Colorado Gubernatorial Candidates Debate

[AuggieWest]

What a disappointment. I know I shouldn't judge just on their cannabis stance....but actually I do because this tells you a lot about their intelligence, heart, and future effectiveness in reality.

I'm sad that they are all pure politicians. I actually thought Hickenlooper was an exception but he isn't. He is against legalization and I know he is smart enough to realize this is wrong. He is hedging politically and I call bullshit.

Dan Maes is just an idiot who thinks shit he may or may not have done in the 90's somehow means something in this day and age. None of the candidates really seemed focused on the future as much as their past. Maes answer to the cannabis issue was so backward. He thinks the medicinal legalization is just a scam and actually wants cannabis to be forced into the pharmaceutical arena as a new pill! He has no understanding of the real issues or he is a complete shill for the illegal drug cartels, who want nothing more than cannabis to be as illegal as possible.

Tom Tancredo even backed down a bit from his pro-legalization stance. He basically said the whole issue should be debated but he was still the most pro-cannabis guy there. Of course, he is still Tom Tancredo.

God, help us.

[rightwinger]

What a disappointment. I know I shouldn't judge just on their cannabis stance....but actually I do because this tells you a lot about their intelligence, heart, and future effectiveness in reality.

I'm sad that they are all pure politicians. I actually thought Hickenlooper was an exception but he isn't. He is against legalization and I know he is smart enough to realize this is wrong. He is hedging politically and I call bullshit.

Dan Maes is just an idiot who thinks shit he may or may not have done in the 90's somehow means something in this day and age. None of the candidates really seemed focused on the future as much as their past. Maes answer to the cannabis issue was so backward. He thinks the medicinal legalization is just a scam and actually wants cannabis to be forced into the pharmaceutical arena as a new pill! He has no understanding of the real issues or he is a complete shill for the illegal drug cartels, who want nothing more than cannabis to be as illegal as possible.

Tom Tancredo even backed down a bit from his pro-legalization stance. He basically said the whole issue should be debated but he was still the most pro-cannabis guy there. Of course, he is still Tom Tancredo.

God, help us.


I am not certain what you mean by Tancredo backing down on his stance on legalization? My thread on this board--Tancredo-Hickenlooper-Maes Debate on Marijuana makes it very clear where he stands on this issue. Under this thread and article you will note that while he was a congressman in this state he in 2006 voted against using tax dollars for the DEA to raid people in medical marijuana states--LONG before Obama did.

There is no doubt that California is going to legalize it--and we know already that legalization is going to be on our ballot in 2012--just two short years from now.

It would be nice if we had a governor in office that agreed with legalization.. And the only person that would be is Tom Tancredo. Yes an ultra-conservative--and this for you liberals and democrats on this board--need to understand that this is where (the ultra conservative) meet with the liberal.

As we know today--it was democrats that wrote 1284 and 109--it was democrats that passed it--and it is democrats that are currently wanting to add more regulations--monitoring devices--finger-printing for medical marijuana patients to purchase it. Once they're done with this--they will add more regulation to the purchase of marijuana--GUARANTEED. The only person that would be able to stop this would be a governor who understands that it is a waste of tax payer dollars to do so. That man is Tom Tancredo.

Unfortunately most democrat politicians have an insatiable appetite to expand--regulate and control. They never want to stop the expansion of government control over the citizens of this country.

So you democrats and liberals have a choice now. If you really want to legalize marijuana in this state & or at least get the continual regualtions off your backs-put your vote where your mouth is.


Here again is the debate on Marijuana that was held in Colo. Spgs.


Tom Tancredo today called for the legalization of marijuana.

â??Legalize it. Regulate it. Tax it,â?� said the American Constitution Party candidate for governor. He said despite all the time and money dedicated to the war on drugs, it has been a complete failure. â??If you can show me where we can get people off drugs by continuing down this same path, then show me,â?� he said.

Tancredo said no one skulks around parks or school playgrounds trying to sell alcohol for the simple reason that the law provides no incentive for such behavior given that you can sell alcohol legally to adults.

Republican Dan Maes and Democrat John Hickenlooper both said they oppose legalization of marijuana. The comments were made at a debate in Colorado Springs sponsored by Action 22, a political action group representing 22 counties in SE Colorado.

Maes said if pot was legalized and taxed, the money brought in would probably just be wasted on the expansion of social programs anyway. â??We might as well prostitute our teenage daughters and tax that,â?� he said sarcastically.

â??Dan and I donâ??t disagree too much on this,â?� Hickenlooper said. He said he has discussed the issue with social scientists, psychologists, and law enforcement professionals and that they all agree legalizing marijuana would be a bad idea.

Tancredo countered that he knows many people in law enforcement who support legalizing marijuana and who say dealing with people who are high on marijuana is seldom as dangerous or problematic as dealing with drunks. â??The arguments against marijuana today are they same as the arguments against liquor years ago,â?� he said.

Maes said legalized medical marijuana in Colorado was the first step toward legalization generally and that the state needs to control medical marijuana better than it is doing now. â??Theyâ??re coming in through the basement door and theyâ??re working their way up,â?� he said.

Hickenlooper said he supports medical marijuana and talked about someone he knows in city government â??who has probably never been drunk a day in her lifeâ?� but who suffers from debilitating back pain. He said marijuana is the only thing that has ever helped her. He noted that she doesnâ??t smoke it but takes a tincture.

While in Congress, Tancredo voted in 2006 for an amendment to stop the U.S. Department of Justice and DEA from using taxpayer funds to raid or investigate people involved in medical marijuana.

[AuggieWest]

I am not certain what you mean by Tancredo backing down on his stance on legalization? My thread on this board--Tancredo-Hickenlooper-Maes Debate on Marijuana makes it very clear where he stands on this issue. Under this thread and article you will note that while he was a congressman in this state he in 2006 voted against using tax dollars for the DEA to raid people in medical marijuana states--LONG before Obama did.

There is no doubt that California is going to legalize it--and we know already that legalization is going to be on our ballot in 2012--just two short years from now.

It would be nice if we had a governor in office that agreed with legalization.. And the only person that would be is Tom Tancredo. Yes an ultra-conservative--and this for you liberals and democrats on this board--need to understand that this is where (the ultra conservative) meet with the liberal.



I know what Tancredo has said on this issue in the past, hence my disappointment when I saw him say last night, that the issue should be debated. I was also disappointed that he didn't take this bull by the horns and just denounce a)prohibition (I guess in the tv replay I saw, they must have omitted some of his comments you reference - or he said those in another debate?) and b) the other candidates who are backwards on this issue.

Harvard economics professor Jeffrey Miron, among others who tend to study all sides of this issue (unlike politicians), says all drugs should be legalized "Pot, cocaine, LSD, crystal-meth --- you name it." I personally hate those drugs but as a true fiscal free-market conservative, I understand how we would save tens of billions of $ every YEAR! in stupid enforcement of prohibition. Miron has the figure @ $41.3 billion. "Of these savings, $25.7 billion would accrue to state and local governments, while $15.6 billion would accrue to the federal government," Miron claims in a recent Cato Institute report he co-authored.

"The report also estimates that drug legalization would yield tax revenue of $46.7 billion annually, assuming legal drugs were taxed at rates comparable to those on alcohol and tobacco. Approximately $8.7 billion of this revenue would result from legalization of marijuana and $38.0 billion from legalization of other drugs."

But won't we become a nation of drug addicts?

No, says Miron. Walk down any city street and you can already buy legal drugs in multiple establishments: Caffeine at Starbucks, nicotine at the supermarket, alcohol at bars and restaurants. And we're not ALL addicted to all of these drugs.

Our current drug policy doesn't work, Miron observes. Despite ~$40 billion spent on enforcement and prosecution, drug use is still widespread. Meanwhile, because the products are illegal, they're dangerous, low-quality, and unregulated, and they generate zero tax revenue.

Legalizing drugs would solve those problems, Miron says. It would help close the budget deficit. And it would eliminate a bizarre double standard, in which Americans are encouraged to drink and smoke themselves to death -- while guzzling addictive coffee and tea -- but become criminals if they dare to get stoned.

Cannabis should at least be a no-brainer to become legal and to become an asset vs. a liability in our out of control government spending, specifically in this sector. Yes, I agree w/ you RightWinger. It would be nice if we had a governor in office that agreed with legalization.....actually we can't afford not to. Time is money and politicians are killing us by dragging their feet on not stopping waste and taking too long to liberate what should have never been prohibited in the first place.

[cologrower420]

Legalization would have much too large of an impact on the enforcement/incarceration complex that it would never work. There are too many jobs and too much revenue for states tied into the cops, the courts, the politicians, etc. With legalization, they'll lose major sources of funds, drug seizures etc.

[AuggieWest]

Legalization would have much too large of an impact on the enforcement/incarceration complex that it would never work. There are too many jobs and too much revenue for states tied into the cops, the courts, the politicians, etc. With legalization, they'll lose major sources of funds, drug seizures etc.

Don't say it would never work. Yes, too many jobs & $ tied to prohibition and enforcement lifers & politicians are reaping the benefit @ all our expense. Thats the point/problem!!! Fuck them. Its our country.

[TheReleafCenter]

Legalization would have much too large of an impact on the enforcement/incarceration complex that it would never work. There are too many jobs and too much revenue for states tied into the cops, the courts, the politicians, etc. With legalization, they'll lose major sources of funds, drug seizures etc.

The flip side is that they could be doing more productive work and resources could be reallocated. There are always things to enforce. There would be fewer prison jobs, but I think we can agree that is a good thing for society on the whole.

Additionally, the argument would be that the money saved by ending the "war on drugs" would supersede those losses, even if just in societal benefits. I guess it's somewhat irrelevant, as no one in those positions is willing to discuss that side of the legalization debate. It's a moral issue for many, economic to a few.

[Zedleppelin]

There is no doubt that California is going to legalize it--and we know already that legalization is going to be on our ballot in 2012--just two short years from now.

No doubt? The initiative is 10 points behind, its not going to happen.

