Short version: There is a difference between “clan” and “country”, but only one of degree. The difference being, you can choose your country. You can choose your degree of involvement with your country. You can choose who is in charge of your country. You can do none of those with your “clan” or your family.

That said, I think there is an answer to the health care problem in this country. I think that it is in our own rational self interest to provide a certain level of basic services to all citizens in this country. Access to courts, access to education, access to the legal system. Our taxes go to provide a basic level of service to everyone. (”If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you…”) I think it is possible to put health care in that same category. Not necessarily by writing a blank check to pay for every doctor visit or prescription pill authorized by a doctor, but a reasonable standard of health care that is available to all Americans. If you can do better on your own, then have at it. But, using the legal system as an example, we can’t all hire Johnny Cochran. If you have the means then get the best that you can afford. If you do not have the means, then that does not necessarily follow that you are “out of luck”.

Now if we can just get the talk radioheads out there to stop whining “It’s our money!” every time they talk about taxes, we might get somewhere.

http://www.juntosociety.com/patriotism/inytg.html

The problem with third party candidacies in the United States comes from the fact that they start with the Presidency as a first step. For a third party to become a truly viable alternative, you need to start at the bottom level. Win some House seats, a Senate seat or two. Establish a record that demonstrates the principles that your party stands for. Grow your party’s share of seats on both houses until you become large enough to influence votes on key pieces of legislation. In business it would be called “building your brand”.

Once you have met this step, then you can afford to step into the national spotlight and make a serious run at the Presidency. To date, the Libertarian party has failed to win a single congressional seat, yet they never fail to run a candidate for President. Why should voters take them seriously? What can they reasonably hope to accomplish even if they won election? How would they obtain the power to govern? Congress could override the veto, and any initiatives of your own would die in committee.

As for Ron Paul, I respect his ideals, and if he had the congressional infrastructure to get anything done then he might be worthy of my vote. But why should I vote for a candidate who can’t do any of the things he wants to accomplish as President?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/bergland4.html

Write in Ron Paul.

Never mind the fact that “Joe” the Plumber actually only earns in the vicinity of $40k a year, likely not enough to buy a company for $250k+, and definitely never mind the fact that a company purchased for $250k wouldn’t be earning anyone $250k in taxable income.

Good post, Grim.

This is exactly what scares me about many folks I’ve met in the South. That, and the fact that some of the (supposedly) more intelligent people I know are going to vote for “Mickey Mouse” because they don’t like either candidate…

*sigh* I love the land, I love the area, I love the weather, but some of the folks here need a serious hammering with a clue-by-four.

Let me start off by saying I have no real opinion on Palin. She hasn’t really said anything of substance since she was apointed as McCains running mate. Obama did the same thing for a LONG time, simply putting forth platform vagaries, but eventually he started adding substance. Palin hasn’t gotten there yet, and likely won’t.

But on to Olberman’s comments.

First he talks about Ayerds as a guy Obama barely knows, and all they did was serve on a charity board together. Well, as we know Obama had his “political coming out party” in Ayers living room. Let me ask you, would you decide to say, have your 50th or 40th birthday, or 25th wedding anniversary party (or party of other significant event) in the living room of someone you barely know? Someone who’s “just some guy in the nighborhood? If the relationship is so casual and distant as Olberman suggests, would Ayers, just some guy in the neigborhood, ask Obama to chair and be put in charge of disseminating millions of dollars? Would you trust a charity’s millions with some guy who happens to live in the neighborhood?

Olberman characterizes Ayers as a reahbilitated terrorist (and then mocks the use of the word terrorist), yet Ayers is unrepentant. Just a few years ago he said “I’m not sorry. We should have done more.” Doesn’t sound like the words of the man Olberman is characterizing.

Then Olberman talks about the fact that Obama was only 8 when the bombings happened. Typical Red Herring arguement. He goes on to talk about Palin’s husband being a member of an organization that once wanted Alaska to ceceed from the nation. This also ocurred in 1973. So would not the same “it happened when I was 8″ arguement hold up? What’s good for the goose is apparently not good for the gander. Hypocracy at work. Oh yeah, Palin’s husband isn’t running for office. Oh, and in 2002 he withdrew from that party.

Palin’s speech for the convention for that party was a speech to welcome the party to her town. This is very typical of many mayors. Just because she wrote a welcoming speech for the organization, doesn’t mean she supported it’s 30-year past cesession agenda. This bring to mind the quote “I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend with my life your right to say it.” Now, I will grant Oblerman that this was probably not the best judgement on her part, to welcome them, but this is nothing compared to the other issues being discussed.

Let’s talk about the 8 years old angle on the Ayers story. This means that when Obama befriended Ayers, he was already well aware of Ayers past activities, which actually makes this even WORSE! If Hitler were still alive and McCain became friends with him, stated “Oh, he was just some guy in the neighborhood and besides, I was 2 when he was killing millions of jews” do you think that would fly? Of course not, and it shouldn’t.

Again to be clear, I do NOT think that Obama supported in any way, shape or form Ayers past. Who knows, Ayers may have conned Obama into thinking that he was repentant, even though his quotes in the media show otherwise. I certainly wouldn’t consider Obama a radical by association in this case. The REAL issue here is 2-fold:

1) Knowing that he was a radical in his past, and unrepentant currently, Obama exercised poor judgement in his interactions with a guy like Ayers.

2) The evidence clearly shows that the relationship was more than “just some guy in the neighborhood.” So the issue is more about honesty and being forthcoming. If Obama had stated from the beginning they they were friends, and that Obama had felt that the Ayers of present was completely different than the Ayers of the past or whatever, it would be more of a non-issue.

All of that being said, Joe Sixpack out there doesn’t really know who Ayers or the Weather Underground is, don’t remember it, and probably couldn’t care less. McCain is barking up the wrong tree on this one. He should focus more on Obama working on a case for his former law firm that sued Citibank because they were not offering up ENOUGH sub-prime mortgages as dictated by the widely expanded CRA. THAT is something that Joe Sixpack will have more interest in.

Obviously, you will never be in a position of power. That is the mechanism
used throughout history by leaders to remain leaders. Actually I am unaware of any other method that was successful.

(moderator please delete my previous post)

If I have to go by mainstream media’s brain washings, I’ll take a free spending, tree hugging liberal any day of the week.

Personally, I don’t view it strictly as totalitarian, but more of an expression of what conditions an individual will give power to another.

(Comments work)