online dating service
REGISTER | MAIL/PROFILE | HELP | NOW ONLINE | SEARCH | RATING | FORUMS | SUCCESS STORIES

 

     
Posted In Forum:
Home   login   MyForums  
Show ALL Forums  
 
 Author Thread: McCain Supporters
 worddiva
Joined: 10/10/2006
Msg: 74 (view)
 
McCain Supporters
Posted: 4/13/2008 5:35:20 PM

You know whats funny, In another post someone talked about the cost of the Iraq invasion how much money it has cost the taxpayer. Now the same people who are talking about the cost of the invasion (the Dems) have spent $40 million dollars for an ad campagin to smear John McCain. Wouldn't that 40 million dollars fix the social security problem here in the U.S? Now the dems will argue how different it is


$40 million is a drop in the bucket compared with the $3 trillion the next generation is gonna be saddled with (i'm talking to you, Gen Y) to pay for the Iraq occupation. No one in their right mind - especially anyone under 30 - should vote for McCain. And if you're so concerned about runaway campaign spending, you should support public financing of elections and getting rid of lobbyists.
By the way, I ask the question again - Are the McCain supporters gonna put their money where their mouths are and be prepared to have their taxes raised to pay for the Iraq occupation, the stalemate in Afghanistan, and an invasion of Iran? Show me the money, folks.
 worddiva
Joined: 10/10/2006
Msg: 26 (view)
 
McCain Supporters
Posted: 4/11/2008 5:23:24 PM
I wonder if McCain supporters are ready to send in their checks for the cost of the Iraq occupation. Oh, and are they prepared to take extra jobs to pitch in for an invasion of Iran? And, are they gonna sign up to serve, or do we need a draft? Someone, pass the collection plate!
 worddiva
Joined: 10/10/2006
Msg: 21 (view)
 
The U.S. jails more of its citizens than China does
Posted: 2/29/2008 7:25:56 PM
The whole point about comparing the U.S. with China is that we here like to think of ourselves as the shining beacon of democracy and human rights, but when you dig beneath the surface our reputation should be a little less shiny. The fact that the U.S. puts more people in jail than a known oppressive regime is, simply, an embarrassment. We can't be going around condeming other countries on their human rights records, when ours is less than stellar.

We can't incarcerate ourselves out of the crime problem. Instead of locking people up, it would be much cheaper and more productive in the long run to address the root cause of crime, which is poverty. Solving poverty means investing in our schools (equalizing education funding across all school districts), reinvesting in the inner city (bringing good-paying jobs to those areas), addressing the plight of rural America (more jobs) and rebuilding our infrastructure (even more jobs).

The other major problem with locking up everyone that does some sort of petty, usually victimless, crime is the cost. We can't afford this nonsense. I find it interesting that the same people who have this the lock 'em up and leave 'em mentality, are the very same people who don't want to pay the taxes needed to keep the criminals in prison.
 worddiva
Joined: 10/10/2006
Msg: 1 (view)
 
The U.S. jails more of its citizens than China does
Posted: 2/28/2008 11:26:06 PM

Record-high ratio of Americans in prison
By DAVID CRARY, AP National Writer

For the first time in U.S. history, more than one of every 100 adults is in jail or prison, according to a new report documenting America's rank as the world's No. 1 incarcerator. It urges states to curtail corrections spending by placing fewer low-risk offenders behind bars.

Using state-by-state data, the report says 2,319,258 Americans were in jail or prison at the start of 2008 — one out of every 99.1 adults. Whether per capita or in raw numbers, it's more than any other nation.

The report, released Thursday by the Pew Center on the States, said the 50 states spent more than $49 billion on corrections last year, up from less than $11 billion 20 years earlier. The rate of increase for prison costs was six times greater than for higher education spending, the report said.

The steadily growing inmate population "is saddling cash-strapped states with soaring costs they can ill afford and failing to have a clear impact either on recidivism or overall crime," the report said.

Susan Urahn, managing director of the Pew Center on the States, said budget woes are pressuring many states to consider new, cost-saving corrections policies that might have been shunned in the recent past for fear of appearing soft on crime.

"We're seeing more and more states being creative because of tight budgets," she said in an interview. "They want to be tough on crime. They want to be a law-and-order state. But they also want to save money, and they want to be effective."

The report cited Kansas and Texas as states that have acted decisively to slow the growth of their inmate population. They are making greater use of community supervision for low-risk offenders and employing sanctions other than reimprisonment for offenders who commit technical violations of parole and probation rules.

"The new approach, born of bipartisan leadership, is allowing the two states to ensure they have enough prison beds for violent offenders while helping less dangerous lawbreakers become productive, taxpaying citizens," the report said.

While many state governments have shown bipartisan interest in curbing prison growth, there also are persistent calls to proceed cautiously.

"We need to be smarter," said David Muhlhausen, a criminal justice expert with the conservative Heritage Foundation. "We're not incarcerating all the people who commit serious crimes. But we're also probably incarcerating people who don't need to be."

According to the report, the inmate population increased last year in 36 states and the federal prison system.

The largest percentage increase — 12 percent — was in Kentucky, where Gov. Steve Beshear highlighted the cost of corrections in his budget speech last month. He noted that the state's crime rate had increased only about 3 percent in the past 30 years, while the state's inmate population has increased by 600 percent.

