At least not between his left lateral incisor and cuspid.

I don't like Hillary, and most politicians, because I believe she, and they, say what focus groups say they should. I don't think Hillary made the video game comment from an informed decision, she said it because someone said she should, which would make her little more than a liar in my opinion.

Same reason Gore, who did so much work on environmentalism, said nothing of it in the election campaign. The ideas that were of real concern to him were thought to be of less concern to others.

My favorite politician is Michael Bloomberg, the Mayor of NYC. He is always criticized from all sides, but makes the decisions that he thinks need to be made, and never talks out his *** about subjects he has no background in. He won reelection in a landslide despite being universally panned in the papers.

His ideas are legitimately his own, and I think people see some of that in Obama.

That's actually an argument I make for him all of the time.

Even if I disagree with him on a topic, which I do about some things, I have to stand behind him. He knows what he's talking about, and he wouldn't talk if he didn't know. When he doesn't know, he says as much, and opens it up for people to inform him.

He stands behind his opinions, even if they're not popular. He knows what he wants, he's clear about what he wants, and he gets it. That's admirable.

I await the day when a politician actually asks all of his or her constituents what they want him or her to do then goes forward based on what the people he or she represents want.

Obama would make for an interesting presidential candidate indeed. I would vote for him. I'm also going to have a difficult time with the name Clinton being on a ballot. I'm a firm believer that Hillary did a lot of the job for Bill when he was in office, and the thought of Slick Willy being anywhere near that house in DC makes me giddy inside.

But! I'm really glad that I have to actually MAKE a decision this time around. '08 should shape up nicely.

Obama likes the Bears, so he's got that going for him.

He'd never last

How would you like someone calling you every five minutes to ask about the bicycle reflector regulation appendix 45G?

On the general election day, I agree. But primaries, more of the fundamental vote of the party comes out. It varies state to state, yes. Unfortunately, the "base" of the party is the religious right.

Well ignoring the fact the every single social service the government supplies is crappy, and the socialism hasn't exactly been the most economical successful economic model ever, your "argument" doesn't actually have any argument in it. It's just an insult. And that's pathetic. I don't care what you believe, just present it in some manner other than emotionally loaded ad hominum attacks.

If people don't vote even in primaries they should not soil themselves and whine come election day

Social Services aren't designed to be economic tools. They're SOCIAL SERVICES.

That wasn't an insult, it was an accusation: No matter what I say, you'll keep reading it as "People who don't deserve money getting money." and that's a prejudice that I can't accept. You're a prejudice right-winger with voting power. That scares me. Is that opinion more obvious?

I like John Edwards.

You're just making wide assumptions about my beliefs so you can put me into to a "despised idiot" category and insult me.

I believe we should take care of the needy, but I think things like socialized health care and the like paint with too broad a brush. IE. Only use the uneconomic option if we have to, not so Joe lower-middle-class can afford a new HD TV.

We need a president with no political background.

An Average Joe or Jill whom will listen with their hearts and not their wallets. Whom will make decisions based on love for their own people, and not the political party they root for.

What do you expect when you blather about every single social program being crappy?

OBOMANATION


....that didn't come out right.

:downs::downs::downs:

Name one that's not. (By social program I don't mean Police, Military ect.)

Free schooling?

Or better yet, polio-elimination. Living in India, I see the yearly effort on the part of the government to try and eliminate polio (which is still a large problem). The fact that they're still trying is a testament to how difficult a job it is. Could a market take care of this problem? The answer is no.

As unfortunate as it may be, the market system is not perfect. Part of the classical capitalist government's job is to fill in sectors where the market fails.

Federal scholarships and research grants.

That wouldn't work though. The idea of electing a politician is so that they make the decisions for you, then you remove them from power if they do something that nobody agrees with. It also protects the citizens from the repercussions of ill-informed decisions.

You vote for someone who has the same values as you, then they make the hard decisions based on proper research. Even if a politician makes bad choices they make them based on a lot more research than the average guy who voted them into office would have done.

Obi, read:


And I'm not making any wide statements. Everything you've ever said has displayed your ignorance (Or arrogance, since you think you know) about social programs, and you keep bragging about your political opinions. I'm only calling you on what I read: I'm afraid of the fact that you're a good deal of our voting majority.

Kirbs is right. Social programs are essential to our society.

ROB FOR PRESIDENT

Let me add now that I am not in favor of a Europe-like Welfare State (not to diss welfare), but I do realize that government programs are not an evil to be avoided at all costs.

The transportation system of NYC, and most cities, is not privately contracted for a social reason. If it was, there would be no trains and buses in the middle of the night and it would be possible to be stuck in Manhattan at 2am with no options to get home.