According to a poll released by Ipos/Reuters Tuesday, Californians plan to vote against legalizing marijuana on the 2nd November poll by 53% to 43%
Poll: Californians Against Legalizing Marijuana (http://news.wooeb.com/NewsStory.aspx?id=591559&cat=5)




As we know today--it was democrats that wrote 1284 and 109--it was democrats that passed it--and it is democrats that are currently wanting to add more regulations--monitoring devices--finger-printing for medical marijuana patients to purchase it. Once they're done with this--they will add more regulation to the purchase of marijuana--GUARANTEED.

Wrong. We don't know that, matter of fact 1284 was sponsored in the House by Massey and Summers (democrat AND republican) and was sponsored in the Senate by Romer and Spence (democrat AND republican), Senator Morgan Carroll, a democrat, was the most vocal AGAINST 1284, so quit portraying this was all the dems.



Unfortunately most democrat politicians have an insatiable appetite to expand--regulate and control. They never want to stop the expansion of government control over the citizens of this country.

And unfortunately republicans have an insatiable appetite to incarcerate as many people as they can that goes against their moral beliefs. I find the republican talking point about dems and govt expansion humorous when Bush expanded the US govt to a record size after Clinton reduced its size to the smallest in 30 years.

Tancredo talks about less govt interference, unless of course you are a teenage girl that was raped and impregnated by her stepfather and wants to get an abortion, or you enjoy a little porn in the privacy of your own home (he wants to make porn illegal). Nor will I ever vote for some nutjob that wants to force my kid when he's in school to send telepathic messages to some Jewish zombie to save his soul because a woman was tricked into eating an apple by a talking snake.

[wkhey4]

Tancredo talks about less govt interference, unless of course you are a teenage girl that was raped and impregnated by her stepfather and wants to get an abortion, or you enjoy a little porn in the privacy of your own home (he wants to make porn illegal). Nor will I ever vote for some nutjob that wants to force my kid when he's in school to send telepathic messages to some Jewish zombie to save his soul because a woman was tricked into eating an apple by a talking snake.

:thumbsup::jointsmile::thumbsup:

[TheReleafCenter]

Wrong. We don't know that, matter of fact 1284 was sponsored in the House by Massey and Summers (democrat AND republican) and was sponsored in the Senate by Romer and Spence (democrat AND republican), Senator Morgan Carroll, a democrat, was the most vocal AGAINST 1284, so quit portraying this was all the dems.

Additionally, Matt Cooks position at the DoR is apolitical, and he's the only one I've heard talking about monitoring, etc.

[copobo]

I think the enforcement he plans is on such a level that when this all gets going, it's all going to fall apart or become too much a a burden to the state.

it's just over the top. all this knee jerk regulatory bs is going to turn out to look dumb when this hysteria wears off... and it's already wearing off. pot is becoming normal in society. people talk about it openly.

of course I spend most of my time in Boulder.

[wkhey4]

I think the enforcement he plans is on such a level that when this all gets going, it's all going to fall apart or become too much a a burden to the state.

it's just over the top. all this knee jerk regulatory bs is going to turn out to look dumb when this hysteria wears off... and it's already wearing off. pot is becoming normal in society. people talk about it openly.

of course I spend most of my time in Boulder.\\

Your absolutely right. Times are a changing. :thumbsup:

[rightwinger]

I know what Tancredo has said on this issue in the past, hence my disappointment when I saw him say last night, that the issue should be debated. I was also disappointed that he didn't take this bull by the horns and just denounce a)prohibition (I guess in the tv replay I saw, they must have omitted some of his comments you reference - or he said those in another debate?) and b) the other candidates who are backwards on this issue.

Harvard economics professor Jeffrey Miron, among others who tend to study all sides of this issue (unlike politicians), says all drugs should be legalized "Pot, cocaine, LSD, crystal-meth --- you name it." I personally hate those drugs but as a true fiscal free-market conservative, I understand how we would save tens of billions of $ every YEAR! in stupid enforcement of prohibition. Miron has the figure @ $41.3 billion. "Of these savings, $25.7 billion would accrue to state and local governments, while $15.6 billion would accrue to the federal government," Miron claims in a recent Cato Institute report he co-authored.

"The report also estimates that drug legalization would yield tax revenue of $46.7 billion annually, assuming legal drugs were taxed at rates comparable to those on alcohol and tobacco. Approximately $8.7 billion of this revenue would result from legalization of marijuana and $38.0 billion from legalization of other drugs."

But won't we become a nation of drug addicts?

No, says Miron. Walk down any city street and you can already buy legal drugs in multiple establishments: Caffeine at Starbucks, nicotine at the supermarket, alcohol at bars and restaurants. And we're not ALL addicted to all of these drugs.

Our current drug policy doesn't work, Miron observes. Despite ~$40 billion spent on enforcement and prosecution, drug use is still widespread. Meanwhile, because the products are illegal, they're dangerous, low-quality, and unregulated, and they generate zero tax revenue.

Legalizing drugs would solve those problems, Miron says. It would help close the budget deficit. And it would eliminate a bizarre double standard, in which Americans are encouraged to drink and smoke themselves to death -- while guzzling addictive coffee and tea -- but become criminals if they dare to get stoned.

Cannabis should at least be a no-brainer to become legal and to become an asset vs. a liability in our out of control government spending, specifically in this sector. Yes, I agree w/ you RightWinger. It would be nice if we had a governor in office that agreed with legalization.....actually we can't afford not to. Time is money and politicians are killing us by dragging their feet on not stopping waste and taking too long to liberate what should have never been prohibited in the first place.


I agree: We have spent 1.3 trillion dollars over the last 60 years in chasing down marijuana that hasn't put a dent into--nor persuaded anyone to stop the use of it. To me--it is a waste of taxpayer dollars--in this futile effort to save people from themselves.

However--we have to take baby-steps here. This nation is not going to make this enormous leap--we'll lets legalize all drugs. But we have a real chance to make a real change in the legalization of marijuana--because all of us on this board understand that marijuana is much less dangerous than the legal drugs of prescription pain pills, alcohol and tobacco.

And frankly--there has never been a politician that I agreed with 100% of the time on every single issue. They all have skeletons jumping out of their closets--big mouth gaffs, etc.

I am crossing party lines to vote for Tom Tancredo--not only because of his liberal views on marijuana--but because he is determined to rein in government spending--which means cutting government agencies and regulation.

Democrats to me are just so determined to expand the governments role in every single move we make. No matter what the cost. Hickenlooper is just so middle of the road--and I sure didn't like his comment on some of his law enforcement buddies told him it's not a good idea to make marijuana legal--that I fear he would just be a puppet to the republican attorney general John Suthers--and we know what he thinks about medical marijuana and what he would do. Suthers is totally against medical marijuana and believes it should all just go away.

[rightwinger]

No doubt? The initiative is 10 points behind, its not going to happen.

According to a poll released by Ipos/Reuters Tuesday, Californians plan to vote against legalizing marijuana on the 2nd November poll by 53% to 43%
Poll: Californians Against Legalizing Marijuana (http://news.wooeb.com/NewsStory.aspx?id=591559&cat=5)




Wrong. We don't know that, matter of fact 1284 was sponsored in the House by Massey and Summers (democrat AND republican) and was sponsored in the Senate by Romer and Spence (democrat AND republican), Senator Morgan Carroll, a democrat, was the most vocal AGAINST 1284, so quit portraying this was all the dems.



And unfortunately republicans have an insatiable appetite to incarcerate as many people as they can that goes against their moral beliefs. I find the republican talking point about dems and govt expansion humorous when Bush expanded the US govt to a record size after Clinton reduced its size to the smallest in 30 years.

Tancredo talks about less govt interference, unless of course you are a teenage girl that was raped and impregnated by her stepfather and wants to get an abortion, or you enjoy a little porn in the privacy of your own home (he wants to make porn illegal). Nor will I ever vote for some nutjob that wants to force my kid when he's in school to send telepathic messages to some Jewish zombie to save his soul because a woman was tricked into eating an apple by a talking snake.


If you want to count the number of politicians on the left and right has to who wants to legalize marijuana--it may very well surprise you that more top republicans--than democrats want to legalize it--:)

Democrats want to control--regulate--regulate--and regulate it.

A good case in point. Marijuana used to be legal in the United States until a major newspaper man named Randolf Hearst--decided he wanted to use "trees" for paper rather than cannibus. Who made cannibus ILLEGAL? None other and Franklin Roosevelt--WHOOPS--a democrat. And ever since then it has been illegal to cultivate marijuana plants. Money--politics and POWER at work.

Democrat Romer was the one that stated he was going to track every single marijuana SEED in this state--and it was Governor Ritter that insisted that municipalities and counties could ban medical marijuana centers.

Finally your comment of:
Tancredo talks about less govt interference, unless of course you are a teenage girl that was raped and impregnated by her stepfather and wants to get an abortion,

I can always tell when I am dealing with a FLAMING LIBERAL--because they always bring up their right to kill babies in this country regardless of what the topic may be. Don't worry your right to kill inocent helpless babies--is protected by the United States Constitution--and it's not going to go away--LOL. The way liberals act about abortion--it is like every woman in the Unites States is planning on having an abortion in the near future--and it is ALWAYS their number ONE topic of concern.

[rightwinger]

Don't say it would never work. Yes, too many jobs & $ tied to prohibition and enforcement lifers & politicians are reaping the benefit @ all our expense. Thats the point/problem!!! Fuck them. Its our country.


Well--I think the American public overall is slowly catching onto that. Marijuana use is more acceptable than ever before. People are waking up to the fact that the largest lobbyist in this country that is against marijuana is the Pharmacutical industry. And we know how much they're in our politicians pockets.

This after over the last several years they have been shoving all of their news drugs on us. A new pill for anything and everything. And also the NUMBER ONE reason why medical insurance is no longer afforable in this country. Pills for erectile dysfunction--dry eye syndrome--restless leg syndrome and every other syndrome imaginable. We get a 10 second description of what this new pill is for--then a 45 second WARNING of all the side effects which include: Death--Suicidal thoughts--weight gain--liver--kidney--heart damage--blindness--headaches, etc. etc.

