Which way Democratic or Republican?

[ThinkFast007]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

Totally off topic..

But come on let's talk politics!

So, which party is it more beneficial to be apart of for Anesthesiologists? Which party is more in line with keeping teh best interests of Anesthesiologists?

True, we all have differenes of opinions, but could ppl please give clear/factual info as to which party is more 'pro-anesthesia"? If you could even give me leads, that woudl be great.

I always that being republican, in line with being more conservative, was the best. Recently, with this port deal business, I've come to question it a little bit. I am a firm supporter of Bush, except for this port deal business.
I think most of the things he's done has helped our national security, that's why this port deal business has gotten me going

ON a better note, it's nice to know that the house republicans, et al are more responsible and are going to pass an amendment that wouldnt allow the US to do business with countries that recognized the Taliban and other fundamentalist groups.

 

[bullard]

Republicans have always saved doctors' asses when it comes to cutting Medicare reimbursements. But the only one I could ever conceive of voting for is McCain.

I'm pretty disillusioned with both parties in general. I'm only planning on voting in 2008 if Obama runs for prez.

 

[miamidc]

Republicans have always saved doctors' asses when it comes to cutting Medicare reimbursements. But the only one I could ever conceive of voting for is McCain.

I'm pretty disillusioned with both parties in general. I'm only planning on voting in 2008 if Obama runs for prez.

Obama the MAN!

 

[jetproppilot]

Totally off topic..

But come on let's talk politics!

So, which party is it more beneficial to be apart of for Anesthesiologists? Which party is more in line with keeping teh best interests of Anesthesiologists?

True, we all have differenes of opinions, but could ppl please give clear/factual info as to which party is more 'pro-anesthesia"? If you could even give me leads, that woudl be great.

I always that being republican, in line with being more conservative, was the best. Recently, with this port deal business, I've come to question it a little bit. I am a firm supporter of Bush, except for this port deal business.
I think most of the things he's done has helped our national security, that's why this port deal business has gotten me going

ON a better note, it's nice to know that the house republicans, et al are more responsible and are going to pass an amendment that wouldnt allow the US to do business with countries that recognized the Taliban and other fundamentalist groups.

I'll focus on myself, which is taboo in medicine.

I work hard for my money, despite what Mysterioso thinks.

And I'm not a fan for my taxes supporting people that dont wanna work for a living.

George Bush can stay in my crib whenever he wants.

He needs some public speaking lessons, but I'm still in his corner.

 

[miamidc]

Obama the MAN!

But I think McCain has my vote, hands down in 08. I too like seeing the paper I work for.

 

[SolidGold00]

Republicans have always saved doctors' asses when it comes to cutting Medicare reimbursements. But the only one I could ever conceive of voting for is McCain.

I'm pretty disillusioned with both parties in general. I'm only planning on voting in 2008 if Obama runs for prez.

You're way off base talking about Republicans saving medicare. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aebFe3gRt2Es&refer=us
Do you think reimbursements are gonna be the same or higher if they cut more medicare? Know things before talking.

 

[SolidGold00]

I'll focus on myself, which is taboo in medicine.

I work hard for my money, despite what Mysterioso thinks.

And I'm not a fan for my taxes supporting people that dont wanna work for a living.

George Bush can stay in my crib whenever he wants.

He needs some public speaking lessons, but I'm still in his corner.

The war on iraq costs approx. 250 billion dollars so far, thats a lot more than supporting people from this country who you think dont wanna work. That money could have saved a lot of programs, or even yet give a tax cut. Bush is a ***** and you should know that by now. Anyone would have been better than him. Being future or current doctors, I think we should keep up to date with things and know the facts, not a bunch of ignorance.

 

[ThinkFast007]

....Being future or current doctors, I think we should keep up to date with things and know the facts, not a bunch of ignorance.

i agree with that statement. This is why i felt the need to start this thread.

