Click here for AnswerPool.com Home page




Google

    AnswerPool.com  Hop To Forum Categories  News & Reference  Hop To Forums  News & Reference Related Polls    Do you prefer Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton? Why?
Page 1 2 3 

Moderators: Koz
Go
Post
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
  Login/Join 
Platinum
Enthusiast
Picture of SeattleRon
Posted Hide Post
I don't know enough about either candidate to make an intelligent choice right now, but if I had to choose right now in this moment....I would choose Obama for President and Clinton for Vice President.
I know it sounds stupid, and it shouldn't matter, but man I wanna see a colored president or even a female president.
It would show the rest of the world that we aren't biggots. Every President we've had is white, even the Vice President.
Look what we did before when Colin Powell thoght about running, he felt threatened, so he didn't run.

I come from a 3rd world country, The Philippines, and we have a woman President.
It's time for United States to move into the 21st century and be more open minded.
While the rest of the world is being more liberated, we talk censorship, kicking DJ's off radio, dealing fines to TV shows, it's ridiculous.

Obama or Hillary, I know one of you will be the next President, all I ask is this, restore our freedoms, I want to be able to go through a damn Airport without getting a prostate exam.
Screw all this Homeland security BS,
it's not gonna help nothing, it just makes you scared every now and then.
Obama or Hillary, make'em knock it off.
I want my privacy back...
 
Posts: 2690 | Location: USA | Registered: 06-07-02Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Diamond
Enthusiast

Picture of Scotty
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Subject: Soldier's Fear

Chelsea Clinton asked a returning U.S. soldier about fear.

He said there were only three things that he was afraid of:

Osama, Obama, and Yo Mama.

Big Grin
 
Posts: 3165 | Location: From the Mountains to the Sea. | Registered: 06-08-02Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Site
Administrator
Picture of DorianGreyed
Posted Hide Post
But Scotty, your Boy George said that Osama is not important anymore.

“I do not know where he is, he is not important and is not our priority”

Besides, do you really think a "returning U.S. soldier" is afraid of a woman politician? That's a pretty low opinion of our military, don't you think?
 
Posts: 16773 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Diamond
Enthusiast

Picture of Scotty
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Besides, do you really think a "returning U.S. soldier" is afraid of a woman politician? That's a pretty low opinion of our military, don't you think?


Of course you do realize that this is a joke, DG.
 
Posts: 3165 | Location: From the Mountains to the Sea. | Registered: 06-08-02Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Diamond
Enthusiast

Posted Hide Post
quote:
Of course you do realize that this is a joke...
I thought it was the Republican's 2008 campaign strategy. Smile
 
Posts: 7630 | Location: Canada | Registered: 06-03-02Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Diamond
Enthusiast

Posted Hide Post
'Hillary Clinton's campaign is running into trouble -- potentially very serious trouble -- in Iowa.

The latest and best poll of likely Democratic caucus goers in the first state that will weigh in on the 2008 nomination race has Clinton falling to third place. And that's not the worst of it. As Clinton stumbles, a new contender with potential to eat into her base it rising rapidly...'
www.thenation.com
 
Posts: 7630 | Location: Canada | Registered: 06-03-02Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Diamond Enthusiast

Posted Hide Post
Watch Bill Richardson carefully. If he can get a little money behind him, this race could be wide open.
 
Posts: 7655 | Location: in the backwoods of North Carolina | Registered: 06-07-02Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Diamond
Enthusiast

Posted Hide Post
'What in the world was Sen. Hillary Clinton thinking when she attacked Sen. Barack Obama for ruling out the use of nuclear weapons in going after Osama bin Laden? And why aren’t her supporters more concerned about yet another egregious example of Clinton’s consistent backing for the mindless militarism that is dragging this nation to ruin? So what that she is pro-choice and a woman if the price of proving her capacity to be commander in chief is that we end up with an American version of Margaret Thatcher?' www.truthdig.com
 
Posts: 7630 | Location: Canada | Registered: 06-03-02Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Platinum
Enthusiast
Picture of SeattleRon
Posted Hide Post
Barrack Obamas campaign song should be Tupacs "Nothing to lose"

that would absolutely secure him as President.
I know if I was running thats the song I would choose...
 