As far as law enforcement--there are many in law enforcement that agree to the legalization of marijuana--and then there are others that look at legalization as some kind of a threat to their job security. As if they didn't have enough violent criminals to chase down?

[Zedleppelin]

I can always tell when I am dealing with a FLAMING LIBERAL--because they always bring up their right to kill babies in this country regardless of what the topic may be. Don't worry your right to kill inocent helpless babies--is protected by the United States Constitution--and it's not going to go away--LOL. The way liberals act about abortion--it is like every woman in the Unites States is planning on having an abortion in the near future--and it is ALWAYS their number ONE topic of concern.

Nah, I just find it fascinating that conservatives fight to protect unborn children yet they have no problem letting them starve once they are born.

[copobo]

if only the patients and caregivers in Colorado fought as hard for their rights

[FarmerSteve]

if only the patients and caregivers in Colorado fought as hard for their rights
:jointsmile:

[Reenster]

Like many Americans I wonder what has happened to our country. I am a boomer, born in 1953. Time, I feel has given me insight into what I refer to the decline of the US. The first president I remember is Eisenhower, however, the assassination of JFK was the first time politics affected my life. I remember my teacher crying after another teacher pulled her into the hallway to tell her the news. The bus on the way home was somber, granted I did not completely understand what was happening but every adult I encounter was sad, shocked and maybe a little afraid. The hours of coverage on television seemed to continue to go over every detail, it just seemed to make everybody sad, I wonder what it would have been like if we had 24 hour cable then, as it was it looked like every detail had been discussed, what would have been said if they had 24 hours of news to fill. Would any other information actually been discovered?

The 1968 democratic convention was the first awakenings of what became my political foundation. I saw our country in turmoil, "the war" was something that was tearing the country apart. The draft was glue for the 18-25 year old. It had to go, the war was unjust, people were not going to take it sitting down. It still took several years before the draft and the war would be over, however, I feel that is my generation that was the major influence in getting the job done.Why can we not find the fortitude to change this, are we too old and tired? Are we too concerned with ourselves, and without concern for the well being of the country and our world? I saw that those in power would violate the civil rights of a citizen, use force and even kill to stop anyone that was speaking out against their agenda.

Fast forward to the 70's and what I think is the real decline of our political system. Nixon permanently soiled the office of the president. I never felt the same way about any elected official and I am sure that the majority of my generation felt much different. Regardless of Watergate, the country had no war to decry and the draft was over, we as a nation became apathetic. We need something as a society to get behind, something that the majority of people feel strongly about, unfortunately the next subject that the country got behind occurred in the 80's and "greed is good".

The accumulation of personal wealth and power is still the driving force behind our country's population and government. This has caused the great decline of our country. The wishes of the individual has overpowered that of the greater good. The question among our politicians is what can it do for me, not what will it do to the country.

Until campaign reform happens, and I am talking about a complete reconstruction, our situation will not change. There is no voice for the dwindling middle class, there is no money to buy lobbyist to push our interests, no politicians that will support our needs in Washington or even in our state capitals. Like many people I do not feel represented by any politician, and sincerely feel that every single person in political office is influenced by money being channeled into their never-ending need for re-election. It seems that every politicians major concern is continuing to be a politician with little interest or concern for those they are expected to represent.

With the Greed is Good mentality in wall street, in Washington DC and from sea to shinning sea, I fear we have lost our humanity. Unemployment is killing off what is left of the middle class, yet there are politicians out there that say the unemployed are lazy, need to find lower paying jobs, I wonder how these politicians would fair if the wage earner in their family made $7.30 an hour. It is sad to say that our very own industry and economy is the reason the unemployment rate is so high. Profits, profits, profits is the major concern. There is no loyalty to long term employees, there is no loyalty from employees, there is no pride in what we do. The ruler for how well a company or individual is doing, not about humanity it's about how much wealth you have. How you accumulate that wealth is not a concern, how much and how fast is what it's about.

Any company that takes jobs away from US citizens and give them to other countries for the sake of their profit margin should be driven out of business. If the government will not tax or penalize them, we as citizens should boycott them. Unfortunately most families are understandably more concerned with getting by day to day and can not afford to not shop or purchase from a company that they are getting a bargain from even if it is against their long term best interests.

I would like to see a complete abolishment of the current campaign financing. There should be no anonymous contributions to any campaign. There should be reasonable spending limits on what any politician can spend while campaigning for office and there should be full disclosure in where and how they got their money. I would like to see people that really want to enter community service get into office not someone that will support agendas that hurt our country, hurt or citizens for the sake of personal gain. As long as our system supports the attitude that those with the most cash wins, we as a country will lose.

There are factions in our government that will say morale decay is the problem. What a woman does with here reproductive organs, what consenting adults do in their bedroom, how hard working responsible adults choose to relax is not the problem. What is the issue is how the political structure is willing to lie, cheat and avoid the truth to get the end result. To put constant fear into the population to take away our rights so that their best intrests can be victorious is inconceivable and unforgiveable.

We as a society are being manipulated by those with the most wealth. Its not about what is best for our country it's about what is best for political business as usual.

This is not about Republicans or Democrats, nor about Liberal or Conservatives, this is what is rotting at the core of our political system.

Sorry for the rant but until we as a population start to care about things other that what directly concerns us our situation will continue to decline. Continue to vote, continue to write to those in office. Lets start a revolution, we need to let our government know how we feel. I have to believe it will make a difference.

[Denvertoad]

Perhaps the quality of candidates is a reflection that the competencies of candidates are irrelevant to government in America today. All Congress persons have to do is what the organizations that bought them tell them to do.
It may also be the case that the demise of democracy in America is a sign of a revolution in world affairs in which nations and national governments are less important than transnational corporations, reflected in the fact that the Supreme Court gave corporations citizenship, and many of these corporations are owned in large part by foreign interests.
We rarely recognize a social revolution when we are living through it.

[rightwinger]

Nah, I just find it fascinating that conservatives fight to protect unborn children yet they have no problem letting them starve once they are born.

In case you didn't notice this thread is about the legalization of marijuana--and which candidate is more open to it. There is absolutely nothing in this thread regarding abortion--other than YOUR fear that with Republicans in control you won't be able to kill babies at random.

It's not anyone's responsiblity--to pay for someone's else's irresponsibility. Condoms are much cheaper than an abortion. Condom's do much less damage to one's mental phsy--than an abortion-in which a young girl may regret it for the rest of her life.

To add--your right to kill a baby is protected by the United States Constitution and has been in effect for at least 40 years now. It hasn't changed. Furthermore--we have young women crowding our emergency rooms giving birth that are single mom's. If they actually believed in killing babies as much as you do--they could have easily done it. Nothing is there to stop them from doing it.

So for the love of God--would you finally get the F... off of abortion and concentrate on topic.

[5280and420]

Nor will I ever vote for some nutjob that wants to force my kid when he's in school to send telepathic messages to some Jewish zombie to save his soul because a woman was tricked into eating an apple by a talking snake.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

[Zedleppelin]

In case you didn't notice this thread is about the legalization of marijuana--and which candidate is more open to it. There is absolutely nothing in this thread regarding abortion--other than YOUR fear that with Republicans in control you won't be able to kill babies at random.


Really? I thought the thread was about the Colorado Gubernatorial Candidates Debate. I mentioned a number of things that makes Tancredo a nutjob and you took the abortion issue and ran with it. As far as me 'killing babies at random', I'm not an abortion doctor and I'm male, so I'm pretty sure I've never killed babies at random. Perhaps you neglected to remove that line when you copied and pasted from your anti-abortion talking points. I'll give you the benefit of doubt on that.





It's not anyone's responsiblity--to pay for someone's else's irresponsibility. Condoms are much cheaper than an abortion. Condom's do much less damage to one's mental phsy--than an abortion-in which a young girl may regret it for the rest of her life.


I've never paid for anyones abortion, have you?




To add--your right to kill a baby is protected by the United States Constitution and has been in effect for at least 40 years now. It hasn't changed. Furthermore--we have young women crowding our emergency rooms giving birth that are single mom's. If they actually believed in killing babies as much as you do--they could have easily done it. Nothing is there to stop them from doing it.


This is the second time you've said this, please provide a link to the particular amendment where abortion is protected or even mentioned in the United States Constitution.




So for the love of God--would you finally get the F... off of abortion and concentrate on topic.

Project much?

[denverbear]

Like many Americans I wonder what has happened to our country. I am a boomer, born in 1953. Time, I feel has given me insight into what I refer to the decline of the US. The first president I remember is Eisenhower, however, the assassination of JFK was the first time politics affected my life. I remember my teacher crying after another teacher pulled her into the hallway to tell her the news. The bus on the way home was somber, granted I did not completely understand what was happening but every adult I encounter was sad, shocked and maybe a little afraid. The hours of coverage on television seemed to continue to go over every detail, it just seemed to make everybody sad, I wonder what it would have been like if we had 24 hour cable then, as it was it looked like every detail had been discussed, what would have been said if they had 24 hours of news to fill. Would any other information actually been discovered?

The 1968 democratic convention was the first awakenings of what became my political foundation. I saw our country in turmoil, "the war" was something that was tearing the country apart. The draft was glue for the 18-25 year old. It had to go, the war was unjust, people were not going to take it sitting down. It still took several years before the draft and the war would be over, however, I feel that is my generation that was the major influence in getting the job done.Why can we not find the fortitude to change this, are we too old and tired? Are we too concerned with ourselves, and without concern for the well being of the country and our world? I saw that those in power would violate the civil rights of a citizen, use force and even kill to stop anyone that was speaking out against their agenda.

Fast forward to the 70's and what I think is the real decline of our political system. Nixon permanently soiled the office of the president. I never felt the same way about any elected official and I am sure that the majority of my generation felt much different. Regardless of Watergate, the country had no war to decry and the draft was over, we as a nation became apathetic. We need something as a society to get behind, something that the majority of people feel strongly about, unfortunately the next subject that the country got behind occurred in the 80's and "greed is good".