In terms of Bush and the war. I have to admit, yes, he may have spent a lot of money....but at the end i must say that relatively speaking the US is a heck of a lot more safer than it was before. I do not think that just handing money spent on the war in Iraq to those that do not work would have been the remedy. In capitalism that sort of mentality doesnt seem to work. creating jobs and avenues for work sounds a lot better than just 'hand outs'.

obama....cant say I'm an expert on the guy. the thing is he's a liberal.

Dont know how good that will be for our profession. I'm in concordance with Jet here, I think you really need to vote with an eye on your pocket and your profession. or else, those that win will line their OWN pockets. Unfortunately, that's just how politics works.

***trivia question, i just recently found this out. Do you know what religion obama currently is a part of, and what religion he used to belong to??

 

[Idiopathic]

In terms of Bush and the war. I have to admit, yes, he may have spent a lot of money....but at the end i must say that relatively speaking the US is a heck of a lot more safer than it was before. I do not think that just handing money spent on the war in Iraq to those that do not work would have been the remedy. In capitalism that sort of mentality doesnt seem to work. creating jobs and avenues for work sounds a lot better than just 'hand outs'.

The shining example of capitalism and the free market last year was the great gasoline boom. All the while we are told "oil is up, refining capacity is down, struggles across the world, no drilling in Alaska, yada yada yada" as the reason why we, the consumer, must suffer to buy this forced commodity.

And then every major oil company turns record profits, not just for them, but for companies in general. Looks like we are the only ones who have to 'suffer', right?

I would also argue that the alternatives for the hundreds of billions of dollars spent in Iraq are not limited to 'throwing it at people who wont work', but rather also includes investment in infrastructure, supporting local industry, or simply not spending it, something the current administration led us to believe might happen. Everyone criticizes the left for pork-spending and liberal fiscal policy, but just remember, wars are the right's way of pork-spending, and to have a war, we have to convince the public we'd be better off than if there was no war. Has this been accomplished? Judging from your response, Id say it has. I certainly dont feel safer, and I believe that once we leave Iraq, we will actually be less safe, because we chose to focus on that rather than focus on our own home.

 

[hoop_jumper]

Anyone who votes democrat is a fool. The payments in Iraq will reap us much more in returns in the future. How much money did we pour into Kuwait from 1991-2003 keeping troops and bases there? Once the region get's some stability I think you will see an excellent return on our investment. As far as McCain I wish his stupid ass would just caucus with the democrats and get the hell out of the party of Reagan. The person to replace W is none other than George Allen (R) Senator from Virginia.

 

[Idiopathic]

Once the region get's some stability

I see you actually bought into the propoganda. You actually believe that a stable Middle East is a possibility. Not only that, but you believe the most hated country in the world (as per the ME) are the ones to stabilize it. Bravo.

Ive got some swampland in Syria I'd like to sell you...you know, for when its 'stable'.

 

[SolidGold00]

The shining example of capitalism and the free market last year was the great gasoline boom. All the while we are told "oil is up, refining capacity is down, struggles across the world, no drilling in Alaska, yada yada yada" as the reason why we, the consumer, must suffer to buy this forced commodity.

And then every major oil company turns record profits, not just for them, but for companies in general. Looks like we are the only ones who have to 'suffer', right?

I would also argue that the alternatives for the hundreds of billions of dollars spent in Iraq are not limited to 'throwing it at people who wont work', but rather also includes investment in infrastructure, supporting local industry, or simply not spending it, something the current administration led us to believe might happen. Everyone criticizes the left for pork-spending and liberal fiscal policy, but just remember, wars are the right's way of pork-spending, and to have a war, we have to convince the public we'd be better off than if there was no war. Has this been accomplished? Judging from your response, Id say it has. I certainly dont feel safer, and I believe that once we leave Iraq, we will actually be less safe, because we chose to focus on that rather than focus on our own home.