Posts: 2690 | Location: USA | Registered: 06-07-02Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Diamond
Enthusiast

Posted Hide Post
An American version of Mrs Thatcher? No.The link above makes a facile comparison. If Mrs Clinton was as good as that you'd have no problems with the candidate Big Grin The 'Iron Lady' was genuinely like that (her nickname was given her by the Russians: it's their name for a type of tank !). But (1)she would never launch a war without knowing both the costs and the consequences (2) she was not one for changing what she said or behaving differently just to get a better rating in the polls: if you voted for her you knew exactly what you'd get and what you got would be consistent (3) she would never court popularity for its own sake and was utterly fearless in pursuit of what she had reasoned to be best. And she reasoned well.She always had a reasoned answer, backed with facts and figures showing all pros and all cons, showing why she had reached a decision.And you would always feel that what she did was the result of deep, intelligent analysis of a whole picture , always practical and never the result of some blind ideology or belief.

She could be unpopular but she was always admired and respected, even by her political opponents (Tony Blair,then of the Opposition, is one of her greatest admirers)
 
Posts: 7803 | Location: Newmarket, UK/ Antibes, S.France | Registered: 07-14-02Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Diamond
Enthusiast

Posted Hide Post
Clinton's Prescription for Another Heath Care Reform Failure

The blog suggests her proposal would end up with the worst of both worlds - compulsory purchase of health insurance (as with car insurance) but with inadequate help for those who couldn't afford it. Is Clinton unable (yet again) to face down the insurance, pharmaceutical and other firms that profit from the current US system?
 
Posts: 7630 | Location: Canada | Registered: 06-03-02Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Diamond
Enthusiast

Picture of babthrower
Posted Hide Post
Yes, Clinton backed down in the face of pressure (albeit immense pressure, the drug companies alone are formidable and make Saddam Hussein look like a gnat). Obama is still sinless in that respect.
 
Posts: 6249 | Location: British Columbia, Canada | Registered: 06-11-02Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Diamond
Enthusiast

Picture of frankvan
Posted Hide Post
It's a little premature to write off Mrs Clinton's health care proposals. Characterizing her earlier defeat as "backing down" or suggestions that she was or is bought off by the insurance and drug lobbies, is succumbing to their obvious propoganda. For the time being her proposal seems to be that those who are satisfied with the coverage they have - can keep it. those who have no coverage or who choose to change will be offered the same coverage as members of congress have now! Let's recognize that for now, only incremental changes will have a snowball in hell chance of passing, against the competing interests with the deepest pockets. The same coverage as my congressman sounds pretty good to me, and I already have full coverage at exorbitant cost.

Rolling back some of the tax cuts for the wealthy, the last seven years have seen, looks fair enough to this "millionair".
 
Posts: 6727 | Location: Baltimore, MD, U.S.A | Registered: 06-03-02Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Diamond
Enthusiast

Picture of aminator2002
Posted Hide Post
20-20 had an interesting segment about the healthcare plan at Whole Foods. Employees carry a $1000 deductible but the company pays that deductible into a health account for them. If they don't use it then it remains in their account. Any costs over the $1000 get paid in full by the company.

Personally, I find that kind of plan perfect for me and it would motivate some more beneficial competition in the market. I know the argument would be that people would try to avoid spending money on their health but it is designated for health and can't just be cashed out to buy video games. It made a pretty good case for improving the market for consumers.

It essentially doesn't change anything except that healthy customers are causing competition. I was appalled when I found out that my prescription really only cost $15 a month but I was paying that in a deductible and then our healthcare plan was being billed $60 due to processing costs. It doesn't make sense to spend so much on administration for the healthy employees.
 
Posts: 3041 | Location: USA | Registered: 06-04-02Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Diamond
Enthusiast

Posted Hide Post
I don't think that French healthcare insurers lose money yet the French system is one where the government pays part of the cost and insurers pay the rest.Everyone has this top up insurance, which is, of course, very cheap.

Not that any American voter wants the government to be involved in something which exists not at at all for millions and otherwise is operated entirely for the profit of insurance companies and on their terms Smile Nothing wrong with free enterprise in healthcare: the British government has it playing a large role in the National Health Service. Our private hospitals take National Health patients, too, on occasion. It's just that we find it odd that any country should tolerate anyone being without healthcare, whatever the reason.

