Uk4Life

Well maybe since most lobbyist spend BILLIONS to keep the system the way it is. If you think the current system is good then, imo, you are crazy. A tylenol at a hospital costs tens of dollars. The system needs fixed & needs to favor the consumer and American instead of Pfizer or the other big drug companies. I'm not saying business & medical companies are bad, its just that they are gaming the system by spending million & millions & millions of dollars to keep the system as is. I would rather re-direct $$$ spent to help Iraqi's & use that to help fix the problems in the United States of America (like the current healthcare system, the economy, the infastructure, unemployment, jobs, immigration, etc.) My point is this: we're spending money in Iraq that could help fix the problems that we have here!!! I'm not saving give the money to people but use the money to "CHANGE" and "IMPROVE" the status quo.

Well actually the Poll Tax was not eliminated until 1966 with the 24th Amendment. Poll Taxes were discriminatory against all poor but especially MINORITIES!! So, answer me this. was your dad born in 1966? I support Barack Obama which states we will lower healthcare rates. His belief and mine are that if people can afford insurance & care, they will purchase it. Hillary Clinton support mandates, not me or Barack.

I don't buy this argument at all. Obama will carry most of the traditional dem states (NY, CA, northeast, IL). Here are some of my reasons for such: 1. voter turnout (huge year for democrat turnout) 2. African American votes (especially in the south) 3. Hispanic votes (CA, AZ, NM, TX)- Hillary gets those over Obama but he would get them over any Republican. i.e. immigration debate. would you vote for someone that wanted to deport you (or people like you) or reform the system. 4. Womens vote - most women will vote democrat. 5. Obama will keep the votes he has gotten & should get some of the youth vote across the aisle. 6. McCain moderate position will cause Republican turnouts to be normal or low.

ok lets put it clearer. Why is spending 9 trillion dollars in Iraq OKAY but spending a fraction of that on MILLIONS of people is WRONG?? Whether your France, Guam or the U.S. Spending money on a war or on healthcare is still spending money. The argument that I dont get is this. Let's use McCain for example. 1. We will be in Iraq for the next 50 to 100 years = TRILLIONS 2. Healthcare costs too much = would not cost nearly as much as a war & would actually help hundreds of millions of people.

When your dad was a kid, most minorities weren't allowed to vote. I swear, I can't believe those African-Americans thought they had the "right" to vote. I swear things were sooo much better when your dad was a kid. Why in the world should we have to change. I mean computers are terrible, cellphones. My point is. Just because we haven't done it in the past doesn't make it wrong. I'm arguing that spending $$$$$ in Iraq, is still spending $$$$$. I don't get that health care is a big NO but Iraq is OK.

This is the argument that I just do not get. Republicans are okay with wasting trillions of dollars in Iraq that doesn't directly involve any American civilians. BUT it will break just to spend a fraction of that amount on U.S. citizens. I could understand not spending the money but to be okay with spending it on a war but not health care?? I just dont get it...

we'll have to agree to disagree about the 90's.

While this helps Huckabee, it helps McCain even more. This shows apparently that Huckabee is pulling some Romney votes. While they split the conservatives; McCain will get the independents & moderate republicans. After seeing this headline, I pretty much am 99.9% sure McCain will be the nominee

I understand many republican don't like the Clintons but was the 90's really that bad??

I understand your position but this is a mute point for me. This has been debated for 30 years and nothing has changed. Over the last decade, we have a majority of conservative judges but still they haven't overturned Roe v Wade. imo, this is completely political propaganda. Republicans say they are conservative but they actually raise the deficit. They talk about abortion but really haven't changed much since the 1960's. They talk about controlling the spending but still support a 100 yr. campaign in Iraq. They would rather $$ go to a war in Iraq that had nothing to do with the U.S. (didnt attack on 9/11) & help the Iraqi people instead of providing healthcare.

This is possible but I think its still a 2 part scenario. I do think we have a budget and spending problem. do you?

Very true!! The only problem that I have with this situation is the most republican candidates will say they will control spending which is a very good message but over the last 8 years that is not the case. Democrats do spend but they do not say they wont & then go ahead & do. This is also the biggest reason I dislike most politicians. Because they will say whatever people want to hear or whats popular. I respect Ron Paul because he seems very honest. I also respect Beshear b/c he is trying to do something about the troubled budget instead of doing the same old thing. Even so, many will remember this in 4 years & say, "he cut jobs so lets boot him out."