The accumulation of personal wealth and power is still the driving force behind our country's population and government. This has caused the great decline of our country. The wishes of the individual has overpowered that of the greater good. The question among our politicians is what can it do for me, not what will it do to the country.

Until campaign reform happens, and I am talking about a complete reconstruction, our situation will not change. There is no voice for the dwindling middle class, there is no money to buy lobbyist to push our interests, no politicians that will support our needs in Washington or even in our state capitals. Like many people I do not feel represented by any politician, and sincerely feel that every single person in political office is influenced by money being channeled into their never-ending need for re-election. It seems that every politicians major concern is continuing to be a politician with little interest or concern for those they are expected to represent.

With the Greed is Good mentality in wall street, in Washington DC and from sea to shinning sea, I fear we have lost our humanity. Unemployment is killing off what is left of the middle class, yet there are politicians out there that say the unemployed are lazy, need to find lower paying jobs, I wonder how these politicians would fair if the wage earner in their family made $7.30 an hour. It is sad to say that our very own industry and economy is the reason the unemployment rate is so high. Profits, profits, profits is the major concern. There is no loyalty to long term employees, there is no loyalty from employees, there is no pride in what we do. The ruler for how well a company or individual is doing, not about humanity it's about how much wealth you have. How you accumulate that wealth is not a concern, how much and how fast is what it's about.

Any company that takes jobs away from US citizens and give them to other countries for the sake of their profit margin should be driven out of business. If the government will not tax or penalize them, we as citizens should boycott them. Unfortunately most families are understandably more concerned with getting by day to day and can not afford to not shop or purchase from a company that they are getting a bargain from even if it is against their long term best interests.

I would like to see a complete abolishment of the current campaign financing. There should be no anonymous contributions to any campaign. There should be reasonable spending limits on what any politician can spend while campaigning for office and there should be full disclosure in where and how they got their money. I would like to see people that really want to enter community service get into office not someone that will support agendas that hurt our country, hurt or citizens for the sake of personal gain. As long as our system supports the attitude that those with the most cash wins, we as a country will lose.

There are factions in our government that will say morale decay is the problem. What a woman does with here reproductive organs, what consenting adults do in their bedroom, how hard working responsible adults choose to relax is not the problem. What is the issue is how the political structure is willing to lie, cheat and avoid the truth to get the end result. To put constant fear into the population to take away our rights so that their best intrests can be victorious is inconceivable and unforgiveable.

We as a society are being manipulated by those with the most wealth. Its not about what is best for our country it's about what is best for political business as usual.

This is not about Republicans or Democrats, nor about Liberal or Conservatives, this is what is rotting at the core of our political system.

Sorry for the rant but until we as a population start to care about things other that what directly concerns us our situation will continue to decline. Continue to vote, continue to write to those in office. Lets start a revolution, we need to let our government know how we feel. I have to believe it will make a difference.

very very insiteful post and you have hit the nail on many heads here. other then being a little older then you, you seem to have crawled into my head and put my personal thoughts to paper...congrats on this post...a very well nicely said.

[Psycho4Bud]

Hey, if you want to debate politics keep it civil and polite or there will be repercussions.

NOBODY in here is ignorant and likewise, nobody in here has to put up with abusive posts.:mad:

Have a good one!:thumbsup:

[wkhey4]

Hey, if you want to debate politics keep it civil and polite or there will be repercussions.

NOBODY in here is ignorant and likewise, nobody in here has to put up with abusive posts.:mad:

Have a good one!:thumbsup:

Thanks. I'm here for discussions about medical Maryjane and not politics

Most politicians say what they're audience wants to hear and people buy it.

Tommy Tanwacko when asked about his stance back tracked and now says he's open to a discussion about legalization and not openly advocating legalization. Politics at work.
I stopped voting for a politician because of his or her stand on a single issue yrs. ago. Underneath Tommy's facade is a raving xenophobic racist bigot who won't be truly happy until he's personally able to man the 50 calibers ate the border.
I personally won't vote for him no matter what his current, bound to change, stance is about medical marijuana or legalization.

[wkhey4]

I need to say one more thing. Being active in numerous web-sites and blogs I've seen countless examples of right-wingers resort to name calling and personal attacks when their arguments don't hold water and are exposed for a hidden personal agenda.

[Psycho4Bud]

I need to say one more thing. Being active in numerous web-sites and blogs I've seen countless examples of right-wingers resort to name calling and personal attacks when their arguments don't hold water and are exposed for a hidden personal agenda.

I've been moderating this site since "05" and believe me, it comes from both sides of the fence. I'd think that us normal folk would have a common enemy called politicians on most issues.

Have a good one!:thumbsup:

[wkhey4]

I've been moderating this site since "05" and believe me, it comes from both sides of the fence. I'd think that us normal folk would have a common enemy called politicians on most issues.

Have a good one!:thumbsup:

You are so absolutely right. Both sides rhetoric is so tiring that one need a fine screen mesh to hash it all out. lol Hows that for multiple puns.... ouch ! :rastasmoke:

[wkhey4]

One more thing...and it might get me censored banned or worst but.... the last place I ever expected to debate the abortion issue is a on a site like this.
All you right-wingers need to take your tired old hidden agenda rhetoric to a site that cares about your misinformed opinions. I don't come here to hear your convoluted miss informed opinions !!!! Take your opinions and posts to a site that cares.

[TheReleafCenter]

I've been moderating this site since "05" and believe me, it comes from both sides of the fence. I'd think that us normal folk would have a common enemy called politicians on most issues.

Have a good one!:thumbsup:

One of the best things about cannabis is it brings together such a diverse array of people.

I think Jon Stewart would recommend this thread take a turn back toward sanity on both sides.

[wkhey4]

One of the best things about cannabis is it brings together such a diverse array of people.

I think Jon Stewart would recommend this thread take a turn back toward sanity on both sides.

Being on here for the past month doesn't get me any kudos. I understand my newbie status but, could you please explain to me how the right's way of thinking is a sane way of thinking ?

[rightwinger]

One more thing...and it might get me censored banned or worst but.... the last place I ever expected to debate the abortion issue is a on a site like this.
All you right-wingers need to take your tired old hidden agenda rhetoric to a site that cares about your misinformed opinions. I don't come here to hear your convoluted miss informed opinions !!!! Take your opinions and posts to a site that cares.


It wasn't me that brought up abortion--it was one of your comrades.

[rightwinger]

Being on here for the past month doesn't get me any kudos. I understand my newbie status but, could you please explain to me how the right's way of thinking is a sane way of thinking ?


From what I have seen and in my personal opinion--most marijuana users believe that the opposition is always coming from the right--when it's not.

It's either a lack of knowledge about candidates--past Presidents etc. But for every republican against the use of marijuana I can bring up just as many democrats.

My point being marijuana is not a left/right issue. There are opponents to legalising marijuana on both sides of the isle. And I imagine there are just as many republicans as democrats who want to legalise marijuana.

So we have to pay attention to the candidates we are voting for. Right now--Tom Tancredo is the most pro candidate in this election cycle--even though he is conservative. He is the one most likely to stop new regulation-pointed at caregivers and medical marijuana centers. Hickenlooper seems to be more inclined to listen to what law enforcement tells him--which wouldn't be good for any of us.

[Zedleppelin]

I make no apologies, all I pointed out was Tancredo is for making abortion illegal even in cases of rape and incest and the next thing I'm being called a baby killer, so I decided to toy with him a little and get a few moments of entertainment out of it.

[Reenster]

In my humble opinion, any discussion regarding abortion is firmly entrenched in religion. It has been my experience that those that would be in favor of Amendment 62 would describe themselves as christian. I doubt there are many atheists that are in favor of the Amendment 62. If you are out there please stand and be counted.:thumbsup:

Roe vs Wade gave women the right to make the profoundly personal choice to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. Any argument I have heard against Roe vs Wade is based on religious beliefs. Should we be forced to adhere to the doctrine of a religion we might not adhere to?

Religious opinions should not influence political decisions. Freedom of religion should also mean freedom from religion. I respect any one's faith and opinions and I would hope for the same in return.

I enjoy a healthy debate and it's wonderful to hear the differing opinions of those that I have so much in common with. We all agree that Medical Marijuana is truly medicine and that we want to continue to enjoy the right to medicate.

[rightwinger]

I make no apologies, all I pointed out was Tancredo is for making abortion illegal even in cases of rape and incest and the next thing I'm being called a baby killer, so I decided to toy with him a little and get a few moments of entertainment out of it.

You will find that there are many democrat politicians in this nation that feel the same as Tancredo. They are pro-life democrats.

[wkhey4]

hey t\y11
It wasn't me that brought up abortion--it was one of your comrades.

Your so full of shite ! Typical post when one has nothing to educate us uninformed about. You brought up the entire abortion issue. Take a beep breath and review your posts.

[rightwinger]

In my humble opinion, any discussion regarding abortion is firmly entrenched in religion. It has been my experience that those that would be in favor of Amendment 62 would describe themselves as christian. I doubt there are many atheists that are in favor of the Amendment 62. If you are out there please stand and be counted.:thumbsup:

Roe vs Wade gave women the right to make the profoundly personal choice to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. Any argument I have heard against Roe vs Wade is based on religious beliefs. Should we be forced to adhere to the doctrine of a religion we might not adhere to?

Religious opinions should not influence political decisions. Freedom of religion should also mean freedom from religion. I respect any one's faith and opinions and I would hope for the same in return.

I enjoy a healthy debate and it's wonderful to hear the differing opinions of those that I have so much in common with. We all agree that Medical Marijuana is truly medicine and that we want to continue to enjoy the right to medicate.

I don't not have a problem with Roe v Wade. That is a personal choice for every woman in this country. What I have a problem with that continually happens when speaking with liberals is:

That the sky could be caving in right now--and they would bring up abortion rights--in one of their comments.