You'll get there eventually. It'll be incremental progress.Let's face it, you socialist ( Big Grin ) Americans already give free healthcare, without any means test, to citizens who have attained a certain age, don't you (or have I misunderstood)? What have they done to deserve free care which some uninsured have not? The only benefit I get in England for reaching 60 is that my prescription on the National Health Service is now free (I've never bothered with private health insurance, nor have any of my family and nor did my parents, but heck, what do we know?). Before then it was about £6 ($12):I didn't fall into an exempted category

PS What we really need is free healthcare for dogs. Insurance is very expensive and often comes with legally valid terms which would make any honourable lawyer's eyes water !
 
Posts: 7803 | Location: Newmarket, UK/ Antibes, S.France | Registered: 07-14-02Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Diamond
Enthusiast

Picture of frankvan
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Americans already give free healthcare, without any means test, to citizens who have attained a certain age, don't you


That free health care for people of a certain age costs: $1062/year/person for coverage of 80% of medical cost. The other 20% costs me $2094, and my wife $2800. Her prescription drugs insurance costs her $537.00/year and she has to pay a copayment that depends on the drug prescribed. I Pay $8.00 per prescription/month because I get them through veteran benefits. All in all, our "free" medicare costs two octogenarians about $8,000.00. But think of the number of drug companies and insurers and the people they employ, and the influence they wield in our government. Are you envious yet, Fred?? Roll Eyes
 
Posts: 6727 | Location: Baltimore, MD, U.S.A | Registered: 06-03-02Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Diamond
Enthusiast

Picture of babthrower
Posted Hide Post
If GWB wants to salvage his reputation as a half-decent American president, he should present Americans with "a program to support a transition to democracy in " America.

What we are seeing is media control, bafflegab, lies, reduction of freedom of choice *, economic 'porkbarrels' for Bush cronies -- a sad decline into corruption and fascism.

* most recent example: In spite of "free trade" and other Republican claptrap about the 'freedom' of Americans, Americans are not free to buy cheaper prescribed drugs on the open market.

You may not be able to acces this information by clicking that URL; so here is the text:
quote:

Email to a Colleague Printable Version Add to My Shortcuts
FDA Clarifies Importation Law as Internet Pharmacies Proliferate

from American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy
Posted 05/07/2003

Donna Young

As a result of soaring prescription drug prices in the United States, a number of Internet and mail-order pharmacies that advertise to American consumers searching for lower-cost drugs are springing up rapidly in Canada and around the world.

Also proliferating are groups advocating and promoting cross-border access for U.S. consumers to affordable prescription drugs via Internet and mail-order pharmacies.

One newly formed group, the NorthAmerican-Pharmotherapeutic Consultants Association (NA-PCA) -- a Vermont-based professional organization of Canadian, Mexican, and American physicians and pharmacists -- has initiated an accreditation program. The program is run by NA-PCA's Internet and Mailorder Pharmacy Accreditation Commission (IMPAC), which developed the program's quality assurance standards.

Dana Noble, a Massachusetts nurse and NA-PCA's acting executive director, said the IMPAC accreditation program will help North American consumers identify legitimate Internet and mail-order pharmacies.

NA-PCA is charging $35,000 for a two-year accreditation term, she added.

But Thomas McGinnis, FDA's pharmacy affairs director, said that the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act (FDCA) is clear: When Canadian or other foreign Internet and mail-order pharmacies ship prescription drug products to patients in the United States, those companies are violating the law.

Drugs with FDA-approved labeling that are manufactured in the United States and exported to other countries, including Canada, he added, may not be reimported by anyone other than the manufacturer.

The United States Customs Service each year stops thousands of packages of prescription drug products from entering the country, McGinnis said.

FDA issues notices to addressees of the packages that are held and provides opportunities for people to explain why their parcel should be allowed entry into the United States, he said. If FDA does not hear from an addressee, the package is returned to the mail-order pharmacy.

Reuters reported in March that one Canadian company, LePharmacy.com, advises its customers to ignore FDA notices and reorder a prescription if a package is held by customs.