I agree. You should also realize that it is a FACT that the war make the war on terror worse. Iraq was not a terrorist state before the war and now it is. It has become a breeding ground for terrorists who want to kill American soldiers. Almost as many soldiers died in the war as the number of people who died on 9/11.The money we spent so far hasn't done much. Iraq doesn't even have electricity 24/7. Bush got us into such a mess its very difficult to find a solution. I don't know how anyone can vote republican in the next elections unless its a free-minded thinker like McCain. Sen. George Allen is just a lackey for Bush and would be more of the same.

 

[cubs3canes]

Finally, something I can comment on in this forum.

Why are you scared for foreign ownership of the ports? This is the least of our worries. First, no port will actually be "owned" by UAE. They will actually be "run" by UAE.

Second, the big fear is that all of a sudden the workers at the ports are going to be foreign nationals with Middle East ties or even worse al-queda (sp?) ties. This is is not going to happen as long as the longshore union as anything to say about it. In order to load a ship at any port in the US, a unionized longshoreman has to be the workforce. If you think any longshore union is going to let foriegn nationals join their union or kick them out of the port you are crazy.

So what does this mean. All the UAE port deal means that a foreign company will run the business of loading and unloading at 6 ports including the one near my house in New Orleans. The workers will not change. The money will just go to UAE instead of Great Britian. There is very little change of security risk to the ports.

Hoewever, this is a great issue of US politics. As citizens we see it as "do not let the big bad boy countries from the middle east into our back yards." "Remeber 911," The politicans see it as a way to look tough on national security without any risk. After all, the company is currently British and last time I check the Brits or the citizens of UAE can not vote in US congressional districts. So this is a win win for the politicians. Finally, it is an issue that has no real passionate and loud promoters. It is not like abortion which is either yea or nay, but a powdercake issue that is easy to say "no to UAE." Also, this is the first time in many years that the democrats may actually have the moral high ground on an issue (eventhough I really think there is no moral high ground on tis issue because it is a non-issue).

I love politics. I should have went to law school but then I would have to be a lawyer.

Cubs

 

[toxic-megacolon]

The answer to this question really is if you are one-issue voter or not.

If you only care about a single issue:
"My taxes shouldn't pay for other people's laziness" or "I don't wanna hear anything else you say if you're gonna take my gun away." or "This country's going to hell because of all the sinners." You are probably more likely to vote Republican.

If you are the type to consider multiple issues simultaneously: corruption, foreign policy, the US's place in the world, the long-term state of the economy, education, civil rights, healthcare crisis, etc, etc. You are probably better of voting Democrat.

 

[toxic-megacolon]

Once the region get's some stability I think you will see an excellent return on our investment.

I'm sure the thousands of dead troops and their families would beg to differ.

 

[cubs3canes]

The answer to this question really is if you are one-issue voter or not.

If you only care about a single issue:
"My taxes shouldn't pay for other people's laziness" or "I don't wanna hear anything else you say if you're gonna take my gun away." or "This country's going to hell because of all the sinners." You are probably more likely to vote Republican.

If you are the type to consider multiple issues simultaneously: corruption, foreign policy, the US's place in the world, the long-term state of the economy, education, civil rights, healthcare crisis, etc, etc. You are probably better of voting Democrat.

Is ignorance truely bliss? This is officially the worst arguement I have ever heard. Lets look individually.

1) All politicans are corrupt and they all deny it. They all have to make deals that are below their moral compass in order to get stuff done. For example the defense spending bills have all of this pork attached to it because they need it to get the bill to pass. I agree that the Duke guy from California was bad for Republicans, however, if you think for one sec that the democrats are not taking lobbyist funds just like republicans, you are mistaken.

2) The democrats believe that if we just hide between our oceans, no one can hurt us. They were wrong. During Clinton's admin the first attack on the WTC. 8 months into Bush 2, the second attack on the WTC. Since WTC, no attacks on American soil. Who do you think is better for Foreign policy

3) The US's place in the world. If you are truely a patriot, then you are pro-American. Who do you think is fighting in that war. People from the middle of the country that care about American and American beliefs. Not people from the Southern tip of manhattan that are sipping their martinis. Democrats care about talk, repiblicans believe in action.