I am very tired of talking about abortion--because they inflict into every other topic from A to Z. Right now in this country our number one concern is jobs. Someone talks about jobs--and there is certain to be a liberal that wants to talk about abortion. Someone wants to talk about the deficit--and there is certain to be a liberal that brings up abortion. Someone wants to talk about marijuana--and there is certain to be a liberal that wants to bring up abortion.

Again--it's like every woman in this country is going to have an abortion within the next few months--it is a liberals number topic of concern. I just wish their were abortion blogs--where these people could have another 40 year discussion with each other--LOL I don't want to hear it anymore.

[TheReleafCenter]

Being on here for the past month doesn't get me any kudos. I understand my newbie status but, could you please explain to me how the right's way of thinking is a sane way of thinking ?

I'm not arguing that either side is right, actually. There are some issues that I'm profoundly more conservative on than others.

The idea is that we can engage in debate in a rational, nuanced way, where no one gets called Hitler or a baby killer. Most Americans aren't represented by angry talking heads on the cable news networks.

[mustangwomyn]

I make no apologies, all I pointed out was Tancredo is for making abortion illegal even in cases of rape and incest and the next thing I'm being called a baby killer, so I decided to toy with him a little and get a few moments of entertainment out of it.

I fully agree, Abortion in cases of incest or rape are completely a different issue that abortion in cases where planning was not practiced. If one can expect a woman to be reminded every day of the nightmares of Rape or Incest you are plain & simple heartless.

[wkhey4]

I don't not have a problem with Roe v Wade. That is a personal choice for every woman in this country. What I have a problem with that continually happens when speaking with liberals is:

That the sky could be caving in right now--and they would bring up abortion rights--in one of their comments.

I am very tired of talking about abortion--because they inflict into every other topic from A to Z. Right now in this country our number one concern is jobs. Someone talks about jobs--and there is certain to be a liberal that wants to talk about abortion. Someone wants to talk about the deficit--and there is certain to be a liberal that brings up abortion. Someone wants to talk about marijuana--and there is certain to be a liberal that wants to bring up abortion.

Again--it's like every woman in this country is going to have an abortion within the next few months--it is a liberals number topic of concern. I just wish their were abortion blogs--where these people could have another 40 year discussion with each other--LOL I don't want to hear it anymore.

Yeah right ..label me with the rest of the bleeding heart liberals. The last thing I'm concerned about is the abortion issue. Though the politically correct way of thinking about the issue is about the result and not about the ways of fixing the problem which is so typical of the rights way of thinking.
Say your against a position but having no realistic solution is so typical of your way of thinking !

[Zedleppelin]

I don't not have a problem with Roe v Wade. That is a personal choice for every woman in this country. What I have a problem with that continually happens when speaking with liberals is:

That the sky could be caving in right now--and they would bring up abortion rights--in one of their comments.

I am very tired of talking about abortion--because they inflict into every other topic from A to Z. Right now in this country our number one concern is jobs. Someone talks about jobs--and there is certain to be a liberal that wants to talk about abortion. Someone wants to talk about the deficit--and there is certain to be a liberal that brings up abortion. Someone wants to talk about marijuana--and there is certain to be a liberal that wants to bring up abortion.

Again--it's like every woman in this country is going to have an abortion within the next few months--it is a liberals number topic of concern. I just wish their were abortion blogs--where these people could have another 40 year discussion with each other--LOL I don't want to hear it anymore.


Kind of like how you people couldnt shut up about Clintons penis for the past 12 years?

Do you really think I give a rats ass about abortion? Whether abortion is legal or not is not going to effect me one way or another. What I do care about is one group of people thinking they are morally superior to the rest of us because of some fairy tale book and then proceed to push this idiotic bullshit down other peoples throats. People have been victimized for centuries by these do-gooders and all one has to do is tune into FOX News for 5 minutes to know its the same old song and dance.

[rightwinger]

hey t\y11

Your so full of shite ! Typical post when one has nothing to educate us uninformed about. You brought up the entire abortion issue. Take a beep breath and review your posts.

1st PAGE--by Zedleppin--look it up--in his post several paragraphs down.

It was he/she that moved this thread to abortion.

[rightwinger]

Kind of like how you people couldnt shut up about Clintons penis for the past 12 years?

Do you really think I give a rats ass about abortion? Whether abortion is legal or not is not going to effect me one way or another. What I do care about is one group of people thinking they are morally superior to the rest of us because of some fairy tale book and then proceed to push this idiotic bullshit down other peoples throats. People have been victimized for centuries by these do-gooders and all one has to do is tune into FOX News for 5 minutes to know its the same old song and dance.

Clinton's penis was and is the last thing on my mind--LOL.

And here are some pro-life DEMOCRAT politicians that I am certain you will be voting against too--LOL

Pro-life Democratic politicians look to future after Casey convention speech :: Catholic News Agency (CNA) (http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/prolife_democratic_politicians_look_to_future_afte r_casey_convention_speech/)

And to help you out a little bit. There are pro-choice Republicans and pro-life Republicans. There are pro-choice Democrats and pro-life Democrats. It's a mixed bag of people from every political party--from every race--and from every religion. So it's not worth the time to talk about--because it has been continually discussed for the last 40 YEARS. And I am tired of people like you including it into every single topic of interest. It's more than obvious that's the only thing you know.

[Zedleppelin]

It's more than obvious that's the only thing you know.

There is one other thing I know, and that is abortion is not a constitutionally protected right, so I guess that trumps what you know. :smokin:

[wkhey4]

if it wasn't
Kind of like how you people couldnt shut up about Clintons penis for the past 12 years?

Do you really think I give a rats ass about abortion? Whether abortion is legal or not is not going to effect me one way or another. What I do care about is one group of people thinking they are morally superior to the rest of us because of some fairy tale book and then proceed to push this idiotic bullshit down other peoples throats. People have been victimized for centuries by these do-gooders and all one has to do is tune into FOX News for 5 minutes to know its the same old song and dance.

If you look at history,most conflicts throughout world history
are fought over religious beliefs. If you take religious beliefs-religion
out of the equation you'd have a world far more advanced then it is now.
The opiate of the masses and the reason for our backwards way of thinking. is the preponderating belief of a supreme being that actually cares and has a grand scream for our eternal salvation

[mustangwomyn]

There is one other thing I know, and that is abortion is not a constitutionally protected right, so I guess that trumps what you know. :smokin:

Constitution protected right implys, it is in the US Constitution. Roe -vs- Wade was a case decided by the US Supreme Court, and is always subject to being reviewed again, should someone pursue a new appeal. So you are absolutely correct it is not a constitutional protected right. ;)

[donniedorko]

From what I have seen and in my personal opinion--most marijuana users believe that the opposition is always coming from the right--when it's not.

It's either a lack of knowledge about candidates--past Presidents etc. But for every republican against the use of marijuana I can bring up just as many democrats.

My point being marijuana is not a left/right issue. There are opponents to legalising marijuana on both sides of the isle. And I imagine there are just as many republicans as democrats who want to legalise marijuana.

So we have to pay attention to the candidates we are voting for. Right now--Tom Tancredo is the most pro candidate in this election cycle--even though he is conservative. He is the one most likely to stop new regulation-pointed at caregivers and medical marijuana centers. Hickenlooper seems to be more inclined to listen to what law enforcement tells him--which wouldn't be good for any of us.


Seems to me like there are only about four politicians in favor of legalization period. We can't even get a federal mmj bill, legalization is a long way off. If it comes in states, which I hope it will, it will be through small-d democracy. Initiatives, petitions, whatever. Once we get it legalized at the state level, we'll have to fight against idiotic regulations from the legislators who still won't bother listening to their constituents. And even after we do all that work in the states, if we elect the wrong president they'll be perfectly willing to use federal law against marijuana.

I'm just not seeing any groundswell of support for marijuana among federal politicians. Precious few at the state level are even willing to stand up for medical marijuana, much less full legalization.

[rightwinger]

Constitution protected right implys, it is in the US Constitution. Roe -vs- Wade was a case decided by the US Supreme Court, and is always subject to being reviewed again, should someone pursue a new appeal. So you are absolutely correct it is not a constitutional protected right. ;)


When the high court makes a decision on a case like Roe v Wade it is the law of the land until it is overturned. It has been in effect for 40 years now--and is highly doubtful that it will ever be over-turned. Liberals like to use this topic to judge politicians. Nothing else appears to matter to them--it's always abortion--which again they will throw into every single topic.

They use it as a litmus test as to whom they are going to vote for.

It's a non-issue today. And there are much more important things in our lives that should be discussed--other than abortion.

The fact is--that every single woman in this country today can obtain an abortion--yet we are still discussing a 40 year old law. Today 40% of the women in this country having babies are not married--so as we see--it is a minut minority of women that choose to have abortions--yet again we're still talking about it.

More Single Women Are Having Babies - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Healthday/story?id=7578204&page=1)

[rightwinger]

Seems to me like there are only about four politicians in favor of legalization period. We can't even get a federal mmj bill, legalization is a long way off. If it comes in states, which I hope it will, it will be through small-d democracy. Initiatives, petitions, whatever. Once we get it legalized at the state level, we'll have to fight against idiotic regulations from the legislators who still won't bother listening to their constituents. And even after we do all that work in the states, if we elect the wrong president they'll be perfectly willing to use federal law against marijuana.

I'm just not seeing any groundswell of support for marijuana among federal politicians. Precious few at the state level are even willing to stand up for medical marijuana, much less full legalization.

California is going to legalise it--and I believe I heard that we may see it on our ballot in 2012. Ron Paul conservative--Rand Paul his son who is leading as a new senator from Kentucky is for legalising it along with Tom Tancredo here. I really can't think of any others right now.

BUT it's going to be very interesting to see how the Federal Government responds to California this November. It may be all out war.

A here is Diane Fienstein--a long term major democrat Senator in California who is against legalizing it there.

So as we see again--this is not a left/right issue--we are at odds with both sides of the isle.

Feinstein Joins Ranks of Politicians Against Legalizing Pot - LAist (http://laist.com/2010/07/13/feinstein_opposes_ballot_initiative.php)

[cologrower420]

I make no apologies, all I pointed out was Tancredo is for making abortion illegal even in cases of rape and incest and the next thing I'm being called a baby killer, so I decided to toy with him a little and get a few moments of entertainment out of it.