The report was compiled by the Pew Center's Public Safety Performance Project, which is working with 13 states on developing programs to divert offenders from prison without jeopardizing public safety.

"Getting tough on criminals has gotten tough on taxpayers," said the project's director, Adam Gelb.

According to the report, the average annual cost per prisoner was $23,876, with Rhode Island spending the most ($44,860) and Louisiana the least ($13,009). It said California — which faces a $16 billion budget shortfall — spent $8.8 billion on corrections last year, while Texas, which has slightly more inmates, was a distant second with spending of $3.3 billion.

On average, states spend 6.8 percent of their general fund dollars on corrections, the report said. Oregon had the highest spending rate, at 10.9 percent; Alabama the lowest at 2.6 percent.

Four states — Vermont, Michigan, Oregon and Connecticut — now spend more on corrections than they do on higher education, the report said.

"These sad facts reflect a very distorted set of national priorities," said Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont, referring to the full report. "Perhaps, if we adequately invested in our children and in education, kids who now grow up to be criminals could become productive workers and taxpayers."

The report said prison growth and higher incarceration rates do not reflect an increase in the nation's overall population. Instead, it said, more people are behind bars mainly because of tough sentencing measures, such as "three-strikes" laws, that result in longer prison stays.

"For some groups, the incarceration numbers are especially startling," the report said. "While one in 30 men between the ages of 20 and 34 is behind bars, for black males in that age group the figure is one in nine."

The racial disparity for women also is stark. One of every 355 white women aged 35 to 39 is behind bars, compared with one of every 100 black women in that age group.

The nationwide figures, as of Jan. 1, include 1,596,127 people in state and federal prisons and 723,131 in local jails. That's out of almost 230 million American adults.

The report said the United States incarcerates more people than any other nation, far ahead of more populous China with 1.5 million people behind bars. It said the U.S. also is the leader in inmates per capita (750 per 100,000 people), ahead of Russia (628 per 100,000) and other former Soviet bloc nations which round out the Top 10.

The U.S. also is among the world leaders in capital punishment. According to Amnesty International, its 53 executions in 2006 were exceeded only by China, Iran, Pakistan, Iraq and Sudan.

___

On the Net:

http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org.


This is an absolute disgrace. We're now seeing that the "tough on crime" attitude of the '80s and '90s is not only tearing the fabric of our society, but it's also bankrupting us. The best way to prison reform is to end the war on drugs once and for all. Drug abuse should be treated as a health issue, not as a crime, nor as a moral failing.
 worddiva
Joined: 10/10/2006
Msg: 344 (view)
 
FREE Federalized Health Care
Posted: 1/8/2008 11:35:33 PM

Single-payer just means LINES. Choices means not having to wait on lines.

I do agree that we need insurance reform and for insurance to be made affordable to the low-income and the poor. I even agree that non-profit insurance companies are better than for profit. However I DO NOT agree that insurance premiums should be collected via taxes nor that there should only be one tier.

Single-payer doesn't work well in Canada. I sure don't want it here. In 10 years even Canada won't be single payer.


Alexandria_gal,
I don't understand, so are you saying that you don't want Medicare here? 'Cause Medicare is single-payer. So I'm a bit confused. It's one of the most popular governmental programs. And it's the most efficient and the least costly with about a 3 percent administrative overhead as opposed to the 15 to 25% overhead for an HMO. That's why costs are so high. Insurance companies have to advertise their services, while the government does not.
You're already paying taxes for government-funded health care - Medicare, Medicaid, and the Veterans Administration. (I for one find nothing wrong with paying taxes. Taxes are the ticket you pay for living in a civilized society.) By the way, the VA is our only socialized medical program - where the hospital staff is employed by the government.

As for rationing, we already ration healthcare based on wealth. If you can afford it, you get it. If you can't you don't. The other problem with our system is that if you don't have insurance (like myself), or you're under insured, and you get a devastating illness like cancer, the cost of treatment is likely to bankrupt you. Half of all bankruptcies in the U.S. are the result of medical bills. Under a government-funded system where everyone is in the risk pool, no one would have to worry about that, because the costs would be spread around. And everyone pays less in the end. That's just simple economics.

As for anecdotal complaints from Canadians about their system, I heard the problems stem largely from under-funding. It's the same reason why Brits complain about their system. But majorities in neither country want to change their systems to ours. If you want a quality, government program that works, you have to pay for it.

Another indictment of the U.S. health system just came from ABC News today:
It's under the headline "U.S. Health Care on the Decline: Study finds U.S. ranks last among industrialized nations in preventable deaths." To see the video news story, you have to go to the Yahoo News website.
 worddiva
Joined: 10/10/2006
Msg: 193 (view)
 
Fox News Ratings are in the tank
Posted: 1/6/2008 6:18:30 PM

If you lump them all together, excluding FOX, then according to George Mason University, the majority of news watchers are getting tainted information deceptively labeled as "news".