FDA has kept a close watch on foreign Internet and mail-order pharmacies in recent years and has issued several warning letters to companies that appear to be engaged in illegally shipping drug products to patients in the United States, McGinnis said.

The agency turned to the Internet in 2000 to electronically issue warning notices, known as cyber letters, to foreign Web-site operators informing them that their activities of marketing drugs products for sale and distribution to people in the United States may be illegal.
Quality

William K. Hubbard, FDA's associate commissioner for policy and planning, in a February 12 letter responding to questions about FDA policy posed by Louisiana attorney Robert P. Lombardi, said that, "for public health reasons, FDA is very concerned about the importation of prescription drugs from Canada."

In the agency's experience, Hubbard noted, many drug products obtained from foreign sources that purport and appear to be the same as pharmaceuticals marketed in the United States have been of unknown quality.

"We cannot provide adequate assurance to the American public that the drug products delivered to consumers in the United States from foreign countries are the same products approved by FDA," Hubbard said.

Henri R. Manasse Jr., executive vice president for the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, said that the practice of illegal importation of drug products by Internet and mail-order pharmacies threatens the integrity of the drug supply in the United States.

Many foreign countries, he noted, lack quality control for their drug manufacturing and shipping practices.

"How do we assure that there are not adulterations of drug products" sold by foreign-based Internet and mail-order pharmacies, he asked. "These are the same issues this country wrestled with in 1820 when the United States Pharmacopeia was established. It is history repeating itself. There are intense market forces that are crashing in on the integrity of a system that many of us have spent a lot of time to keep together and keep together well. Are we willing to risk the integrity of our system for economic gains?"

FDA's McGinnis said that about 210 countries make drug products. One third of those nations have good regulatory controls in place, another third have regulatory controls but lack enforcement, and the bottom third have no regulatory controls.
Scare Tactic

But NA-PCA's Noble argued that FDA has not provided clear evidence that drugs purchased by U.S. consumers from Canadian pharmacies have harmed patients. FDA, she added, has used the issue of uncertain quality as a scare tactic.

That scare tactic, said Joel Barkin, spokesman for Representative Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont), is FDA's way of protecting the pharmaceutical industry, which, he said, is "at war with American consumers who are seeking cheaper drug prices. And the pharmaceutical industry spends millions of dollars to lobby and support that war."

Sanders has been a long-time advocate for governmental control of drug prices. He has introduced legislation to legalize the reimportation of drug products.

Noble said her organization supports Sanders' efforts and is actively involved in lobbying other members of Congress for legislation that would help U.S. consumers have access to lower-cost medications.

Until Congress or FDA can provide a solution to rising drug prices, Noble said, NA-PCA is "dealing with the reality that people are buying drugs from Canada and Mexico."

"That is why we need to have international standards, and that is why we were interested in starting our commission," she said. "We are certainly not out there to break the law. But there needs to be some sort of guidelines."

FDA's Hubbard warned in his February letter that Internet and mail-order pharmacies caught violating FDCA could be held criminally liable. Also, those who "aid and abet a criminal violation of the Act, or conspire to violate the Act, can also be found criminally liable."
State Violations

Shipping prescription drugs to consumers in the United States may also violate state law, Hubbard noted, because many states require licensing and registration for pharmacies that ship drug products directly to consumers.

The National Association of Boards of Pharmacy (NABP) has been certifying Internet pharmacies in the United States through its Verified Internet Pharmacy Practice Sites (VIPPS) program since 1999.

The VIPPS seal of approval, said Carmen A. Catizone, NABP executive director, helps consumers identify online pharmacies that are appropriately licensed and have completed a criteria-based review and inspection.

NABP does not regulate online pharmacies -- only state boards of pharmacy, with some oversight from FDA, have the authority to regulate online pharmacies, Catizone noted.

His organization lists 13 online pharmacy Web sites as having active VIPPS certification. The program is voluntary.

VIPPS application fees range from $2000 to $5000, according to the program's most recent letter of agreement. The program charges a compliance review fee of $1500 per inspector per day, and applicants are also required to pay an average VIPPS inspection travel expense of $875 per inspector. Program participants must also pay an annual fee of $1000-$4000 or, if it is an inspection year, $3375-$6375.