I also make no apologies, I just pointed out that a comment was thoughtless and ignorant with no relation to the poster who made the comment.

I was also surprised to see this topic discussed instead of the candidates.

I have a feeling there will be more posts deleted, it would be more useful for posters to highlight where each candidate stands, instead of trying to debate.

It's not likely that anyone is going to change their core beliefs. We should be highlighting where our candidates stand, and hopefully those on the fence or otherwise unaware might be affected.

If the abortion issue or healthcare issue is that important, find the right place and make a thread, stop cluttering up otherwise useful places for discussion.

edit:
Also, anyone who watches John Stewart regularly automatically has more credibility than anyone who watches cnn, foxnews or any other mainstream media outlet. Just 'sayin. Last night's show was awesome, and last week's sanchez story was just fantastic.

[Reenster]

John Stewart is my hero, I think of him as a modern day Will Rogers, someone who will say what should be logical but still needs to be said. I would love to be able to attend his return to sanity rally. A few of my favorite Will Rogers quotes:

A fool and his money are soon elected.

A holding company is a thing where you hand an accomplice the goods while the policeman searches you.

A man only learns in two ways, one by reading, and the other by association with smarter people.

A remark generally hurts in proportion to its truth.

About all I can say for the United States Senate is that it opens with a prayer and closes with an investigation.

Advertising is the art of convincing people to spend money they don't have for something they don't need.

Alexander Hamilton started the U.S. Treasury with nothing, and that was the closest our country has ever been to being even.

All I know is just what I read in the papers, and that's an alibi for my ignorance.

Will Rogers died in 1935 and it apprears that as much as things change some things stay the same.

I would classify myself as a bleeding heart liberal. I suspect much farther to the left than most of those reading this forum, in fact much farther to the left than most.

[TheReleafCenter]

Great quotes. :thumbsup: He's up there with Twain imho.

[rightwinger]

John Stewart is my hero, I think of him as a modern day Will Rogers, someone who will say what should be logical but still needs to be said. I would love to be able to attend his return to sanity rally. A few of my favorite Will Rogers quotes:

A fool and his money are soon elected.

A holding company is a thing where you hand an accomplice the goods while the policeman searches you.

A man only learns in two ways, one by reading, and the other by association with smarter people.

A remark generally hurts in proportion to its truth.

About all I can say for the United States Senate is that it opens with a prayer and closes with an investigation.

Advertising is the art of convincing people to spend money they don't have for something they don't need.

Alexander Hamilton started the U.S. Treasury with nothing, and that was the closest our country has ever been to being even.

All I know is just what I read in the papers, and that's an alibi for my ignorance.

Will Rogers died in 1935 and it apprears that as much as things change some things stay the same.

I would classify myself as a bleeding heart liberal. I suspect much farther to the left than most of those reading this forum, in fact much farther to the left than most.


Good One--here is one of my favorites:

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.
5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the beginning of the end of any nation. Adrian Rogers, 1931

[dedliug]

...he didn't have the writers that stewart has working "daily" for him

great quotes anyhow!

sorry, i just finished the teddy roosevelt biography and twain was a thorn in the otherwise fawned over president's side

[Reenster]

Good One--here is one of my favorites:

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.
5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the beginning of the end of any nation. Adrian Rogers, 1931

Glad you enjoy those quotes but you do realize that Will Rogers was a political humorist, comedian, actor much like John Stewart and he died in
1935. Adrian Rogers, on the other hand, is a pastor, conservative that spent several terms as the President of the Southern Baptist Convention who was born in 1931.

For me Will Rogers represents all that is good about political humorists and Adrian Rogers represents all that is wrong with religion mixing with politics.

[donniedorko]

Good One--here is one of my favorites:

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.
5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the beginning of the end of any nation. Adrian Rogers, 1931

Those are the kind of things that sound good in theory, but in practice not so much. What are people who are disabled supposed to do, be left out to die? This is a medical marijuana forum, presumably there are people here who are either disabled or borderline, so might not be the best audience.

[rightwinger]

Glad you enjoy those quotes but you do realize that Will Rogers was a political humorist, comedian, actor much like John Stewart and he died in
1935. Adrian Rogers, on the other hand, is a pastor, conservative that spent several terms as the President of the Southern Baptist Convention who was born in 1931.

For me Will Rogers represents all that is good about political humorists and Adrian Rogers represents all that is wrong with religion mixing with politics.


Well--judging from the mindset of many in the undereducated political world--comics do more damage than truth does. There are many in this country that somehow make into the voting booth--that can't tell you who the vice-President of the United States is--and are easily influenced by Hollywood--and Saturday Night Live.

So you can take your comics--and I'll take what makes sense to me.

[Zedleppelin]

Well--judging from the mindset of many in the undereducated political world--comics do more damage than truth does. There are many in this country that somehow make into the voting booth--that can't tell you who the vice-President of the United States is--and are easily influenced by Hollywood--and Saturday Night Live.

So you can take your comics--and I'll take what makes sense to me.

Wow, you obviously don't know who Will Rogers is.

[rightwinger]

Those are the kind of things that sound good in theory, but in practice not so much. What are people who are disabled supposed to do, be left out to die? This is a medical marijuana forum, presumably there are people here who are either disabled or borderline, so might not be the best audience.

The disabled are and have been taken care of in this country. Right now my medical insurance premiums just went up another 10% mid-year to pay for someone else's colonoscopy five years down the road from now. Someone who more than likely is capable of paying for a simple castastropic medical insurance policy but is more interested in that new car stereo.

[rightwinger]

Wow, you obviously don't know who Will Rogers is.

Will Rodgers was very well liked in this country--but I wouldn't consider him any kind of political genius of his time. IOW--I wouldn't set his statements in stone--and then vote by them or form a political ideology from them.

"When government is big enough to give you everything you want, it will also be big enough to take everything you have"--Thomas Jefferson

[cologrower420]

The disabled are and have been taken care of in this country. Right now my medical insurance premiums just went up another 10% mid-year to pay for someone else's colonoscopy five years down the road from now. Someone who more than likely is capable of paying for a simple castastropic medical insurance policy but is more interested in that new car stereo.

Allow me to rant before it gets deleted or something, but there are two crises with regards to our current healthcare 'system'. We're discussing nearly one fifth of our economy.

The first crisis is of access. This affects about 10-15% of people in this country. It's a large problem and needs to be addressed. Recent legislation has done some positive things like the creation of additional 'high-risk' pools and programs for those who can't get covered under current rules, guarantee issue of policies to children, etc.

The second crisis is one of cost, and it affects nearly everyone, more than 90% in my opinion. This crisis reaches across many different parts of our economy, and it's going to be difficult to reform a problem that affects so many people. That's why it's difficult to pass a bill to solve all of our problems.

We're starting to see insurance companies play by the new rules, but they still will find their loopholes. After all, we had to pass the legislation before we can see what's in it, of course there will be loopholes.

Politicians suck.

[mustangwomyn]

The disabled are and have been taken care of in this country.

Glad to hear you are an expert on this matter.

[rightwinger]

Allow me to rant before it gets deleted or something, but there are two crises with regards to our current healthcare 'system'. We're discussing nearly one fifth of our economy.

The first crisis is of access. This affects about 10-15% of people in this country. It's a large problem and needs to be addressed. Recent legislation has done some positive things like the creation of additional 'high-risk' pools and programs for those who can't get covered under current rules, guarantee issue of policies to children, etc.

The second crisis is one of cost, and it affects nearly everyone, more than 90% in my opinion. This crisis reaches across many different parts of our economy, and it's going to be difficult to reform a problem that affects so many people. That's why it's difficult to pass a bill to solve all of our problems.

We're starting to see insurance companies play by the new rules, but they still will find their loopholes. After all, we had to pass the legislation before we can see what's in it, of course there will be loopholes.

Politicians suck.


We already had a law in Colorado passed in 2008 that added $3.00 to every premium in this state to help those with pre-exisiting conditions get coverage.

Back in the 1990's--in our small Sub-S business--we could group together to get the same kind of rates as large corporations. Our employees were covered and we could afford to pay for it. Then group for small business imploded leaving small business people out in the dark. We had to purchase private policies for ourselves just to keep it affordable--and then donate to our employees pay-checks additional so they could get a private personal policy. Right now my spouse and I alone--(very healthy--btw) avid exercises and eating habits pay $925.00 per month for a lousy high-deductible ($10K deductible policy.) And Athem/Blue Cross just raised it to over $1000 per month--because of Obamacare.

If you walk into our hospital emergency rooms--they are filled with people complaining about common colds and sore throats--because they do not want to pay for that doctors visit. In my opinion--I think there should be N.P's in every Walgreen's--or pharmacy across this country--where they can accept walk-in patients for a small fee--for these type of common symptons--which would bring everyone's medical cost down.

In the end we all end up paying for the uninsured in this country.

[cologrower420]

Glad to hear you are an expert on this matter.
It seems like you are criticizing rightwinger, I would like you to clarify. I would consider myself an 'expert' in this field, and everything he has said about insurance is spot on.

There are already programs in existence that help uninsured people get covered.

What's your beef? Cost? Access? Quality of coverage? Please elaborate.


We already had a law in Colorado passed in 2008 that added $3.00 to every premium in this state to help those with pre-exisiting conditions get coverage.

Back in the 1990's--in our small Sub-S business--we could group together to get the same kind of rates as large corporations. Our employees were covered and we could afford to pay for it. Then group for small business imploded leaving small business people out in the dark. We had to purchase private policies for ourselves just to keep it affordable--and then donate to our employees pay-checks additional so they could get a private personal policy. Right now my spouse and I alone--(very healthy--btw) avid exercises and eating habits pay $925.00 per month for a lousy high-deductible ($10K deductible policy.) And Athem/Blue Cross just raised it to over $1000 per month--because of Obamacare.