So, that just proves my point, which is: Most Americans AREN'T watching FOX Noise. And apparently, they don't believe they're missing anything, or getting tainted information, from NOT watching FOX Noise.
 worddiva
Joined: 10/10/2006
Msg: 321 (view)
 
FREE Federalized Health Care
Posted: 1/6/2008 6:10:09 PM
Hmmm, so some say the AP/yahoo poll wasn't good enough. Gee, I thought the Associated Press was pretty reputable. Okay, so here's one from ABC/Washington Post:


Americans express broad, and in some cases growing, discontent with the U.S. health care system, based on its costs, structure and direction alike — fueling cautious support for a government-run, taxpayer-funded universal health system modeled on Medicare...

In an extensive ABCNEWS/Washington Post poll, Americans by a 2-1 margin, 62-32 percent, prefer a universal health insurance program over the current employer-based system...

Public Preference:
Current System or Universal Coverage?

Current system: 32%
Universal coverage: 62%
Universal, with waiting lists for non-emergency treatment: 39%
Universal, with limited choice of doctors: 35%

Source: ABC News


This poll was taken in October 2003.

Jump to this March 2007 CBS News/New York Times poll (And this was before Sicko rolled out into theaters, I believe):


(CBS) Americans think the U.S. health care system is in need of major repairs, according to a CBS News/New York Times poll.

Nine out of 10 say the system needs at least fundamental changes, including 36 percent who favor a complete overhaul.

Although most Americans say they are generally satisfied with the quality of their own health care, including 41 percent who say they are very satisfied, it's a different story when it comes to the cost of care.

Just one in five are very satisfied with what they pay for health care, while a majority (52 percent) are dissatisfied, including a third who are very dissatisfied...

Most Americans believe government can play a role in fixing the health care system. Two-thirds say the federal government should guarantee that all Americans have health insurance — and a similar number says providing health insurance for all is a more serious problem than keeping health care costs down...

More Americans do think the government can do a better job than private companies at helping hold down health care costs.

Health care promises to be a crucial issue in the 2008 presidential campaign. In a CBS News poll conducted last month, health care tied with jobs and the economy as the second-most important issue facing the country, following the war in Iraq. It was even more important to Democratic primary voters, ranking ahead of the economy and jobs.

In the new poll, the public gives the Democrats a big edge over the Republicans on handling health care issues. Asked which party they believe will best improve the health care system, 62 percent said the Democrats, while just 19 percent said the Republicans.

Source: CBS News


And here's one that's extremely interesting, from the political website The Hill:


Poll shows many Republicans favor universal healthcare, gays in military
By Aaron Blake
June 28, 2007

A large nationwide poll of Republican voters shows that an increasing number consider themselves conservative, that about half favor universal healthcare and allowing gays in the military, and that the vast majority say spreading democracy shouldn’t be the United States’ top foreign policy goal...

The survey of 2,000 self-described Republican voters, titled “The Elephant Looks in the Mirror 10 Years Later,” showed that 71 percent consider themselves conservative, a 16 percent increase over the 1997 numbers.

Fifty-one percent of the GOPers said universal healthcare coverage should be a right of every American...


Oh and the Harris poll? Well, I couldn't find a poll from this organization that focused on universal health care or single payer (perhaps they'll get around to asking soon?), but I did see this from a 2004 article that folks may find interesting:



Most People Think Health Care Costs Are "Unreasonably High" and Favor Price Controls, According to Harris Poll
For many people health care costs stand out compared to other goods and services as being exceptionally expensive. Majorities of the public think that the cost of prescription drugs, hospitals and doctors’ services are unreasonably high, whereas relatively few people think this is true for the cost of packaged goods, clothes and automobiles. As a result, majorities favor federal government price controls of prescription drugs and hospitals, and a plurality favor price controls for doctors’ bills.


The full article is available on the Harris website.

I'm sure that since Sicko has come out, and health care has become one of the nation's top domestic issues, more and more people will learn about the pros of having a federally funded national health insurance program. These poll numbers in favor of single-payer can only go up as the problem gets worse.
 worddiva
Joined: 10/10/2006
Msg: 318 (view)
 
FREE Federalized Health Care
Posted: 1/5/2008 11:58:45 PM

Associated Press-Yahoo Poll
Interview dates: December 14 - 20, 2007

14. Which comes closest to your view?

34% - The United States should continue the current health insurance system in which most people get their health insurance from private employers, but some people have no insurance

65% - The United States should adopt a universal health insurance program in which everyone is covered under a program like Medicare that is run by the government and financed by taxpayers

2% - Refused / Not Answered

15. Do you consider yourself a supporter of a single-payer health care system, that is a national health plan financed by taxpayers in which all Americans would get their insurance from a single government plan, or not?

