Some risky legislation

[DarthRetard]

So, as I've been following Clinton and Obama, while hoping Ron Paul doesn't drop out, I've come across some disturbing, IMHO, anyways, discoveries:

Clinton and Obama voted to affirm:

A resolution to allow Illegal Aliens to Qualify for Social Security Benefits

Obama himself cosponsored a bill that would force pregnant women to take preventive post partum depression meds.

Clinton and Obama both have voted in negation of a resolution to determine a national language for the US officially, being english.

Obama has shown himself to be a big talker, with already the most liberal voting record in the senate (nothing wrong with being liberal, just a point), passing Kerry and Kennedy in only two years of service in our Congress?

McCain has a flip-flop reputation worse than Kerry's, because it involves his voting record and not his stances.

How is the media allowed to continue to ignore the actual legislation at hand in our government's hands?????

[Zyanya]

---Clinton and Obama both have voted in negation of a resolution to determine a national language for the US officially, being english.---

Excellent point in their favor.

[AFPheonix]

Soooo.....any sources for any of this?

Like ones from the voting archives from Congress, and not whatever the DailyKos decided to vomit out today?

[Boozy]

Obama himself cosponsored a bill that would force pregnant women to take preventive post partum depression meds.

This is completely incorrect information. The idea is laughable, as any such bill would obviously be overturned by the Supreme Court.

Obama's bill provides funding for programs that advise and counsel pregnant women about postpartum depression. These programs were in desperate need of funding. These programs do not force women to take pills against their will. They simply present anti-depressants as a possible option, and will prescribe them if need be.

One woman, who suffered from postpartum depression and was in the very small minority of women for whom anti-depressant medication worsened the condition, has started an internet campaign against the bill. She believes that the whole point of this bill is to push drugs. She maintains that no anti-depressant has ever helped any woman ever.

Instead of ignoring this nut, certain libertarian websites decided to purposely spread this disinformation in an attack against Obama.

This kind of thing drives me nuts. There are plenty of valid arguments against Obama. Or Clinton. Or McCain. There are serious flaws in each and every one of their plans for Iraq, for example. But instead we're all focusing on dumb shit. Dumb made-up shit.

Citizens in a democratic nation have the duty to question what they read, research the issues, and keep themselves informed. We need to stop letting others tell us what is true, what the issues are, and what to think. If the internet community had stopped for one second and used their brains, this story would have gotten no further than one nut job's home computer.

[DarthRetard]

So, Obama can do no wrong then? My point was really more about him being the media's golden child, and how all of the candidates have some skeletons legislation wise in the closet. What upsets me is that most mainstream Americans, don't know half of what goes on in congress, and i met a gentleman last night who up till i told him, didnt know we had an african american man running for the oval office. Here's a link for The Mothers' Act legislation, inculding a list of cosponsors:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-1375

[Boozy]

So, Obama can do no wrong then?

Did I say that? Did anyone say that? In fact, I just said in my previous post:

There are plenty of valid arguments against Obama.

My point, since you completely missed it, is that the democratic process should not be turned into a campaign of lies, half-truths, and misinformation. Where is the integrity? There is absolutely no real debate about real issues because of crap like this.

[IDrinkaRum]

One way to find information about the Candidates and the issues they want to focus on are to go to their Official Websites.

Obama wants to do more by way of children with Autism (a cause close to my heart because of my daughter). On the down side, he wants universal health care.

McCain - I would have voted for him in 2000, but not now.

Clinton - I don't like her. Period.

Not sure whom I'm going to vote for. We could always do a write-in vote of some sort.

I really wish Guiliani and Romney never dropped out.

[DarthRetard]

Could always vote for a candidate who stands for the constitution, fights for what our constitution truly says and has a voting record to reflect it. The media just seems to ignore Ron Paul altogether, no matter what we do to support him.

No, boozy, please dont misconstrue what I said. I wasn't saying that you said Obama can do no wrong, I was saying that the media seem to treat him that way. This whole thread was meant to be more directed to how the media is derailing the election process by covering who they want. Don't we have a right to know who is who?

