USVI-On-Line

I just read this post from start to finish and i was laughing by the end. The topics discussed aren't laughable at all and I realize this, but the tone struck me as humorous.

I will not be taking election day off. I am unhappy with the way McCain's campaign has been run. I do believe Obama is arrogant, I liked him back in his days as a community organizer, but he didn't hold with that same persona when he began running for president. McCain doesn't have the stage presence Obama has and I do feel like he is trying to hard to keep some of the far right happy. I also liked him better before he ran for president.

Just a little aside, my clients are very vocal about who they are voting for. In a sample of 68 people. 61 are voting for Obama, 7 are voting for McCain. Of those 61 people, 2 work, 4 are retired and draw a decent social security/pension from years of working. Of the 7 for McCain, 4 work and 3 are retired and drawing a decent social security from years of working. Obviously, this is a very small sampling, but you know I had to throw it out there since Sox made the statement, that actually rings true with this group. I do have more clients that I'm not sure which way they will vote.

Nic in KC wrote:Just a little aside, my clients are very vocal about who they are voting for. In a sample of 68 people. 61 are voting for Obama, 7 are voting for McCain. Of those 61 people, 2 work, 4 are retired and draw a decent social security/pension from years of working. Of the 7 for McCain, 4 work and 3 are retired and drawing a decent social security from years of working. Obviously, this is a very small sampling, but you know I had to throw it out there since Sox made the statement, that actually rings true with this group. I do have more clients that I'm not sure which way they will vote.

So 61 are voting for Obama...2 of them work and 4 are retired...what about the other 55 Obama voters? Are you saying they don't work?

Yes Teresa, they don't work. A few of this group are receiving disability, but the amount they get is super small because they never worked in their lives before they got sick and became disabled.

So a few of the 55 Obama supporters might legitimately be on disability or truly be in dire need of welfare...but I’m guessing a lot of them don’t deserve help from the government, but they’re glad to take it at the expense of the rest of us.

This was where I thought Soxfan was going with his original comment about a lot of Obama voters not working. I highly doubt that many lazy people sitting around collecting welfare will be voting for McCain.

This goes back to the man and the fish.

You know the saying..."Give a man a fish and he'll eat for one day...teach a man to fish and he’ll eat for the rest of his life."

I think Obama is perfectly content to just keep giving people their daily fish because it ensures that he’ll keep getting their vote.

Teresa_Rae wrote:So a few of the 55 Obama supporters might legitimately be on disability or truly be in dire need of welfare...but I’m guessing a lot of them don’t deserve help from the government, but they’re glad to take it at the expense of the rest of us.

This was where I thought Soxfan was going with his original comment about a lot of Obama voters not working. I highly doubt that many lazy people sitting around collecting welfare will be voting for McCain.

This goes back to the man and the fish.

You know the saying..."Give a man a fish and he'll eat for one day...teach a man to fish and he’ll eat for the rest of his life."

I think Obama is perfectly content to just keep giving people their daily fish because it ensures that he’ll keep getting their vote.

Let me see if I understand you...the disabled are just being lazy? Generally, that's your point, right?

soxfan22 wrote: Until of course, it was time to guarantee babies of botched abortions proper medical care - he decided to vote against that one.

Again, man, please ... do your research. Don't just buy the soundbite, it makes you seem far less credible.

Obama did vote against a bill called the "born alive" bill. He did so for many reasons, primarily that there was ALREADY a law on the books to provide life saving care to infants born alive during a medical abortion to save the life of the mother.

Those who voted against it did so 1) because the bill was an obvious attempt to legislate anti-choice postions and 2) because it was not necessary.

The author of the bill states, "None of those who voted against SB-1082 favored infanticide. Rather their zeal for pro-choice dogma was clearly the overriding force behind their negative votes rather than concern that my bill would protect babies who are born alive."

The Chicago Tribune article by the man who put forth the bill even clarifies this lie.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nati ... 8744.story

Furthermore, the Illinois State Medical Society opposed the bill as well. I suppose they are all baby killers too. They opposed the bill because it would interfere with the relationship between a doctor and their patient and would have had possibly devastating implications for them regarding malpractice.

As it is it is becoming more and more difficult to find a doctor that will handle a high risk pregnancy period. We don't need to legislate how a doctor handles late term pregnancies and the decisions that have to be made, often in a split second, to save the life of a mother.

Google preeclampsia. Learn something. PLEASE. I am completely at ease with letting you expouse that you think abortion is wrong, however I won't let you continue to spread this specific lie.

Pete (Mr. Marcia) wrote:

Teresa_Rae wrote:So a few of the 55 Obama supporters might legitimately be on disability or truly be in dire need of welfare...but I’m guessing a lot of them don’t deserve help from the government, but they’re glad to take it at the expense of the rest of us.

This was where I thought Soxfan was going with his original comment about a lot of Obama voters not working. I highly doubt that many lazy people sitting around collecting welfare will be voting for McCain.

This goes back to the man and the fish.

You know the saying..."Give a man a fish and he'll eat for one day...teach a man to fish and he’ll eat for the rest of his life."

I think Obama is perfectly content to just keep giving people their daily fish because it ensures that he’ll keep getting their vote.

Let me see if I understand you...the disabled are just being lazy? Generally, that's your point, right?

Wow, that's reading a lot into what she wrote.

Pete (Mr. Marcia) wrote:

Teresa_Rae wrote:So a few of the 55 Obama supporters might legitimately be on disability or truly be in dire need of welfare...but I’m guessing a lot of them don’t deserve help from the government, but they’re glad to take it at the expense of the rest of us.

This was where I thought Soxfan was going with his original comment about a lot of Obama voters not working. I highly doubt that many lazy people sitting around collecting welfare will be voting for McCain.