54% - Yes

44% - No

2% - Refused / Not Answered


This story was posted on the website for Physicians For a National Health Program: pnhp.org. This is just one of several polls that prove those of us who want a single-payer system is this country are winning support.

 worddiva
Joined: 10/10/2006
Msg: 184 (view)
 
Have you been completely brainwashed yet ?
Posted: 1/5/2008 11:49:54 PM
If you take the combined audience of FOX's competitors - CNN and MSNBC - more people aren't watching FOX than are. And, if you add the fact that most people get their TV news from the networks than cable, FOX's audience looks comparatively small.
 worddiva
Joined: 10/10/2006
Msg: 85 (view)
 
Racism in the dating world
Posted: 12/9/2007 10:28:20 PM
Maybe we could put this conversation to rest if we'd all just accept the fact that there is no biological basis for the concept of "race." In other words, "races" do not exist. I think that if we all just mixed together, maybe the world would be a better place.
 worddiva
Joined: 10/10/2006
Msg: 34 (view)
 
A few simple questions for the Libertarians.
Posted: 11/7/2007 7:55:00 PM
The only libertarian views I agree with are the social ones. I think the government has no right to tell me what substances I can abuse my body with. So I'm in favor of legalizing drugs. Likewise, I'm in favor of legalized prostitution, gambling, and letting gays and lesbians get married.
However, I squarely part company with their economic views. I think people who espouse economic libertarianism, i.e. the free market run amok, has never actually had to live in a society like that. I think if they did, they'd rethink their ideas. Imagine a society where no one is paying any taxes and a monopoly waste collection company - thanks to the free market - is in charge of picking up your garbage. They charge you through the nose, and if you can't or won't pay up, no garbage pick up. And if there's no government to ensure that the sewage pipes work, then you'll see poo all over your street. Pee-yew! And look all the disease that would cause. You'd also be stepping over a lot of homeless and hungry elderly people who simply had the misfortune of picking a lifelong job paying slave wages with no retirement. But, you know, somebody's gotta work in those restaurants, clean up those office buildings, clerk in those retail stores, nurse those hospital patients. In Free Market World, who'd be dumb enough to take those jobs?

Free marketers believe that laissez-faire is a panacea for society's problems. But corporations are only interested in making profit, the bottom line. They don't exist to improve society. If a for-profit waste collection company believes that not maintaining sewage pipes will save them money, the poo stays in your street. If a food company thinks it's cheaper to have unsanitary packing plants, that's what they'll have. This is why we need government to keep people and companies honest, and not have the society simply fall apart.

As for Mexico, it's not a socialist country. Otherwise, I don't think Mexico would be home to the world's richest man, Carlos Slim. You free marketers should build an alter to him. Under Mexico's weak anti-trust environment, he's managed to create a telephone monopoly in that country so big, that Mexicans pay some of the world's highest rates for phone service.

Yeah, if the U.S. keeps going the way it's been going, we'll have the Free Market Paradise soon enough. Along with a few rich people cloistered in small gated communities surrounded by giant slums. And the water wouldn't be safe to drink, 'cause there's no regulation, so you'll need to be rich to afford bottled water. I heard that the U.S. is starting to look more like Brazil. I think I'll start learning how to samba.
 WordDiva
Joined: 10/10/2006
Msg: 35 (view)
 
Ironic political observation.
Posted: 9/14/2007 5:47:01 PM

And I do resent those millionares and billionares who hold most of the offices in the U.S. who live very comfortable lives and always have, who have health care and loooong paid vacations, who have never had to choose between buying groceries or fixing the car so they can get to work - who vote tehmselves raises in teh tens of thousands of dollars while fighting raising the minimum wage - who think that the rest of the nation doesn't deserve the same. Trust me, the rest of us work much, much harder than they do.


Yeah, so do I. That's why we need publically financed elections, so poor and middle-class people can run for office and we don't have our government full of millionaires and billionaires. If we want this to happen, we've got to demand it, folks.
 WordDiva
Joined: 10/10/2006
Msg: 34 (view)
 
Ironic political observation.
Posted: 9/14/2007 5:42:23 PM
The sad fact is that many poor people won't, can't or are simply prevented from voting. If you're poor and you work, you may not be able to get the time off from work to go vote. That's why we need Election Day to be a national holiday or, preferably, we should be able to vote on a weekend.
The red states in the South are still suffering from the legacy of institutionalized racism, which has perpetuated an underclass of poor and poorly educated people. When a community doesn't allow all of its people to have the best opportunities and contribute to improve that community, you don't get as much innovation or progress.
 WordDiva
Joined: 10/10/2006
Msg: 131 (view)
 
Texas and execution #400
Posted: 8/26/2007 12:16:06 AM
I think the EU has the right to criticize the U.S. for continuing with this barbaric foolishness that is capital punishment. After all, America likes to hold itself out as the primary "defender of human rights" around the world. We love to criticize places like China and Iran for their human rights records, when our own "injustice" system can sometimes be sloppy. Just look at all those innocent people that were freed from Illinois' death row a few years ago; the governor had to put a moritorium on death penalty cases.
Europe went through centuries of repressive regimes and kingdoms where people were routinely rounded up, accused of crimes, and quickly dispatched. They know from their history what it's like to see innocent people go to the gallows, and they finally got rid of capital punishment because they probably had had enough.
Americans who support capital punishment like to think it's foolproof, but nothing is ever perfect. Maybe we'll have enough when it's proven beyond any doubt that innocent people have been killed. Or maybe if the U.S. turns into a repressive regime (not too far fetched with the bunch we've got in the White House now) where everyone loses their right to a fair trial and people are routinely executed for the slightest offense to those in power, maybe we'll have enough. But by then, it'll be too late.


As if societies that have attempted to marganalize faith in the lives of its people to a repressive extent have such great track records?