You should vote for Barack Obama because he is a not in the Washington loop. He doesn't have as many people to please as others that have their friends and favors. He has tried to get rid of the lobbyist pressure & doesn't take lobbyist $. Barack is bi-racial. While he is considered black, he is 50/50. He was raised in a white home (his grandparents). He went to Harvard and became a lawyer. He is intelligent and one of the best speakers that I have ever hear. Why are these important? He will be able to relate to most of the population because of his mixed background. Barack is cultured. He was raised in Hawaii, moved to Indonesia, back to hawaii, went to Columbia and Harvard and now lives in Illinois. His mixed race and cultural appeal will allow the U.S. to work more efficient on diplomacy. Don't you think most countries think we're hypocrits that we say "created equal" but have always had a white educated male as president. Barack has opposed the Iraq War from the beginning & says we should have concentrated on Osama Bin Laden. Osamam was the one that planned 9/11. Iraq had or didn't have WMD's that we still haven't found. Barack supports universal healthcare but doesn't want the gov't to mandate it. He wants to work to get the costs down so everyone can afford it. He and I feel that most would buy insurance if it were affordable. He also say that if someone can and doesn't buy insurance, then they get sick, they will be penalized and have to pay for the procedure since they were gaming the system. Barack wants to reform the immigration system. While many republicans want to "round-up" the illegals, Barack feels that this would not be cost efficient or feasible. His immigration policy involves putting the illegals here in the back of the line to get them citizenship. Would it really make sense to spend $ to find the illegals, deport them & then have them comback tomorrow, fill out the papers & enter legally??? Is that cost efficient? Barack supports the woman's right to choose. The supreme court has 5 conservative judges to 4 moderates. This debate has been done for 30 years. If the Supreme Court wants to overturn Roe v. Wade, they have the votes. Whoever is president doesnt matter now b/c conservatives have the majority & still haven't & will not overturn. Abortion is a non-issue imo b/c there is already a conservative majority. Barack supports letting the Bush tax cuts relaps to the 2000 tax levels. This is technically a tax increase but going back to the pre-Bush levels. This mainly involves higher rates for people that make over $250,000 (roughly the top 1%). I really dont support tax breaks for people like Bill Gates. on a side note. The top 1% of the population controlls over 60% of the wealth. yeah, lets give them the breaks!!!

Bush gets credit for the uncontrolled spending but it was the Republican lead congress that actually gave the $$$. while Dems are seen as more tax more spend, I thought it was ironic that a Republican controlled Congress increased the national debt and a Republian president had the highest budget in history. Politics as usual? tell the people what they want to hear & then do what you want??

While the president is commander in chief, Congress controlls funding. While Bush may not be a fiscal conservative, shouldnt the Republicans in Congress (prior to 2006)?? Bush had ZERO problems with any Republican bill since he vetoed none of them. He may not be fiscally conservative but he doesnt make laws.

Is it just me or is it ironic that a "supposedly" conservative Republican has the first proposed $3 trillion dollar budget!!

Why would the Browns do anything?? They have developed a really good team. No one knows what Anderson or Quinn will do, so keep them both. Anderson & Quinn have really good cap friendly deals so keep them both and add other pieces.

1. Dolphins should take Glenn Dorsey 2. Rams should take 1A. Jake Long *If Pace isnt okay 1B. Chris Long *If Pace is okay 3. Falcons should take Matt Ryan or possibly the Long that falls but do not need McFadden with Dunn & Norwood 4. Raiders should take McFadden to go with Russell but may get cheap & not want to pay top 5 money two years in a row. If so, they may look to trade down. possible partners may be Patriots (#7) and Cowboys (Jones is a Arkansas grad & Julius is an UFA)

I dont get it?? Bengals fans being picky??

Get rid of marvin for any draft pick. then, how about Marty Schottenheimer as coach. He did get fired after going 14-2!!

Maybe not this season but he can't win in Cincy & eventually he'll be fired or resign.

How can people say the DC & OC are terrible but say nothing about the head coach. Marvin has molded this team into what it is. The Bengals have been bad to mediocre ever since he has arrived. They need to go after a good offensive minded coach & oc to maximize their strengths with Carson, Chad, TJ, etc. They then need to hire a good dc to take over the defense & do what he can with that pitiful unit. I may also look into trading Chad Johnson if they can get multiple picks (2 1st rounders or a 1st & 2nd) before he get frustrated & his value drops (i.e. Randy Moss being traded for a 4th rounder)

1. Miami - drafted Beck last year & have Ronnie Brown -will take - Glenn Dorsey so solidify the defense -may look to trade down since they have lots of holes 2. Rams - need offensive line help so will take Jake Long 3. Falcons - need QB so will take Matt Ryan 4. Raiders - depends on Fargas & HB situation but will probably role dice & hope -Darren McFadden falls to them -if not, they'll take Howie's boy, Chris

I really respect Westbrook more now as a player. Not many guys would sacrifice a TD for a sure WIN. Remember the Cowboys scoring a TD, recovering an onside kick & kicking a FG to beat the Bills. Westbrook must have too!!

So, who's the next Bengals coach going to be?? I would go after Jason Garrett (Cowboys) VERY HARD!!! He may not like being in the backseat to Wade Phillips. He would be my #1 priority right now!!!