cares? Specter was pretty much a lock on most votes for the Democrats anyway. He was just a way for them to get a Republican to vote with them and then scream about how great they are at "bipartisanship." LOOK! A REPUBLICAN SUPPORTS US! Ignore all the others that stand by their principles. He's been pretty much a schmuck who basically votes to please Philly and Pittsburgh. The rest of us he thinks can all go hang.
He's 79. Have you ever noticed politicians all want you and me to retire by 72 at the latest? But they're supposed to keep getting into office until they're dead? And in some cases afterward? We need to have an age limit on politicians and judges. Over 70 and they should ALL be forced out of office. That's a law that really needs to be passed.
Awesome. (Score:3, Interesting)
First I am a conservative though not a Republican. I am all for this.
I want the Democrats to have to own what happens the next few years. After all the years of hearing them harp on Bush deficits I want them to have undeniable majority so they are undeniably responsible for the economy busting budgets they are signing off on. I want ownership to be a non question. While there are good people on both sides of the aisle as a whole I think the entire Congress stinks.
Their actions have become the best reason for term limits. Too many of them think themselves as kings and queens, benevolent in their view because they know better and they are better - in their own minds. They game the system ensuring two party rule and the American people are more enamored with American idol personalities and similar : see Obama.
Now we just need Snowe to flip. She is nothing more than a RINO as well. Make them honest - if you vote one way consistently then be willing to take up the mantle of the party you align with. That way when it comes time to swap parties in power you can get outed. The tragedy is that most won't. They have so many connections and so much power from their office that unseating them takes serious criminal acts and even that is not a guarantee they don't get back in.
Its a great day. Now the Democrats have their "majority" and the hot seat is all theirs. The question becomes, do they do to Obama what they did to Clinton? See the flip side is that when one group has a real majority they don't answer to anyone - including the President. After all they no longer need them. It also leads to internal factions which happened to them in the early nineties. That majority benefits and hurts them.
But the key is, they cannot escape the responsibility for the spending spree or legislation. It will give Obama a convincing excuse too for what he signs off. So he can claim its not what he really wants "but the reality of the situation..."
So, awesome, and lol. Can't wait to see all the excuses for doing stuff that people would eviscerate Republicans for doing.
Re:Awesome. (Score:5, Interesting)
I want the Democrats to have to own what happens the next few years. After all the years of hearing them harp on Bush deficits I want them to have undeniable majority so they are undeniably responsible for the economy busting budgets they are signing off on.
Lord preserve us from such conservative wishing.
There was a time when conservatives saw this country as something more than a wall for spraying political graffiti onto, or fuel for their rally's bonfire They used to care for traditions, principles, and institutions.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'm glad you are amused. I'd be happier, though, if you understood.
I'm pointing out to the poster that he probably in fact cares whether the country succeeds or not.
Pennsylvania Politics (As Usual?) (Score:5, Interesting)
For those that are not aware:
Great quote about Specter (Score:4, Interesting)
Arlen Specter is one of the worst, most soul-less, most belief-free individuals in politics. The moment most vividly illustrating what Specter is: prior to the vote on the Military Commissions Act of 2006, he went to the floor of the Senate and said what the bill "seeks to do is set back basic rights by some 900 years" and is "patently unconstitutional on its face." He then proceeded to vote YES on the bill's passage.
the quote in context (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:the quote in context (Score:4, Insightful)
"Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, pressed an amendment [nytimes.com] that would strike a provision from the bill that prohibits terror suspects from challenging their detention in the courts. ''What the bill seeks to do is set back basic rights by some 900 years,'' said Mr. Specter, who traced the ability to challenge one's detention to the Magna Carta"
The amendment failed. And he voted for the bill anyways. Even though he said that without the amendment, it set back basic rights by 900 years. Please explain how your context shows he was being anything but a hypocrite.
What do you get combine a Republicand & a Demo (Score:4, Funny)
You get someone who never forgets he's an ass.
Re:Maybe i'm just cynical... (Score:5, Informative)
Specter left the Democratic Party in '81 because he lacked seniority for cool appointments. The Republicans were (and have been) desperate enough for a Pennsylvania senate seat that he could write his own checks in the GOP. Now, he's looking at being part of a permanent minority, and the majority party is probably going to give him nicer committee chairs than he could get with the GOP.
It's not a principled stand; it's politics.
Re:Maybe i'm just cynical... (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, to be fair, he has always described himself as a moderate republican; elected in the 80's when the 'Big Tent' philosophy was strong in the Republican party. If 200,000 people left the Republican party for the Democratic party, you can bet that it was the moderates that were leaving, shifting the party farther to the right and making it impossible for him to win the primary as a self described moderate.
If he is more likely to win the primary in the democratic party than the republican party, he is almost by definition a democrat. If he isn't a democrat, he will lose badly in his first primary and everything will be exactly as it would be if he had stayed as a republican.
Re:How is this news for nerds?!! (Score:4, Insightful)
Nerds are citizens, therefore we have an interest in this. We aren't idiots, therefore we don't have an interest in celebrity news.
Re: (Score:3)
How about we increase tax rates and reup spending for actual programs that aren't wars or bailouts?
We've done nothing BUT cut taxes and essential services.
Screw John Galt, we need Monty Brewster.
Re:Republicans need to forcibly remove party label (Score:4, Interesting)
Not if it is unconstitutional for the government to do so, or if it is a thing better provided by a private organization.
Sure it sucks. You know what other things sucks? Rain, snow, and not getting laid. The fact that "something sucks" doesn't mean the government automatically has the responsibility to make it "not suck".
No, no one "has" to do it. Do not confuse objective necessity with your belief that something should be done about a problem. The problem is, when you step over the line from "believing something should be done," to "forcing everybody to do what I think must be done by making it a government program," I have a problem with that.
I'm sure I'll be modded down as troll and flamebait because I'm breaking with prevailing slashdot wisdom, but I don't mind burning karma to make this point. If you think that something more should be done about poverty, then by all means - Campaign your little heart out to raise private (VOLUNTARY) charitable donations to alleviate the problem. Take a vow of near-poverty yourself and donate all your earnings to the poor.
Hell, if you did that rather than try to seize control of the government to use it as a club to force me to donate to the programs you happen to think are "necessary," I'd write you a check to help educate, feed, clothe, shelter, and medicate the poor & homeless with a big smile - I donate my time & money already of my own free will, because I believe it's the right & moral thing to do.
If you want more to be done about all the problems, I'll respond with this simple challenge: You first. Do it on your own, voluntarily, lead by example. I may follow voluntarily, I may decide to go a different direction and donate to another cause that I think is more important. But either way, I will not hate you for presuming to know what is best for me and forcing me to fund programs that I do not support, and you will have proven that you do not hate your fellow human beings enough to think that the only way they will do the right thing is if they are forced to.