ParanoiA

That's a great point. We're still a rather young nation in the grand scheme of things, and I think we forget that. Perhaps, we need to play these things out to mature our document.

See, that's exactly the point. First, let's just drop Obama from the specifics; he's obviously qualified and there's plenty of conspiracy boards and nutcase sites for that conversation. The process though, is disturbing. From the article: Ok, so the legislature could empower citizens to do the policing of eligibility requirements, but who currently does? I'm just as uncertain about how we enforce the requirements. Who does this? What's the process? I didn't think they could intervene. They would seem the most appropriate legitimator of such a thing, I'm just not familiar with the mechanism that gives them the intervention. I think you're right though, that it hasn't been an issue in the past so it hasn't needed testing. I think this barrier we've broken with the presidency increases the probability we'll be testing this in the future.

Yeah, none of those talk about the process of validating an office seeker. They talk about the laws, but I'm not finding anything that defines how a candidate proves their citizenship. I would think it would be a requirement played out during the nomination process. That would seem to make the most sense; to present for verification your citizenship status, among other things, to an official or body of some sort in order to qualify for nomination. Otherwise, you could actually have a candidate spend public funds on campaigning, only to find out they're not a citizen based on some technical requirement, let alone to gain the presidency.

Well all of the McCain conspiracy crazies I know are all up in arms about Obama's citizenship status. So I've been playing backboard with their accusations and questionables, and in the process I noticed that I have no idea how a president's citizenship is actually validated. It would appear to rely on public forces to challenge citizenship in our courts, which appear to simply throw out these cases with what amounts to "it's not my job". So, what is the process by which we validate presidential candidate's citizenship? What about the legislative branch; how are they verified? I've been trying to search on this subject, but I keep getting Obama related articles that don't really talk about the method in general. To be clear, I have no doubt in Obama's citizenship and would hate for the thread to go that direction. My concern is in the process. Are we opening ourselves up for a dangerous scenario one day in our future?

This was the best voting experience yet. For once, I was informed and confident in everything on the ballot. Well, all but the Judicial retention section. I did manage to find a couple of local groups in Kansas City with performance reviews, per bascule's advice, one very partisan, the other not so much so. The best one provided jury as well as lawyer reviews. I guess the Missouri Plan ain't so bad after all...

But wait, none of these require interventionism. Cooperation? Yes. But not interference. Interference carries the baggage of implied eventual force. The outdated concept that Americans can't seem to shake is the false obligation that we have a duty to choose a side and bomb the other in any conflict that we have an interest in. And with, 144 military bases I think ecoli reported, and trade with over half the planet we cherry pick our battles enough that we become a de facto world police power, but not enough to be even handed about it - which is why we haven't "solved" Myanmar like we "solved" Iraq. There's a huge difference between interventionism and isolationism. Now, about this one world thing... As you know, humans "group" themselves, in hundreds of ways. We are designed for grouping and competition. Have you thought about how this benefits the human race in the face of the costs? Will a one world pysche still provide the necessary structural adversity for humans to compete and advance?

I voted for Palin. Take that!

I don't know anything about Chuck Baldwin in particular but the constitution party has an ugly component I can never sign on to. I like the name and what it implies, but they have no issues legislating morality and doing so inconsistently. They oppose euthanasia and abortion yet they're all for the death penalty. According to their Wiki entry: That's quite the investment in societal engineering and rolling back our progress in tolerance and liberating individuality. I'm weary of empowering an ideology like that. However I do like their overall approach, or resistance maybe, of taxation. I like their small government, noninterventionist foreign policy, welfare and a portion of their immigration policy. Anyway, the Paulites I work with, (all two of them), are pimping this dude and I'm still not sure either way. I prefer the libertarian antics of Barr, and am leaning toward a vote for him on Tuesday.