If you walk into our hospital emergency rooms--they are filled with people complaining about common colds and sore throats--because they do not want to pay for that doctors visit. In my opinion--I think there should be N.P's in every Walgreen's--or pharmacy across this country--where they can accept walk-in patients for a small fee--for these type of common symptons--which would bring everyone's medical cost down.

In the end we all end up paying for the uninsured in this country.
I think you meant to quote mustangwoman instead of me, because this post seems more targeted at them.

I've been in this industry for nine years, and my father has been in this industry for 35+ years, so what you posted is common knowledge for me.

Cliff Notes: We have serious issues and two major crises in our healthcare system, cost and access. Obamacare doesn't do much to address either. At least there will be more politicians employed by all of the growth in government. Our current two party system makes it nearly impossible to pass meaningful reform. At least there are two more elections before obamacare forces us onto the government roster.

[rightwinger]

It seems like you are criticizing rightwinger, I would like you to clarify. I would consider myself an 'expert' in this field, and everything he has said about insurance is spot on.

There are already programs in existence that help uninsured people get covered.

What's your beef? Cost? Access? Quality of coverage? Please elaborate.


I think you meant to quote mustangwoman instead of me, because this post seems more targeted at them.

I've been in this industry for nine years, and my father has been in this industry for 35+ years, so what you posted is common knowledge for me.

Cliff Notes: We have serious issues and two major crises in our healthcare system, cost and access. Obamacare doesn't do much to address either. At least there will be more politicians employed by all of the growth in government. Our current two party system makes it nearly impossible to pass meaningful reform. At least there are two more elections before obamacare forces us onto the government roster.

My beef is the cost of medical insurance. Small business cannot afford group insurance. Today I would guess that the over 40 million Americans who aren't covered are working for small business in this country--and continually head to the emergency room for common symptoms that could easily be taken care of in clinics--and pharmacies. I don't think Obamacare addresse's this issue. This bill in no way reflects on how to reduce the cost of medical treatment--it just takes from one fund (Medicare) to pay for another program. Here we are taking 500 billion dollars out of Medicare--when the baby boomer population--which is the largest generation in history-is now entering Medicare and will continue to do so for the next 15 years.

I am with you on this point--I can't think of any Federal Government program that has been operated efficiently. Social Security bankrupt--Medicare bankrupt and Medicade bankrupt. Even the senate cafeteria is in red ink--LOL.

In another note--last year I called Anthem--Blue Cross--Blue Shield to complain again about the yearly rate increase--and listened to a 10 minute recorded apology. Their stated reason for the continual rate increases was the pharmacutical industry that has been pushing all these new drugs on the market--for many things none of us have even heard of. Restless leg syndrom--all the erectile dysfunction pills--etc. etc. etc.--that we all end up paying for. I think some of these pills should be paid out of pocket by the patient for a lot of this.

In conclusion--my daughter is a nurse practitioner working out of a local hospital handeling all the mothers having babies that are on medicade. What she tells me is that more and more pediatricians are refusing to see babies that have Medicade coverage. They accept a few--then the rest go somewhere else. Medicade apparently pays around .87 cents on the dollar--so doctors are reluctant to accept new patients.

[Reenster]

In my opinion people's health should never be a for profit business. I remember back in the dark ages when pharmaceutical companies could not advertise on TV. Unfortunately, as long as we have a system of health care where there is big money to be made premiums will go up.

There can be finger pointing to big pharmacy in regards to increased health care costs and the continuing prohibition of marijuana, two subjects near and dear to my heart.

[rightwinger]

In my opinion people's health should never be a for profit business. I remember back in the dark ages when pharmaceutical companies could not advertise on TV. Unfortunately, as long as we have a system of health care where there is big money to be made premiums will go up.

There can be finger pointing to big pharmacy in regards to increased health care costs and the continuing prohibition of marijuana, two subjects near and dear to my heart.

The pharmacutical industry in this country is the largest lobbyist in Washington D.C--against the use of medical marijuana.

They're too busy in that chemical lab making up a new weekly pill for us to try--LOL Profits and politicians never mix well for the American public. We always get the sharp end of the stick.

[ThaiBuddhaMan]

...Medicade apparently pays around .87 cents on the dollar--....

If that!
I don't know any other industry where when they are billed, they come back and say,"Sorry we're only going to pay X amount".

If I take my car to the mechanic and he bills me $500, I can't say "Well I'm only going to pay $250".

The whole industry/field/system is screwed up. From the medical education schools to billing practices of the medical offices to the insurance companies down to the patients who won't practice a bit of common sense and got see a general practitioner instead of going to the ED for a common cold!

[rightwinger]

If that!
I don't know any other industry where when they are billed, they come back and say,"Sorry we're only going to pay X amount".

If I take my car to the mechanic and he bills me $500, I can't say "Well I'm only going to pay $250".

The whole industry/field/system is screwed up. From the medical education schools to billing practices of the medical offices to the insurance companies down to the patients who won't practice a bit of common sense and got see a general practitioner instead of going to the ED for a common cold!


Unfortunately they do end up in our very expensive hospital emergency rooms for "free" medical care. One hospital in Texas spent over 200K last year for one single homeless man that kept coming into the emergency room for a variety of tests. BTW--they never could find anything wrong with him. Overall this one hospital billed Medicade for over 500K on a total of 18 continual frequent visitors.

Until that stops--and there are other places for these type of people to go--we are not going to be able to stop the sky-rocketing costs of health care.

[ThaiBuddhaMan]

Unfortunately they do end up in our very expensive hospital emergency rooms for "free" medical care. One hospital in Texas spent over 200K last year for one single homeless man that kept coming into the emergency room for a variety of tests. BTW--they never could find anything wrong with him. Overall this one hospital billed Medicade for over 500K on a total of 18 continual frequent visitors.

Until that stops--and there are other places for these type of people to go--we are not going to be able to stop the sky-rocketing costs of health care.

That's nothing. We had a patient & their family who had insurance. The family didn't want to pull the plug. The patient had been dead for several weeks (brain). Staff could smell the stench of the rotting body. We have the tech to keep a body going for a long long time (too long in my opinion), but people have got to learn to deal with death. It's a part of life. That family racked up over 1.4 million in bills. I don't blame the insurance for not covering all of it as it's not their fault the family can't let go.

500k for 1 homeless guy in Texas. Shit happens all the time here in CO.

[mustangwomyn]

It seems like you are criticizing rightwinger, I would like you to clarify. I would consider myself an 'expert' in this field, and everything he has said about insurance is spot on.


Are you an Expert on Social Security & Medicare

You might want to take the time to read what I responded to. I have taken the time to repost it so you don't have to.


The disabled are and have been taken care of in this country.FYI I am disabled on Social Security and if you consider living on $600 - $1200 (the average social security check) a month being taken care of then you sure have an interesting point of being taken care of. I pay close to $200 a month just in copays & premiums (deducted from my social security check). I don't even qualify for extra help from Social security because of my husbands Piddly unemployment check. (the company he used to work for went Belly up)

Several Medications I take are only available in Name Brand & can not be substituted due to my health condition I am very limited in the Medications I can take.

[rightwinger]

If that!
I don't know any other industry where when they are billed, they come back and say,"Sorry we're only going to pay X amount".

If I take my car to the mechanic and he bills me $500, I can't say "Well I'm only going to pay $250".

The whole industry/field/system is screwed up. From the medical education schools to billing practices of the medical offices to the insurance companies down to the patients who won't practice a bit of common sense and got see a general practitioner instead of going to the ED for a common cold!


Definitely-

[rightwinger]

Are you an Expert on Social Security & Medicare

You might want to take the time to read what I responded to. I have taken the time to repost it so you don't have to.

FYI I am disabled on Social Security and if you consider living on $600 - $1200 (the average social security check) a month being taken care of then you sure have an interesting point of being taken care of. I pay close to $200 a month just in copays & premiums (deducted from my social security check). I don't even qualify for extra help from Social security because of my husbands Piddly unemployment check. (the company he used to work for went Belly up)

Several Medications I take are only available in Name Brand & can not be substituted due to my health condition I am very limited in the Medications I can take.

There are millions on social security disability and many are non-deserving of it. They find the loop-holes and raid it. Then the other problem is government itself.

What started out as a great plan for the elderly in this country (back in the 1930's) to take care of them when they aged turned out to be the greatest ponzi scheme--better than Bernie Maddof ever thought of. Currently--employees/employer contributions are 12.4% of gross payroll though-out ones entire life of working. Do the MATH. Our government uses it as a slush fund--meaning they take the money--spend it on wars--foreign aid--and anything and everything other than the well being of our disabled and retirees. Then if you're lucky enough to hit the age that the government decides you can obtain YOUR money--they give diddly sqwat back to you in a monthly check. If you meet your demise before the government age and are not married the government simply confiscates it. Now--if you did your math on gross income multiplied by 12.4% over ones working lifetime--you would realise that there should be no-one in this country that would be having to eat dog food. A simple guaranteed passbook money market guaranteed fund would far out-do what social security pays out. IOW--it not anyone's fault that you're getting 600-700 per month other than the government's mis-management of social security.

Today--we have Michael Bennet running for senator who wants to keep this slush fund--and Ken Buck who wants younger people to be able to invest in "safe--guaranteed" private sector funds that the government can't get their hands on--and should they meet their demise early--their heirs can inherit it. Democrats typically like to scare the elderly out of this proposal using the stock market jirations--and making certain that you don't know about guaranteed insurance annuities--C.D's and money market accounts.

[denverbear]

Are you an Expert on Social Security & Medicare

You might want to take the time to read what I responded to. I have taken the time to repost it so you don't have to.

FYI I am disabled on Social Security and if you consider living on $600 - $1200 (the average social security check) a month being taken care of then you sure have an interesting point of being taken care of. I pay close to $200 a month just in copays & premiums (deducted from my social security check). I don't even qualify for extra help from Social security because of my husbands Piddly unemployment check. (the company he used to work for went Belly up)

Several Medications I take are only available in Name Brand & can not be substituted due to my health condition I am very limited in the Medications I can take.