Communist Russia
Nazi Germany
Communist China to put out a few


To comment on the previous post: The assertion that the Nazis marginalized Christianity in Germany is incorrect. The Nazis very much encouraged religion. A famous Nazi slogan goes "Kinder, Kuche, Kirche," -- Children, Kitchen, Church. This slogan described the proper role for German women in the Reich. Also, history has been unkind to the Catholic Church in Germany during that time, as it stood silent as the Jews were sent to their deaths.
 WordDiva
Joined: 10/10/2006
Msg: 180 (view)
 
Why is there a lot of good looking women looking to find love single?
Posted: 8/25/2007 11:26:27 PM

A lot of women reject what they say they really don't know what they want. They think they want the bad boy, but they don't want to get burned, so they say they want the good guy, and then reject him when he comes around!


No bad boys for me. There are plenty of us girls that prefer the good guy. I specifically look for them. But I've gotten turned down by plenty of "nice guys." Not sure what I did. All I can think of is that I just wasn't their type. Wish I knew.
 WordDiva
Joined: 10/10/2006
Msg: 68 (view)
 
Americans prefer dating foreigners?
Posted: 8/24/2007 5:31:05 PM
I've only met a few foreigners (non-Americans) in my life, but my impression is that they seem to be more open, upfront and in some cases, less inhibited. I would love to go out with more foreigners, if I could find them! I do find accents charming, and I also love foreign languages, having studied Spanish, German and now French. There's nothing like having a lover who speaks the language you're learning to help you get fluent!
 Worddiva
Joined: 10/10/2006
Msg: 321 (view)
 
Congressman Ron Paul for President
Posted: 8/18/2007 6:47:06 PM
Personally, I don't understand all the gushing and fawning over Ron Paul. I think people, especially some liberals, only focus on his position on the war. I think his position on that is admirable, and he says some interesting things. But I certainly wouldn't want this man to become president. Unless you totally agree with the libertarian platform - meaning, no public education, no labor laws, no Food and Drug Administration, no Clean Water Act, no Federal Reserve, no Social Security, etc. - maybe you're supporting the wrong candidate. Okay, so maybe the guy would let the states have a lot more autonomy. But remember, what one state does, may have consequences for its neighbors (think of loose gun laws). Are we one nation, or a confederation of mini-nations? I think people should be careful of what they wish for.
 WordDiva
Joined: 10/10/2006
Msg: 59 (view)
 
Bridge Collapse in the Midwest
Posted: 8/9/2007 6:14:22 PM
When I heard about this tragedy, I was saddened and outraged. My heart also goes out to the families. While it makes no sense to blame Bush for this event, I do blame his brand of ideology for contributing to the neglect of our crumbling infrastructure for decades. Folks who want to privatize everything like to keep roads, bridges, dams and sewers ill-maintained. Then, they can say government doesn't work, so let corporations come in buy up our bridges, roads, sewers and dams. They'll do a better job, they say. So now, you can all say hello to tolls every time you drive! Not to mention let's privatize our public water system too! Take a guess how well that's worked where it's been tried (not really).

Politicians don't like to focus on infrastructure as a campaign issue because it's not sexy. And they don't like to tell the public the truth - that they have to pay for keeping our infrastructure maintained. You can't do it on the cheap. It's all part of treating voters like children who don't want to take their medicine. Minneapolis, on the day of the bridge collapse, had to cancel the groundbreaking of a spanking new $500 million-dollar Minnesota Twins baseball park paid with taxpayer money. It's rather ironic. Why are tax dollars going to something that the developer could have paid for itself and that fewer people are going to use, rather than to replace that bridge? Makes you wonder where the priorities are. My mom told me a saying, "People ask for what they want, and beg for what they need."

I think about infrastructure all the time when I drive on the some of the roads in L.A. Some are so bad, I worry my tires will be ripped to shreds. Now, I'll be nervous driving along any bridge here in California, although the officials say they're better than others because they were built to withstand earthquakes. I'm still skeptical. Time Magazine has an article this week about how the Army Corps of Engineers is making the same mistakes in New Orleans that they made before Katrina hit. The repaired levees will only be able to withstand much smaller waves than the ones that flooded the city in 2005! This is crazy.
I'm going on a slight tangent here, but I once saw a documentary about Germany's famed Autobahn. They have to keep it well-maintained for the roads to be able to tolerate the unlimited car speeds. It was noted that the asphalt used to build the Autobahn is twice as thick as American roads.
 WordDiva
Joined: 10/10/2006
Msg: 14 (view)
 
For the deficit whiners
Posted: 8/9/2007 4:49:29 PM
It's not surprising that a person like this would run off to a third world country so he could live like the king. People like him want to turn America into a third world country, a place where a small part of the population controls a majority of all the resources and exploits the rest of us. I wonder if he took his Social Security money with him (but ooh, isn't that a communist program?). It's good he's gone. We could use people here who actually want to contribute to the common good.
 WordDiva
Joined: 10/10/2006
Msg: 23 (view)
 
Big dogs verses small dogs
Posted: 7/22/2007 10:42:20 PM
For me, it depends on the breed. But a big dog, because of it's size, seems tougher to handle. I like most dogs anyway.
 WordDiva
Joined: 10/10/2006
Msg: 23 (view)
 