Not sure about what initializes the lower standard, but I definitely agree with the point on how it's enabled with our voting system. It's impossible to get folks to vote for the right guy over voting against the wrong guy. The fact we've always really just had 2 powerful parties would seem to indict our voting system. Or, more accurately, our voting system compliments our lowered standards (which we enable) and feeds this two party thing.

It always amazes me that what they believe in is more important than their behavior. I would NEVER land a minimum wage job with an employer that knew I would lie to get the job and falsely present myself to get people to like me, but likes my views on crispy fries. Yet we do it over and over and over and over...for a $400,000 / year job. And I can't get a single person to budge on not rewarding one of these two with the office. Anyone who elects these people really has no place to complain about it. It's like watching the battered mom keep going home, night after night, while she complains about her abusive husband. I know I say it alot, but it bears repeating, it's more important to be honest and imperfect than it is to be deceitful and seemingly mistake free. Look at how Greenspan had to retire before he could admit blame on something. Could you imagine what politics could be like if all of our legislators and executives could admit when they're wrong, and forgive other's mistakes in kind? Could you imagine what it could be like if we the people roasted them for distorted rhetoric and deceitful intent; punished them with rejection at the voting booth? It's not so much about rewarding honest effort, as that's what we're supposed to expect for crying out loud, it's about punishing bad behavior at the expense of our union. How seriously are they taking our republic when they abuse it this way? They act like they do because we let them - we enable this whole charade. It's a response to us. Just like fast-food and TV, they're just playing to our apparent demand. And it's working great. We get exactly what we deserve.

How many of these Obama polls are we going to have? Why don't you start a thread on the Obama Man-crush Phenomenon and spill your guts?

Well that's a pretty thorough testimonial and it doesn't fall on deaf ears. I'd like to get some stats on Germany's system, it sounds impressive. I'm curious how plural a consensus is on the matter.

Insurance has long been my biggest issue with Healthcare. It is largely responsible for the framework that creates this socialized bubble in our market. And that's also why I reject insurance based resolutions right on their face. Insurance also doesn't promote responsibility from the end user. The "cloud in the sky" covers it all. And then, of course, the hospitals take it out on them to recoup costs lost on those uninsured and unable to pay the high costs due to the uninsured...rinse and repeat. So we certainly agree there. But again, you're talking money - you're not talking about care or performance. I keep hearing that our healthcare system rocks in terms of care, quality of service, talent and so forth. If that's really true, then I don't want to lose it. And it would seem to somewhat justify the inflated cost, at least to some of us that desire that quality.

Well let me be a little more clear in my intent with that statement - I meant more along the lines of performance. We all know that our healthcare system costs way more than the NHS, and probably everywhere else. What I'm asking about is what we get for that money. Do we pay more but get better service? Better talent? Better this and that? That's why I made the comment that humans deserve the best, regardless of cost. I'm trying to get past that for a minute and look at performace. Where are we getting the best results - and I don't just mean fatality rates, there a million factors that can effect that and have nothing to do with healthcare facilities. And after we agree on most favored performance, perhaps we can then look at how to make it more efficient, the right structural changes to steamline costs without sacrificing that performance.

The poor getting...children, is a great example of why they don't deserve to be rich. They're poor as hell, and then they make a stupid decision like that. Or, more accurately, it's a decision that keeps them from maximizing their capital gain. It's poor business IF your goal is to be rich, or have more money, to rise in class. It's a fine decision if your priority is to have children and enjoy them regardless of how it impacts your standard of living. They're simply making the wrong decisions for the desired output. Why should that be rewarded? They made their decision. Let them live with it. No one is rescuing the businessman that risked his home mortgage and life savings only to fail at his business venture. Why? Because he made his decision, he knew the consequences, he took the risk, and it failed. People must take responsibility for their actions - and that goes for inaction as well.