Go get em girl...I too am on social sec disability from an on the job injury plus other health issues and I can definatly support your statement that we on social sec are not very well taken care of...yes we might have insurance but there are co-pays and medicine costs that still must be paid out of pocket and of course there is always the mortgage and utilities etc.
so yes there are many people who are being let down and under cared for in our system that need help but sadly there is not much more help available.

[mustangwomyn]

Your the one that said.


The disabled are and have been taken care of in this country.

That statement has noting to do with people that are non-deserving, and let me assure you getting approved for Social Security Disability is not easy, thus most that are on Social Security Disability are deserving as it usually requires an appeal to get approved as almost always are denied at the first stage. In fact many give up because the approval process is so difficult.

[rightwinger]

Your the one that said.



That statement has noting to do with people that are non-deserving, and let me assure you getting approved for Social Security Disability is not easy, thus most that are on Social Security Disability are deserving as it usually requires an appeal to get approved as almost always are denied at the first stage. In fact many give up because the approval process is so difficult.


Look I know people who are perfectly capable of working-that get social security disability. One guy with back pain that somehow got it--that rides around on his Harley Davidson all day long. Another young woman who has some kind of new disease--that no doctor can verify-get's it. Social Security disability comes down to how good your lawyer is--and how many times one person stays after it. Then another that worked a total of 2 weeks her entire life--got addicted to hard core drugs--and gets social security disability benefits--and has received it for DECADES.

So don't tell me there's no fraud in social security disability benefits.

[mustangwomyn]

Look I know people who are perfectly capable of working-that get social security disability. One guy with back pain that somehow got it--that rides around on his Harley Davidson all day long. Another young woman who has some kind of new disease--that no doctor can verify-get's it. Social Security disability comes down to how good your lawyer is--and how many times one person stays after it. Then another that worked a total of 2 weeks her entire life--got addicted to hard core drugs--and gets social security disability benefits--and has received it for DECADES.

So don't tell me there's no fraud in social security disability benefits.



First off I NEVER said there is No Fraud, I said that most are deserving, but I guess that don't fit your agenda, so you twist my words. Secondly Winning a social security appeal is a time consuming matter, in my case it was close to 18 months - 2 years (which is normal) before I won my appeal with no income in the mean time. Please tell me how many peeps are willing to starve (no income) to fraud the government.

It is also necessary to have credits to receive social security disability, that means working more than 2 weeks, usually close to 10 years credits which means they either worked more or are drawing on a family members credits.

I am also glad that you think its fraud cause a doctor can't find a disease. Just because a persons condition doesn't have a known disease doesn't mean they aren't disabled.

But once again what does that have to do with your statement that the disabled are taken care of ?????

[rightwinger]

First off I NEVER said there is No Fraud, I said that most are deserving, but I guess that don't fit your agenda, so you twist my words. Secondly Winning a social security appeal is a time consuming matter, in my case it was close to 18 months - 2 years (which is normal) before I won my appeal with no income in the mean time. Please tell me how many peeps are willing to starve (no income) to fraud the government.

It is also necessary to have credits to receive social security disability, that means working more than 2 weeks, usually close to 10 years credits which means they either worked more or are drawing on a family members credits.

I am also glad that you think its fraud cause a doctor can't find a disease. Just because a persons condition doesn't have a known disease doesn't mean they aren't disabled.

But once again what does that have to do with your statement that the disabled are taken care of ?????

Give me a break--I personally know this "young" woman. She put in a few years of work--decided she no longer wanted to work--went to 50 different doctors in this state until she found "one" that agreed with her. She stayed after it for about 3 years--and has and will continue to get social security disability benefits for the rest of her life.

Now if you want to POINT your finger at someone as to the reason why someone like you whom is actually disabled gets diddly sqwat in a monthly check why don't you blame someone like her--who has raided this system along with a few hundred thousand of them? Would you prefer to fix this system or just unload more debt on your children and grandchildren in order to up your monthly check? That's basically where the rubber meets the road in this discussion.

This is the entire point. Government has never been consistent or efficient with taxpayer money. Once they are in control of your money--they will grow and expand to others who are not as deserving. Then they will want more money to do it again.

And that is exactly what is going on with social security today. Now they're talking about raising the age for retirement benefits--and they'll do it.

[cologrower420]

Are you an Expert on Social Security & Medicare

You might want to take the time to read what I responded to. I have taken the time to repost it so you don't have to.

FYI I am disabled on Social Security and if you consider living on $600 - $1200 (the average social security check) a month being taken care of then you sure have an interesting point of being taken care of. I pay close to $200 a month just in copays & premiums (deducted from my social security check). I don't even qualify for extra help from Social security because of my husbands Piddly unemployment check. (the company he used to work for went Belly up)

Several Medications I take are only available in Name Brand & can not be substituted due to my health condition I am very limited in the Medications I can take.

Please don't look down your nose at me because you're sick. You aren't the only one, and no one is out to get you. Show some respect to those who are trying to help you. You seem to have an aggressive attitude toward me which is undeserved.

To answer your question, yes, I would consider myself and our agency to be medicare, not so much on the social security. Do you have a specific question or anything?

rightwinger correctly posted that there is already coverage for the uninsured, the underinsured, and the poor. You seem to take issue with the fact that he seems to be against socialized medicine. I'm not sure though, I don't care. If you think he needs to clarify that there isn't enough coverage, then say that. But don't treat rightwinger like a liar, because he's telling the truth even though it hurts.

I asked you to clarify and I don't see where you did. Are you saying there is a problem with access to your care, or are you unhappy with the cost? Are you unhappy with current subsidies or something? It's like you're saying you can't find coverage or get care, which is untrue.

[mustangwomyn]

Please don't look down your nose at me because you're sick. You aren't the only one, and no one is out to get you. Show some respect to those who are trying to help you. You seem to have an aggressive attitude toward me which is undeserved.

To answer your question, yes, I would consider myself and our agency to be medicare, not so much on the social security. Do you have a specific question or anything?

rightwinger correctly posted that there is already coverage for the uninsured, the underinsured, and the poor. You seem to take issue with the fact that he seems to be against socialized medicine. I'm not sure though, I don't care. If you think he needs to clarify that there isn't enough coverage, then say that. But don't treat rightwinger like a liar, because he's telling the truth even though it hurts.

I asked you to clarify and I don't see where you did. Are you saying there is a problem with access to your care, or are you unhappy with the cost? Are you unhappy with current subsidies or something? It's like you're saying you can't find coverage or get care, which is untrue.

Your the one that seemed intent on hijacking my response to rightwinger, I asked if he was a expert on disability (After he stated "The disabled are and have been taken care of in this country.") at that time, I didn't ask you if you were an expert on disability. Rightwinger is an adult if he has a problem with my responses to him he can say so, I don't think he needs you to do it for him.

I will say it again if you took the time to see what statement I quoted in my reply, you would of seen I disagreed with the statement that "The disabled are and have been taken care of in this country." And you insisted on assuming more about that statement & it wasn't even directed to you.

No I do not have a question, I was simply replying to his statement that the disabled are taken care of. I don't consider the pidly amount of benefits that are provided with Social security & Medicare to be considered taken care of. Thus I do not consider that to be an accurate statement. Thats all I was saying.

I don't have any questions for you, I only asked if you were an expert because you stated "I would consider myself an 'expert' in this field".

What I take issue with is rightwingers claim that Social security is full of fraudulent claims (people applying & receiving benefits). Any programs will have some fraudulent claims, but to state that it is full of fraud is incorrect. Yes there are fraudulent claims on the medicare end, but that is a different point

Once again you have missed the whole point, All I asked was he an expert on Disability matters, I never stated I had a problem with access to care or that I can't find coverage or get care. As a matter of fact I have great doctors, both my PCP & my specialist.

I now consider this matter closed & will not be responding to you any further so save your breath

[mustangwomyn]

Go get em girl...I too am on social sec disability from an on the job injury plus other health issues and I can definatly support your statement that we on social sec are not very well taken care of...yes we might have insurance but there are co-pays and medicine costs that still must be paid out of pocket and of course there is always the mortgage and utilities etc.
so yes there are many people who are being let down and under cared for in our system that need help but sadly there is not much more help available.

Thanks bear:)

This was exactly my whole initial point. :thumbsup:

[rightwinger]

Your the one that seemed intent on hijacking my response to rightwinger, I asked if he was a expert on disability (After he stated "The disabled are and have been taken care of in this country.") at that time, I didn't ask you if you were an expert on disability. Rightwinger is an adult if he has a problem with my responses to him he can say so, I don't think he needs you to do it for him.

I will say it again if you took the time to see what statement I quoted in my reply, you would of seen I disagreed with the statement that "The disabled are and have been taken care of in this country." And you insisted on assuming more about that statement & it wasn't even directed to you.

No I do not have a question, I was simply replying to his statement that the disabled are taken care of. I don't consider the pidly amount of benefits that are provided with Social security & Medicare to be considered taken care of. Thus I do not consider that to be an accurate statement. Thats all I was saying.

I don't have any questions for you, I only asked if you were an expert because you stated "I would consider myself an 'expert' in this field".

What I take issue with is rightwingers claim that Social security is full of fraudulent claims (people applying & receiving benefits). Any programs will have some fraudulent claims, but to state that it is full of fraud is incorrect. Yes there are fraudulent claims on the medicare end, but that is a different point

Once again you have missed the whole point, All I asked was he an expert on Disability matters, I never stated I had a problem with access to care or that I can't find coverage or get care. As a matter of fact I have great doctors, both my PCP & my specialist.

I now consider this matter closed & will not be responding to you any further so save your breath


Out of the 5 people I know that are currently getting social secuity disability benefits--3 of them could be working--and instead have defrauded the other two that I personally know that are actually disabled and cannot work--and that's my point. As far as being taken care of regarding any type of social security payments--who is? There are Americans that have worked for 30+ years that get diddly sqwat in a monthly check--this is no ones fault other than the govenments mis-management of these funds--another point I was trying to make. My grandmother retired after working 35 years--and received $120.00 per month in a social security benefit--after reaching 65 years old.