Christian rock - a turnoff?
Posted: 7/19/2007 6:53:34 PM
I'm not religious at all - I'm agnostic in fact - but a favorite song of mine just happens to be a classic from U2, "Gloria" from the 1981 album October. It's a beautiful and moving shout-out to God. From what I understand, this was at a time when the band members were very deep into expressing their spirituality. I've always been a fan of U2, ever since I was a kid.
For me, it really depends on who the artist is. If the music and the songwriting are good, overtly spiritual messages aren't a turnoff.
 WordDiva
Joined: 10/10/2006
Msg: 10 (view)
 
Art in person vs. pictures
Posted: 7/18/2007 7:15:12 PM
I consider myself lucky for having visited The Hermitage in St. Petersberg, Russia. This place is nothing short of awesome! I only got to see a small portion of it, and during the tourist season (too many people). I think I would dare brave the harsh Russian winter to go back when there aren't so many people!
Closer to home (I'm in southern California), we have the Norton Simon museum in Pasadena, home to several Picassos and other master works. This museum is the one you see on TV every year if you watch the Rose Parade. My mom has a small reproduction of one of the Picassos; the original I hadn't seen before until I went into the Norton Simon!
For some good modern art, also on the west coast, I would recommend the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art.
 WordDiva
Joined: 10/10/2006
Msg: 4 (view)
 
Pursuing the Danish Dream?
Posted: 7/15/2007 11:28:29 PM
"I'd challenge that this study did not do a full "apples to apples" look. Denmark is a great country, but there are a lot of hidden costs there that we don't have. "

My understanding is that the study compared the economic mobility of all industrialized nations, which characterizes the U.S. and the other countries listed in the article. So the study was comparing "apples to apples."
I do agree with IGotRythm2 that part of the problem is America's poorer educational system. That's because schools in the U.S. are not funded adequately, nor are the dollars spread equally (instead of funding education through property taxes which favors rich districts, schools should be funded through another general tax and the revenue equally distributed).
Much is made of the fact that our friends across the Atlantic are paying much higher taxes than Americans (the "hidden cost"). But they do that in order to get better public services (schools, healthcare, free college). That's the trade-off. Americans want good public services, but many don't seem to understand that you've got to pay for quality if you want quality. You can't get somethin' for nothing, or even somethin' for peanuts. I'd rather pay more in taxes than have infrastructure crumbling around me, which is what I see happening here. Besides, corporations and dividend-holders aren't paying their fair share of taxes anyway.
The whole point of the article, and the reason I posted it, is to expose the myth many Americans have that it's still easy to move from the social class you're born into to the next rung up the ladder. That's not true anymore. We're living in a new Gilded Age. The first step in solving a problem is recognizing that you have one. Economic inequality is only going to get worse if we continue to ignore the problem. Now, I'm all for folks making a lot of money, but they should be made to do it on a fairer playing field. Should we continue to tolerate a small group of people having 3/4 of the wealth, while everyone else gets by on 1/4? Should we continue to tolerate average CEOs making 500 times more than the average worker? I just read another article in the L.A. Times that the super-rich aren't affected at all by the housing slump that's been devastating middle and lower income people. Go figure. More and more of them are gorging on 36-room monster mansions in Bel Air (with 34 bathrooms, I kid you not), and 50 cars no doubt, while legions of other folks are struggling to pay their bills, going into debt to pay for their kids' college, and have mediocre or no health care. So maybe people in other countries don't routinely buy 3000 square-foot homes. But do ya really need a 3000-square foot home for 2 people? The point is, they trade more material comforts for the idea that every citizen's basic needs should be taken care of. Hence, fewer gazillionaires with too much of the pie and fewer people living in poverty.
 WordDiva
Joined: 10/10/2006
Msg: 1 (view)
 
Pursuing the Danish Dream?
Posted: 7/15/2007 6:21:18 PM
Is the American Dream still true? Not so much anymore, according to a New York Times editorial published last week. In "The Land of Opportunity?" (New York Times, July 13, newyorktimes.com), a recent study by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a think tank that studies wealthy nations, reported that economic mobility in the United States is weaker than in Denmark, Austria, Norway, Finland, Canada, Sweden, Germany, Spain and France. According to the article, "in America, there is more than a 40 percent chance that if a father is in the bottom fifth of the earnings’ distribution, his son will end up there, too. In Denmark, the equivalent odds are under 25 percent, and they are less than 30 percent in Britain."
In other words, it's easier to get ahead and get rich in Denmark, than it is in the good old US of A. What do all of those nations stated above have in common? Better social safety nets than the U.S. The boots are spread around more equally, so the citizens have an easier time pulling themselves up by those straps, so to speak. I wonder if a day is going to come when more people start emigrating from America in search of better economic opportunities than immigrating to here. That will be sad. That day may be fast approaching if we don't do something about the inequality gap here. What are your thoughts on this, folks?
 WordDiva
Joined: 10/10/2006
Msg: 17 (view)
 
Revolution!!????
Posted: 7/7/2007 2:47:44 PM
"The founders of our country never envisioned that politics would become a career. It's my understanding that our founding fathers expected that, primarily for economic reasons, politicians would serve for a relatively short period of time and then return to their private lives and careers. Instead, just the opposite has happened--politics itself has become an extremely lucrative lifelong career path.

