Hillary is done - Page 20 - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

il Padrino Ute · 02-21-2008, 11:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by malapert

Although Jimmy Carter was never accused of being extraordinarily "intelligent" or "well spoken," the remainder of that list could very well have been said about the peanut farmer in 1975.

If Obama is elected in November, study 1977-80 carefully, there will be opportunity in 2010-12 for those who position themselves appropriately. I guarantee it.

I agree. A return to Carter is not what the country needs.

Archaea · 02-21-2008, 11:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

By the way, I don't think this is peculiar to Obama's campaign. I would venture a guess if you asked the average McCain supporter why he likes McCain, he would say something about how he is honest, an American hero, etc., but would not tell you anything about his policies.

For Hillary, most would tell you they want to see a woman succeed or they like her health care ideas (but then couldn't tell you anything detailed about her health care ideas).

I think it is more a reflection of the fact that voters, by and large, are not informed on political matters. Much of this is due to the media boiling all issues down to 15 second sound bytes and the campaigns in turn presenting little more than 15 second sound bytes on tv. If you want real policy information, you have to actually look for it. You won't hear it in detail on tv (from anyone). You will have to go to the web, find white papers, and take the time to read them. Few people do this.

Most people learn about the news from tv. You won't get solid info there.

Many learn about the issues from blogs. You will get spin there and not much more (just read a Tex post for a sample from this group).

A few will read the policies, then bang their head against the wall when the rest tell them what a candidate "really" stands for.

If you're naive enough to believe they really believe that shizzle that their handlers pump out.

Cali Coug · 02-21-2008, 11:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archaea

If you're naive enough to believe they really believe that shizzle that their handlers pump out.

You are one odd duck. On the one hand, you go ballistic over what a candidate says. On the other hand, you claim you don't believe a word any of them say (so why go ballistic over what they have said?).

Odd. It seems like you have just decided you hate them all, even if for contradictory reasons.

Tex · 02-22-2008, 12:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Most people learn about the news from tv. You won't get solid info there.

Many learn about the issues from blogs. You will get spin there and not much more (just read a Tex post for a sample from this group).

A few will read the policies, then bang their head against the wall when the rest tell them what a candidate "really" stands for.

Right. The best way to learn about a candidate's policy proposals is from their web site. No spin there.

YOhio · 02-22-2008, 12:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

You are one odd duck. On the one hand, you go ballistic over what a candidate says. On the other hand, you claim you don't believe a word any of them say (so why go ballistic over what they have said?).

You can understand quite a bit about a politicians goals by listening to what they say, but it should always be looked at with skepticism. For example, a politician may say that they will provide free _______ to every citizen for no cost. Well, you know that the politician wants to provide free _____, but you can be skeptical of their claim that it will come at no cost.

BarbaraGordon · 02-22-2008, 12:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I think it is more a reflection of the fact that voters, by and large, are not informed on political matters...

Well, this is true. I don't think most voters know what their preferred candidate proposes. But on the political boards, I rarely see the other candidates' supporters express underinformed opinions with the overwhelming passionate fervor that Obama supporters do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I don't see why that reflects poorly on Obama.
It seems odd to me to criticize Obama or be nervous about him as a candidate because of something about his supporters that is bothersome.

I don't believe it reflects on Obama's policies or even necessarily his person.

But there is an inherent, potentially dangerous power in any large group of people united in such passionate zeal toward a single person. And, further, if you've watched Obama as long as I have, you've seen that there's been a shift in the remarks he delivers to the thronging masses. It is just as Margery Eagan said, it's as though it's already gone to his head and he hasn't even won yet.

Now, if I personally were to decide to vote for McCain over Obama, it wouldn't be due to the character of Obama's supporters or the nature of his following. It would be due to specific concerns I have regarding Obama himself, his legislative history, and his proposals.

However, that the religious nature of his following is not enough to determine my vote does not preclude it from being enough to make me nervous.

I don't know if that made any sense, but I tried.

YOhio · 02-22-2008, 02:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

I don't know if that made any sense, but I tried.

No. It didn't. It makes no sense why you are voting for him.

Mormon Red Death · 02-22-2008, 03:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

He isn't proposing a mandate. That would be Clinton (with the exception of childrens' coverage).

So he isn't proposing a total mandate but he is proposing a little mandate. I guess you proved your point.

From Mr. Obama's website

Quote:

Originally Posted by Senator Obama

Obama will make available a new national health plan to all Americans, including the self-employed and small businesses, to buy affordable health coverage that is similar to the plan available to members of Congress.

Does he not realize what this will do to the markets? He'll set Health insurance prices. Adverse Selection will be that all those employers with people with chronic diseases will lose their current coverage and will now go to the government plan.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Senator Obama

Employers that do not offer or make a meaningful contribution to the cost of quality health coverage for their employees will be required to contribute a percentage of payroll toward the costs of the national plan. Small employers that meet certain revenue thresholds will be exempt.

First of all who is going to decide what a "meaning contribution" is going to be and then what % of their payroll will they be required to pay for the national plan?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Senator Obama

Expansion Of Medicaid and SCHIP: Obama will expand eligibility for the Medicaid and SCHIP programs and ensure that these programs continue to serve their critical safety net function.

How are we going to pay for that one? BTW if we keep expanding government programs wouldnt that turn into National Health Insurance? His whole section on improving quality of care is complete crap.

I read his views on health care. I laud his efforts to want to change items (especially mental health) I just don't agree with how he wants to change things.