One Internet pharmacy, Prescription-Online Inc. of Las Vegas, Nevada, reported in 2001 that the company spent $30,000-$40,000 to complete its VIPPS certification process.

PrescriptionOnline was suspended from the program in August 2001.

Nevada's board of pharmacy closed down PrescriptionOnline in December 2002 after a two-year investigation and revoked its operating license. In a negotiated settlement, the regulatory board in January fined PrescriptionOnline's owner, Michael Cosenza, $200,000 for numerous violations.

Onsite inspections by Internet and mail-order pharmacy accreditation programs, NA-PCA's Noble said, will help weed out rogue companies.

Catizone said VIPPS also conducts on-site inspections using trained NABP staff members or, in some cases, by hiring state inspectors independently or contracting for their services through a state's board of pharmacy.

Canada's National Association of Pharmacy Regulatory Authorities has contracted with NABP to use its program in their country.

VIPPS Canada certifies Internet pharmacies in Canada; however, pharmacies that ship drug products into the United States, in violation of U.S. law, are not eligible for VIPPS certification.
Crossing the Border

FDA's Hubbard conceded in his February letter to Lombardi that the federal government has not often prosecuted consumers who bring drug products purchased in Canada into the United States.

Bus trips to Canada to buy lower-cost prescription drugs reportedly are fast becoming as much a popular trend for senior citizen groups as gambling excursions or cruise vacations.

But, Hubbard added, "in an appropriate circumstance," FDA reserves the right to prosecute people bringing drugs purchased in Canada across the border into the United States.
 
Posts: 6249 | Location: British Columbia, Canada | Registered: 06-11-02Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Diamond
Enthusiast

Posted Hide Post
'The US arms industry is backing Hillary Clinton for President and has all but abandoned its traditional allies in the Republican party. Mrs Clinton has also emerged as Wall Street's favourite. Investment bankers have opened their wallets in unprecedented numbers for the New York senator over the past three months and, in the process, dumped their earlier favourite, Barack Obama.

Mrs Clinton's wooing of the defence industry is all the more remarkable given the frosty relations between Bill Clinton and the military during his presidency. An analysis of campaign contributions shows senior defence industry employees are pouring money into her war chest in the belief that their generosity will be repaid many times over with future defence contracts...'
news.independent.co.uk

Why bother with the election? Might as well swear her in now.
 
Posts: 7630 | Location: Canada | Registered: 06-03-02Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Diamond
Enthusiast

Posted Hide Post
Reasons for preferring Obama as the Democrat candidate:

'And if I am your nominee, my opponent will not be able to say that I voted for the war in Iraq, because I didn't -- (cheers) -- or that I gave George Bush the benefit of the doubt on Iran, because I haven't -- (cheers, applause) -- or that I support the Bush-Cheney doctrine of not talking to leaders we don't like, because I profoundly disagree with that approach. (Cheers, applause.) And he will not be able to say that I wavered on something as fundamental as whether or not it's okay for America to use torture, because it's never okay. That is the choice in this election.' thenation.com
 
Posts: 7630 | Location: Canada | Registered: 06-03-02Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Diamond Enthusiast

Posted Hide Post
Hell, I'm starting to come around on Obama myself. They've both had enough air time that Clinton is becoming boring, while Obama seems to be hitting his stride as a captivating orator oozing with leadership potential.

Will that make a good President? I don't know. The oratory skills sure didn't hurt Reagan.

Obama seems to operate on a high plane, and the bit of nastiness thrown his way around the South Carolina primary didn't work for Mrs. Clinton. I like the level of his playing field. Do I like him as a politician? Heck, yes. Will that make him a good President? Not necessarily, but you have to be elected first.

That begs the question: who is best suited to beat the Republican challenger in November. I think the Republicans have more of an answer for Hillary Clinton than they do for Barack Obama. If you want a Democrat to have the White House, then a strong case can be made for Obama. If you want a liberal to have the White House, then he should be your choice hands down, or you will have a tough choice between Clinton and McCain.
 
Posts: 7655 | Location: in the backwoods of North Carolina | Registered: 06-07-02Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
 Previous Topic | Next Topic powered by eve community Page 1 2 3