We need to return to the idea of citizen-politicians instead of career politicians. To do so we would need extensive election reform, not just term limits. "

I agree wholeheartedly. It seems too many go into politics just to profit from their position, rather than actually making changes that help the average person. I can't think of any legislation passed in the last six and a half years that actually helps the average working stiff. Many politicians leave office only run to a very lucrative lobbying gig.
First, if Americans truly want change, they must support and demand public financing of all elections. It works everywhere it's been tried, including Arizona and Maine. Under our current system, only rich people can afford to run for public office anymore. Do we really want a government full of rich people and only rich people? No. Rich people should be represented, but so should everyone else. We also need our politicians to come from the ranks of the middle-class and the poor. Where are the teachers, police officers or firefighters running for the Senate, the presidency? Why shouldn't any of my fellow POFers be able to run? We can't because of the way money has corrupted our political system. The way things are now, politicians are only listening to rich corporate donors and powerful lobbyists (on the right and left) -- not you.
The public financing systems that have been enacted get around constitutional hurdles by continuing to make the financing voluntary. The catch is this: Say a zillionaire candidate raises, $1 million, and the publically financed candidate only has $500,000. The government will match the zillionaire's amount for the publically financed candidate so he or she will now have $1 million. This discourages runaway spending on campaigns because the zillionaire would take a lot of heat from the public if they have to keep matching what the zillionaire raises.
Second, Americans must also support and demand instant-runoff voting. This allows people to vote for someone they truly support, not just the lesser of two evils. In instant run-off voting, you vote for your first choice, your second choice, third choice and so on. The top vote-getter gets all the first choice votes, and redistributed second choice votes and so on. Hypothetical primary: If you're a Democrat, and you really like Dennis Kucinich, or you're a Republican and you really dig Ron Paul, but you're worried about either being able to win, you could make either your first choice, and maybe, say Hillary Clinton or Rudy Giuliani your second choice. If anyone gets a majority of first place votes, they win. If no one does, the candidate with the fewest first place votes is eliminated, and the ballots cast for that candidate are counted toward his/her voters' second choices. So if Kucinich is eliminated, his second choice votes would go to Hillary. If Ron Paul is eliminated, his second choice votes go to Rudy. So the winning candidate knows he or she truly has the support of the majority of the people. More info on instant runoff voting is at www.instantrunoff.com.
Third, Americans need to change their way of thinking about their society and community. We need to start thinking about we can do for each other, not what I can do for myself. There should be no more "I've got mine, and screw everyone else." Don't get mad at the guy down the street if his job gets him better benefits than you. Demand from your representatives that everyone gets the same. We can't pull ourselves up by our bootstraps, if we don't have the boots. We all need to help each other with opportunity. After all, the government is US. This is the revolution I want to see.
 WordDiva
Joined: 10/10/2006
Msg: 5 (view)
 
Is traffic affecting your dating habits?
Posted: 5/22/2007 5:55:50 PM
"Distance would'nt be a problem and now a days if ya have a the right GPS it routes you around nasty traffic.../"

Yeah, I wish I could get a GPS That would come in handy around here. I wonder how much they cost?
 WordDiva
Joined: 10/10/2006
Msg: 1 (view)
 
Is traffic affecting your dating habits?
Posted: 5/22/2007 1:48:51 PM
Hey all,
I'm wondering if people in California, especially southern California, are picking their potential dates based on distance more than people do in other parts of the country. Because traffic is so nightmarish here in L.A., I find it hard to socialize with anyone farther than 20 miles. I live in the central part of L.A. In the past, I've tried dating people in the San Fernando Valley and outside L.A. County and found it was a huge production for them to get here to where I am and vice versa -- even on a weekend! If there's an accident on the 101, the 10, or the 405, the rest of your evening can be shot. For me, a guy may live in San Bernardino, but he may as well live in Paris! And with gas prices edging up to $4 a gallon, people may start thinking twice about how much they drive. And don't get me started on parking
I think the horrific traffic situation in parts of California and the lack of good public transporation in L.A. ends up making us more isolated. What are your thoughts? Do you reject potential dates if they live outside a 10 mile radius? Have any of you had cross-county relationships and how has that worked for you? Do you feel limited by your choices because of the distance? I do. Are you as frustrated about this as I am?Testify, brothers and sisters!
 WordDiva
Joined: 10/10/2006
Msg: 30 (view)
 
Michel Moore's New Film Sicko
Posted: 5/14/2007 7:36:04 PM
"Sure there is: elementary economic theory."