Because it's arguable about what is better, what is not. There is *not* a system rolled out anywhere on the planet that everyone agrees, hands down, is the right system. There's always some list of pros and cons and that's why we have these long drawn out debates between them all. It's not universally agreed about anything. Maybe for you and those that think like you, but not for me and those that think like me, or don't think like you. So, that amounts to swapping problems, without a decrease in total problems, and most certainly not worth the astronomical cost and heart ache of switching over. So, let's live up to our reputation. Let's attempt our own system, learning from our mistakes and learning from other country's mistakes, and take the next evolutionary step in centralized healthcare. That's how humans advance in any endeavor. You take the lessons of the past, good and bad, and forge the future appropriately.

I am definitely all for this. I don't how we could get that to pass at this point, but it would seem quite healthy for our country to do this.

I agree. Dr Paul tried to offer some actual change. Obama's (and McCain's) change is a joke, there is no change. It's the same recycled BS we hear every election and his actions have mirrored every scum bag that exploits the sheeple into voting for him. It's the status quo. Although, I should also say, he's certainly no worse, and probably the best we've seen in awhile.

But how many who have actually used both the NHS and the American system, then prefer the NHS? Severian does not have good things to say about NHS, and nobody has responsed to this. Reminds me of republicans blinding themselves with the terror delusion. If it's a good system, then by all means, defend it. Let's hear how his experience was unique and how his comparisons are invalid. He claimed to have utilized several different Healthcare systems, the NHS being the worst. I'm primed to hear a good American centralized healthcare plan, but I have ZERO interest in duplicating anyone else's on the planet. Just trading one set of problems for another is not a solution. That just makes the cost look nice. People are more important than costs. Human beings deserve the best, even if it costs double in comparison to other systems.

Good points. Maybe if we had a balanced budget amendment, or something. Certainly this presidency could serve as the best evidence for it's need.

I won't rehash another debate on progressive taxation except to explore another potential issue I haven't seen brought up much - that progressive taxation provides a seeming indefinite ceiling for government spending. If you can continue to push the burden disproportionately to the rich then there really is no inherent ceiling other than maybe, 80% or so?? Whereas a flat tax system would tighten the belt sooner since, as has been pointed out, the poor can only get taxed so much and couldn't afford anything CLOSE to the maximum the rich could pay. That's an appeal for government discipline, not an appeal for fair treatment for the rich, although I think that would qualify as well.

I agree with ya there Riogho. But it's not playing Robin Hood as he stole from the GOVERNMENT and gave it back to the peasants.

Good point Skeptic. The parties don't seem so ideologically close when your frame of reference is your own lifetime and you don't consider the extremes. Look at how far we've come from 1787 and you'll see two federalist parties haggling over details.

Granted FactCheck.org is a great thing, it's hardly the be-all end-all of analytical deduction. Further, the cause of the financial crisis is not "fact", so I hardly see why they qualify for anything more than yet another collective opinion, albeit a valuable one. However, all that aside, they did indict the Clinton administration "which pushed for less stringent credit and downpayment requirements for working- and middle-class families." So, what was the tool Clinton used to do that? I believe that was CRA. CRA did play a role.

Man oh man is this so true. These political ads just crack me up. They get some plain faced, serious picture and slow-zoom on it while they intro the dramatic creepy evil music, E minor with a twist, with some chick that sounds like she's whispering loudly, "Barack Obama" - with that special tone that sounds like an indictment before they even say anything further, "he wants to have tea parties with Iran and voted to murder our troops in Iraq", or some such crap. Then comes the harpsichord with bird song, inspirational christian music, and a McCain picture with a smile, shaking hands with happy adults and laughing with children, "John McCain won't reward Iran with dead soldiers" or some nonsense, "he loves our country and blah blah blah". Makes me want to puke. The lies and distortions by these jokers never ceases to amaze and insult me. So now I just laugh. The radio commercials are almost better, as they really get into the tone of the voice to sound dramatic and serious when they slam candidate A, and then get all light and fluffy when they build up their candidate B. How's it feel to be targeted and commercialized like a McDonald's ad campaign?