February 5th, 2008
|12:37 pm - How I'm voting.|
President: Barack Obama.
Hillary projects a very strong feeling of a "nanny state". She's on record as having been horrified by the "Hot Coffee" mod of GTA: San Andreas. She's been on record supporting an awful lot of RIAA issues. Obama doesn't have that history.
I like Clinton's plan for universal health care, but Obama is at least for universal access to health care. That's a good start.
I've heard some people point out that Obama's against gay marriage. He's on record bringing his religious beliefs into it as well. However, Obama is also for repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", supports equal rights for alphabet soup folk (read: GLBT + whatever other letters you think need to get tacked on there) in adoption and employment, civil unions, expanding hate crime legislation, and voted against the Defense of Marriage Act and a Federal Marriage amendment which would have prevented gay marriage.
Obama is *not* anti-gay.
91: No. The only argument submitted for this is a "PLEASE VOTE NO ON THIS" from the authors of the prop.
92: No. I like the idea of lowering Community College tuition, but I don't like that the funding to make up the difference has to come from somewhere.
93: No. It brings about a reduction of 2 years in term limits, nonspecific to whether they were spent in the state senate or state assembly, while resetting the limits for some 42 members of the state legislature who would term out.
94-97: Yes. The stuff about this being a sweet deal for the four tribes mentioned is true. The stuff about this working against the other ones is false. There's nothing in this that stops any tribe from developing a similar agreement. Additionally, it brings in extra revenue from the state from the pockets of the people who are separating themselves from their money. I'm all for that.
|Date:||February 6th, 2008 01:18 am (UTC)|| |
Also, isn't it "toeing" the line, not "towing"?
Yes, in common practice it is the latter. I like my version better, as I envision him pulling the weight of the fundies by a large tow line.
Unless I miss my guess, you already have your wages garnished to support your health care. I certainly do. The only difference as I see it, is that in Clinton's plan, it's mandatory and probably a larger amount is taken out.
I don't like the idea of government mandated health care, any more than I like the idea of government sponsored health care. The government has no right to force me to buy health insurance, or to tell me what I can and cannot do with my body.
I hate to use a “slippery slope” here, but if the government can force me to have insurance, what prevents them from forcing me to use a certain kind of insurance, forcing me to work out, eat certain foods, not smoke, ad nauseum? I don't like this path, even if it gives short-term gains. I equate it with the Patriot Act as far as its harm to our liberties.
Also, I don't see how this will help anyone. Health care prices are increasing because of insurance, lawsuits, etc. Forcing people to have insurance doesn't magically fix the health care nightmare. It will probably make it worse, given the government's horrible track record on... well, just about everything.
Between losing the ability for someone to get an abortion and losing the ability to own an unregistered firearm, the choice seems like a pretty obvious one to me.
First, Bush postured quite a bit on this issue when he was first running for office. This is a concession that the fundies request for their vote, nothing more. Certainly, Bush enacted a partial-birth abortion ban, but this procedure is rare in practice, and is rather abhorrent anyway. Of course, Bush is a total douche bag. McCain is a half douche bag. I am certainly Pro-Choice when it comes to policy, even if I am Pro-Life when it comes to my personal life.
Second, without guns, we lose any possibility of ever rising against an ever-increasing tyrannical government. This was one of many reasons why the second amendment was added to the Bill of Rights. Also, the police cannot guarantee your safety, nor can the military, national guard, etc. Having received the same gun training as police officers, I can tell you that their command of a weapon is nothing magical, nor is it something I am going to risk my life for by remaining unarmed.
My basic opinion is that it makes one feel a little warm and fuzzy at night, but for the intent that the founding fathers had, it's utterly useless.
Which intent would that be?
I own an assault rifle. It's my insurance against the craziness that happens here in Florida after a hurricane hits. With the officials busy putting out fires and rescuing people, the nut jobs begin their looting and home invasions. A hand gun does well when the police are thirty minutes away. When it could be hours before the police arrive, it is useful to have additional backup.
My apartment happens to be in a “rougher” part of town, where apparently there was a home invasion last year. My hand gun sits on the ready in the quick release safe behind my bed. As for the utility of a gun in a home invasion, a friend of mine is good friends with a fellow down in Sarasota who shot and killed a home invader with his shotgun last year. That's enough evidence for me. Although, I'd be happy to debate the worthless “studies” done on the effectiveness of guns in the home. :-)
On the point of McCain, all I can say is that he'd have to do a lot to make up for his baldly political reversal on the issue of abortion. That really, really bothers me.
Just as the Dems have to bow their heads to the radical leftist fringe, the GOPs have to bow their heads to the radical fundies. I don't buy much into this. I highly doubt that Roe v. Wade is going to be overturned any time soon. I also doubt that we will see much action on this front, with a Democrat controlled Congress.