Economic theory has no place in this issue when people's lives are being jerked around. There's a difference between needs and wants. So, I don't need a car or a DVD player, but I do need to see a doctor. Everyone gets sick. Conversely, I don't want the government making televisions or clothing. So the government should stay out of making these things. On the other hand, private corporations should butt out of delivering health care. We've got free public education, so why not apply the same to health care?
 WordDiva
Joined: 10/10/2006
Msg: 7 (view)
 
Michel Moore's New Film Sicko
Posted: 5/14/2007 12:18:10 AM
Many Americans have swallowed the myth that the U.S. has the best healthcare system in the world. However, according to the World Health Organization, the U.S. healthcare system ranks 37th out of 191 countries, ahead of Slovenia and behind Costa Rica. France ranks number 1.
Also, Americans pay the most for healthcare than anyone in the world. So we're paying the most for mediocre treatment.
Sure, we have the latest and greatest in healthcare technology -- only if you can afford to pay for it.
I happen to be one of those millions of uninsured, and let me tell you, it's not fun or fair. I'm in between jobs because I'm changing careers. If I need to see a doctor, I have to go to the local clinic and practically wait half the day just to see someone. If I were diagnosed with cancer tomorrow, my family and I would be financially ruined. Imagine if you had a full-time job where your employer doesn't provide insurance, and you get sick and have to see a doctor, and then have to take a whole day off work just to see one. I do know someone who works full-time but doesn't have insurance because she works for a small business. So not having guaranteed health care affects how I look at potential employers. I have to think twice about applying for a job at a small business because it may not offer health insurance. So that limits my opportunities to bigger companies. People stay in jobs they hate because they don't want to lose the health benefits. Or they may think twice about starting a business or becoming self-employed because of high health premiums. Auto companies slap $1,000 or more to cost of a car just to cover health care costs, and pour more into paying for healthcare than into innovation. Insurance companies are raking in obscene profits while thousands of people die every year in the U.S. because they can't see a doctor. About half of all bankruptcies in this country are because of unpaid medical bills. This is ridiculous and insane. This problem is adversely affecting the entire U.S. economy.
Any one American in this country (and on this web site) is just a job loss away from becoming uninsured, so I wouldn't be so complacent.
I support having guaranteed healthcare here in the U.S. just like every other industrialized country. I'm also politically active in trying to make that a reality. There is no reason that healthcare should be treated like buying a car or a DVD player. It should be treated as a right paid for by the government (meaning, we the people), and not administered by insurance middlemen.
Some of you guys may criticize Michael Moore for having the temerity to challenge the politically powerful, and you may not like his tactics, but at least he brings to light issues that Americans should be talking and doing something about.
 WordDiva
Joined: 10/10/2006
Msg: 6 (view)
 
Political Apartheid in America
Posted: 3/1/2007 6:36:53 PM
Great thread, DouglasInMotown! I adamantly support public financing of all political campaigns -- from the local school board to President of the United States. Many people just don't realize how much special interest influence in our government really hurts them in the pocketbook. Who should be writing our laws, the people through their elected representatives -- or Big Oil, the pharmaceutical industry and insurance companies? The latter are going to rig the system for themselves so we all end up paying more for gas, medicine, healthcare and other necessities.
Unfortunately, public financing of campaigns is going to have to gain ground on the local level first. Several municipalities across the country and some states already have public financing. I heard that the governor of Arizona may not have been elected if it hadn't been for that state's public financing system. I live in California, and supported a ballot proposition last year that would have provided a public financing system for all elections here. Unfortunately, it didn't pass. Part of the problem is that we need more of the public to be educated on this solution and how it can benefit them.
One objection to public financing is that people don't necessarily want to give tax money to candidates whose views they don't support. But they will save money in the long run if our politicians no longer have to kowtow to the wishes of special interest groups who write big campaign checks. And our leaders will spend more time talking to constituents about their concerns and less time going to expensive fundraising dinners that shut out the little guy/gal.
 sylvia671
Joined: 10/10/2006
Msg: 53 (view)
 
Whats wrong with wanting friends
Posted: 12/28/2006 4:31:05 PM
Yeah, it seems like with many guys you're either their girlfriend or you're persona non grata. On several occasions I've asked for friendships from men who decided they weren't interested in me romantically because I thought we had enough in common to be friends, and I was fine with that. But the responses were anywhere from silence to ambivalence -- or maybe a little annoyance -- about me wanting to contacting them again (the latter just happened to me recently). At this point, I feel rejected not just once, but twice! It's disappointing that no one wants to connect beyond the superficial. Maybe they fear the girl is going to try to beg him to reconsider and fall in love with her and he doesn't want to deal with that. I don't know.
I was able to become platonic friends with two men I met online, but neither friendships lasted more than a few months. They both just disappeared. Typically, the guys don't seem to want to make an effort to get to know me better once they've decided they don't want to get in my pants. It seems like it's always an either/or situation. I miss having male friends; I haven't had one probably since college. My last one good guy friend moved to New York several years ago. And I don't count co-workers. It's good for single women to have male friends that give them a different perspective on life, and vice versa. Also, they may have single friends they can introduce them to! I'm starting to agree with some people who have said that online dating sites are probably not the best place to look for friends.
 sylvia671
Joined: 10/10/2006
Msg: 1223 (view)
 
Has anyone been brave enough to meet someone with no pic at all?
Posted: 12/28/2006 1:17:40 PM
A few years ago, while on another dating site, I answered an e-mail from someone who had posted a photo of himself in which he was too far away. He was just a speck; I couldn't tell what he looked like, so he might as well not have posted a photo at all. I took a chance, and I was surprised too. He was hot -- tall, athletic. Unfortunately, the few dates we had didn't lead to anything serious.
If I like what the person wrote in his profile (and the other stats look good) -- with no photo (or a bad photo) I'm willing to take a chance.
 
Show ALL Forums