The government takes on the burden because clearly transportation in a large city isn't something that can be run for profit. A similar argument is used by proponents of some form of socialized health care.

I think the problem with most most failing social programs is not what they do, but it's how they are managed.

Oh, and Spaghetti Monster '08.

:downs:

Strong men have strong addictions. I guess. Wait, no, not really. That line of logic makes little sense. Respecting someone for basically trying to damage their own health? It's his right, yeah, but that's like respecting an alcoholic who doesn't stop, by the sheer virtue that they don't stop. If anything it shows a weakness to change their own behavior in light of overwhelming evidence. The “I'm right, screw what everyone else says, I'll do what I want” is not something one should have in a leader. They should have a backbone and not pander to the whims of everyone, but I'd use another example than smoking for that line of praise. If something is ALL NEGATIVE, and they still do it anyway, that's a sign of just being thick headed.

This is just breaking apart that nugget of praise; I have no real opinion of the man except that he is a liberal and in general their views are not in line with my own.

He's just stayin' the course.

Heh, exactly. I was going to inject a Bush comparison, but I thought it'd be redundant.

Albertans (who are obviously the master race) just discovered a drug that triggers apoptosis in cancer cells.

If it gets FDA approval all you guys will be left with is criticizing smokers for their foul odor.

It does a host of other things, including inducing vasospasm (increase risk of heart attack), emphysema, other cardiac problems, etc, etc. Cancer is just the tip of the iceberg of what cigarettes cause. Ok, not just the "tip" but it's far from the only thing cigarettes do.

Quick ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cigarettes#Contents_and_health_effects

Also, drugs that induce apoptosis are hardly new, and there have been many, many, many of them for different CA types. CA's just evolve away from treatments, sadly.

But I'm interested, can you link me to what drug this is?

Wait, is this it:

http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8548706

If so, that's... not really that promising. It seems to ignore other upcoming CA theories, mainly because it seems to hinge on mito activity, O2 avail and division rate. One current CA theory, that of background "stem cells" that are slow deviding and more insidious, would make this therapy as not quite as effective as the article presents. And that's just one problem. Not to rain on anyone's parade, it's a good idea and the drug in question has been in use already for other things, but it may not be quite the wonder drug that it's presented to be.

Ref again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer_stem_cell_theory

Apologies for the slight derail.

If that were the case, then Bush couldn't be blamed for anything he's done in office. After all, he has no actual power to do anything.

However you need someone with executive experience which is why most senators almost universally fail to be elected. Governors and those from the corporate sector generally fit the bill. Joe or, God forbid, Jill average are generally unqualified.

Obama would be terrible, in my opinion. The man can give a good speech but has no qualifications. From a political standpoint I would love to see him win the Democrat primaries because I feel he would be easily defeated. A strong democrat candidate will be someone that isn't on anyone's radar right now like Bill Richardson or John McCain.

I want a candidate who is fiscally conservative. Basically someone who will not tax AND spend throughout ALL classes, not tax OR spend. Also said candidate must leave religious bull**** at their church. God did not intend for you to be president.

Anybody fitting this bill, currently?

All you ever do is talk about my arrogance, ignorance and how stupid my opinions are. That's a idiotic response to non-hostile discussion.

I have expressed worry at the fact that politicians seems to be buying their ways into office with free services that are not necessary. You came out of no where applied your whole preconceived idea of my belief system and mindset behind it to me and insulted me. If you have something to say say it. But if you lack to maturity to engage in civil discussion then shut up because I don't want to hear it.



Honestly, other than some rather weak attempts to appeal to mainstream evangelicals, I don't see any politicians remotely close to what I'd call Christian.

Saying that I'm arrogant, ignorant, stupid, retarded ect. a million times doesn't actually make me that way. I don't care if you have pet peeves about certain political opinions, and I certainly don't like you assuming that I hold to them so you can vent your anger at them.

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss him. Some recent polls have him winning against Republican front-runners (namely McCain and Giuliani) if the election were held today. Of course, these polls are really early and obviously should be taken with a grain of salt, but I think that they show that it would be a closer race than you think.

Governors have traditionally had more luck in getting elected, but a lot of people are sick of how traditional politics operate these days and are looking for change anyway.

Your candidate doesn't exist, but I think the closest has to be Ron Paul. No one is more fiscally conservative than he is, and he doesn't let his religious views affect his politics to nearly the same extent that most Republicans do (though probably a little more than most Democrats).

He also has absolutely no chance of winning. Literally none. His own party has tried to get him voted out of his seat in Congress a couple of times.

They should put up Frist of DeLay.

4 years and entire staff of monkeys to pound out whatever work you need.