NOt everyone can research on the internet, thats why we do canvassing (door to door, essentially) and phone drives. I just feel like media shouldn't be playing such a big role. Sorry if that was taken in the wrong context. Sorry. I'm trying to step a little more lightly.

[Boozy]

No, boozy, please dont misconstrue what I said. I wasn't saying that you said Obama can do no wrong, I was saying that the media seem to treat him that way.

There's another thread around here somewhere (and I can't find it right now) in which I said the exact same thing. Once again, we find ourselves in ferocious agreement.

I agree that Obama has not been questioned as aggressively as I'd like. Its seems like no one wants to do the work. Clinton and McCain have very long public records, whereas Obama is a relative newcomer.

Personally, I would like nothing more than for him to come out as squeaky clean as he appears. Deep down, I want desperately to buy into his "hope" rhetoric, but I'm a little too jaded to fall for it.

[AFPheonix]

Here's a link for The Mothers' Act legislation, inculding a list of cosponsors:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-1375

Did you read the link you posted? I fail to see anywhere in the bill's text where new or expectant mothers would be "forced to take preventive post partum depression meds."
More like they would be informed of the very real possibility of post-partum depression and an expansion of mental health services available for mothers suffering from the condition.

Ron Paul ignored? Are you kidding me? He gets mention in even larger rags like Time.
He gets better air time than Mike Gravel.

[Boozy]

On the down side, he wants universal health care.

Why in heavens name do you not want universal health care? Are you a billionaire? Do you maintain controlling interest in a major HMO? What gives?

[Saydrah]

Yes, I'm sure someone concerned about the government doing more for children with Autism wants a candidate who will dismantle social programs for the assistance of people with disabilities entirely....

Really, Darth, for a debate coach, you are using some very dubious facts and giving a very poor recommendation.

I like Ron Paul. I really do. I think he'd make an excellent VP for Obama, in my ideal world, but that would never happen in real life. So, I hope he gets a nice speaking tour out of this deal and talks at colleges. He has some excellent ideas. He also has some misguided, wrong-headed ideas that went out centuries ago.

"Most Liberal" is also a ridiculous designation for Obama's voting record. Off the top of my head I can think of several times he has collaborated with Conservatives and Moderates on legislation, as well as at least 10 Senators and Congresspersons with more liberal records.

If you mean "Most Often Smeared," Obama gets that designation- but he's like a duck, it's all water off his back.

[AFPheonix]

That's what I was thinking.

Yeah, it would be a rocky transition initially from the private system we have now, but I really think over time costs would go down and quality of care would go up overall.
I think I went into a rant on another thread somewhere that I'd like to see something instituted like the Aussie system, where one could have the option of purchasing private coverage for fancier care if they so wished.

Also, if I were queen of the world, I'd ban drug companies from advertising direct to the consumer. One, that would get rid of some godawful erectile dysfunction ads, and two, a good portion of the costs of meds are allocated to marketing, and that portion needs to be reduced in order to have more affordable meds.
I'm still cool with drug reps going around to doctors and pharmacies, though. Advertise to people who will actually understand the chemistry behind your product, not a lay person who likes the graphics on your packaging best.

[Greenday]

Why in heavens name do you not want universal health care? Are you a billionaire? Do you maintain controlling interest in a major HMO? What gives?

Probably thinking about the nice jump in taxes it'll be for us.

We were just talking about this in my Politics of Diversity class today. Like, when an ad comes up about how some candidate voted down a bill or something. What these stupid ads DON'T say is why. Each bill has like 50,000 clauses and other things, and while the candidate MAY support the original reasoning of the bill, there could be one or to amendments to the bill that the candidate REALLY doesn't agree with that forced them to vote against the bill. Hooray BS mudslinging.

[Boozy]

Probably thinking about the nice jump in taxes it'll be for us.

What's the average family's health insurance premiums running them?