This goes back to the man and the fish.

You know the saying..."Give a man a fish and he'll eat for one day...teach a man to fish and he’ll eat for the rest of his life."

I think Obama is perfectly content to just keep giving people their daily fish because it ensures that he’ll keep getting their vote.

Let me see if I understand you...the disabled are just being lazy? Generally, that's your point, right?

Nope, you are twisting my words and I suspect you know it. I'll go ahead and put in bold above what I already said.

The lazy comment was about people who do not deserve any goverment aid but gladly take it anyway.

I worked with paralyzed people for several years. And many of them didn't work. You know why? If they stayed at home on welfare, they had Medicaid for health insurance. When you're paralyzed you take a lot of medicine and you go to the doctor a lot, and you HAVE to have good health insurance or you can't afford your bills. And, even if you do get a job, you have a pre-existing condition and most private insurance plans won't cover it.

If we had guaranteed health care that was not tied to our places of employment, I suspect that you'd see a lot more people leave public assistance. I know every paralyzed person I know said they would work if they didn't have to give up their health card.

Wow, I just tuned in and this conversation has badly fallen on its head.

This mixed-party couple is taking November 4 off!

Who gets harmed by higher turnout of legitimate voters?

Cheers, RickG

Sox - I couldn’t care less about what you believe. But I do think that we need you and the Sean Hannitys of the world to balance out the Keith Oberlins and most of the NYTimes OpEd page in order to balance things out.

Just sayin you have a knack of saying things, sometimes even unsolicited, in ways that are, lets say, less than subtle, and I think that it APPEARS like you do so intentionally simply to provoke reaction. Of course, that compels some folks to respond with likewise strongly worded or condescending replies (guilty - but I’d rather be snarky than nasty). This causes the discussion to deteriorate into tit for tat and hurt feelings. If you say you have a lot of pent up frustrations that are spilling out, OK that explains some of it, as well as your passion for politics.

But, if you REALLY think your style, tone, and tactics are effectively communicating your message AND are truly not meant to be provocative or divisive just to rile things up, then have at it. Just keep in mind that the fish might stop biting if there is too much chum in the water.

Likewise, the GOP might need to consider that the tactics that worked in the past may be not be as effective in the future considering the changing demographics of America. Just ask conservatives like David Frum. But I’m guessing that you fall into the camp that say McCain has not been aggressive enough and that the party needs to move more to the right and back to hard line conservative principles in order to win. I actually hope they do that, but probably for a different reason than you.

Cheers to you, and cheers to this great country on November 4.

Partial transcript from that Infant Born Alive Protection Atc debate in the Illinois State Senate in 2002:

SENATOR O’MALLEY: First of all, there is established, under this legislation, that a child born under such circumstances would receive all reasonable measures consistent with good medical practice, and that’s as defined, of course, by the … practice of medicine in the community where this would occur. It also requires, in two instances, that … an attending physician be brought in to assist and advise with respect to the issue of viability and, in particular, where … there’s a suspicion on behalf of the physician that the child … may be [viable,] … the attending physician would make that determination as to whether that would be the case…. The other one is where the child is actually born alive … in which case, then, the physician would call as soon as practically possible for a second physician to come in and determine the viability.

SENATOR OBAMA: So — and again, I’m — I’m not going to prolong this, but I just want to be clear because I think this was the source of the objections of the Medical Society. As I understand it, this puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, this is a nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or child — however way you want to describe it — is now outside the mother’s womb and the doctor continues to think that it’s nonviable but there’s, let’s say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just coming out limp and dead, that, in fact, they would then have to call a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved. Is that correct?
SENATOR O’MALLEY: In the first instance, obviously the physician that is performing the procedure would make the determination. The second situation is where the child actually is born and is alive, and then there’s an assessment — an independent assessment of viability by … another physician at the soonest practical … time.

SENATOR OBAMA: Let me just go to the bill, very quickly. Essentially, I think as — as this emerged during debate and during committee, the only plausible rationale, to my mind, for this legislation would be if you had a suspicion that a doctor, the attending physician, who has made an assessment that this is a nonviable fetus and that, let’s say for the purpose of the mother’s health, is being — that — that — labor is being induced, that that physician (a) is going to make the wrong assessment and (b) if the physician discovered, after the labor had been induced, that, in fact, he made an error, or she made an error, and, in fact, that this was not a nonviable fetus but, in fact, a live child, that that physician, of his own accord or her own accord, would not try to exercise the sort of medical measures and practices that would be involved in saving that child. Now, it — if you think there are possibilities that doctors would not do that, then maybe this bill makes sense, but I — I suspect and my impression is, is that the Medical Society suspects as well that doctors feel that they would be under that obligation, that they would already be making these determinations and that, essentially, adding a — an additional doctor who then has to be called in an emergency situation to come in and make these assessments is really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion. Now, if that’s the case — and — and I know that some of us feel very strongly one way or another on that issue — that’s fine, but I think it’s important to understand that this issue ultimately is about abortion and not live births. Because if these are children who are being born alive, I, at least, have confidence that a doctor who is in that room is going to make sure that they’re looked after.

The fact here is that, Obama had just heard testimony from Jill Stanek that in fact, many of these babies were not being looked after. So, he either slept through her testimony, or he simply didn't care to listen.


http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Nz ... TE=&w=MQ==

Your words were twisted enough. You didn't need my help.

I haven't seen McCain's plan for welfare reform. I went to his website and couldn't find it. Does he have one? He does say that he won't make cuts to medicare and medicaid.

Is it possible that he plans of giving out free fish in exchange for votes, too?

DELETED