4) Education. Rep. believe that education is a local issue. Dem want to add as much beaurocracy to education as possible.

5) Civil Rights. The people that vote on this issue only vote democratic because of this issue. Ask someone who thinks civil rights is Americas most important issue, what they think the second most important issue is? You will hear crickets.

6)Healthcare Crisis. John Edwards...enough said.

Cubs

PS..can you tell which team I am on?

 

[militarymd]

I'm an ignorant ex-military redneck anesthesiologist who lives in the south....and I'll pick one Dick and one Bush.

 

[toxic-megacolon]

1) All politicans are corrupt and they all deny it. They all have to make deals that are below their moral compass in order to get stuff done. For example the defense spending bills have all of this pork attached to it because they need it to get the bill to pass. I agree that the Duke guy from California was bad for Republicans, however, if you think for one sec that the democrats are not taking lobbyist funds just like republicans, you are mistaken.

Agreed there is some level of corruptness in all politicians. But come on now, not all coruption is equal. Lying about a blowjob so your wife won't find out is on the same level as lying about WMDs and letting thousands of Americans die?? Can anyone really deny that Cheney, Rumsfeld, Frist, DeLay, Ashcroft etc, etc are among the scariest politicians we have in this country?


2) The democrats believe that if we just hide between our oceans, no one can hurt us. They were wrong. During Clinton's admin the first attack on the WTC. 8 months into Bush 2, the second attack on the WTC. Since WTC, no attacks on American soil. Who do you think is better for Foreign policy

The more we piss off the rest of the world, the more enemies we make. No Democratic leader is against fighting terror. But we need an intelligent way of doing it, and make allies at the same time. I've never felt as unsafe as an American when I travel abroad, since Bush came into power. We are NOT any safer today.

3) The US's place in the world. If you are truely a patriot, then you are pro-American. Who do you think is fighting in that war. People from the middle of the country that care about American and American beliefs. Not people from the Southern tip of manhattan that are sipping their martinis. Democrats care about talk, repiblicans believe in action.

You realize that the majority of funding for the war comes from those "southern tip of manhattan" people you talk about. 8/10 the top tax contributing states are blue, you realize. Additionally And there are plenty of states in middle america that went blue.


4) Education. Rep. believe that education is a local issue. Dem want to add as much beaurocracy to education as possible.

Education is largely a state issue. That's the problem. You realize that the red states are the least educated in the country.
For example:
http://www.ginandtacos.com/education.jpg
http://chrisevans3d.com/files/iq.htm
Not much more else to say on this.


5) Civil Rights. The people that vote on this issue only vote democratic because of this issue. Ask someone who thinks civil rights is Americas most important issue, what they think the second most important issue is? You will hear crickets.

Some great racists in the republican party. The friggin senate majority leader belonged to an all white country club. Homophobes, sexists. Oh plenty of them too... Strom Thurmond, David Duke, etc.


6)Healthcare Crisis. John Edwards...enough said.
To quote David Cross: Bush wants us to invest our future ability to cloth and feed ourselves on the stock market. Do you know how crazy that is??? Have you seen the stock market lately? Why not just bet the money on a hourse?

I enjoy debating politics. But please, at least give me a challenge instead of superficial arguments that have no merit like "Republicans are better at fighting the evil doers."

 

[toxic-megacolon]

I'm an ignorant ex-military redneck anesthesiologist who lives in the south....and I'll pick one Dick and one Bush.

And a Colon. (The Bowel, errr.. I mean Powell, not the Toxic)

 

[toxic-megacolon]

Does anyone want to bet that Misterioso is a Republican? I'm sure he'll be around soon.

 

[cubs3canes]

The more we piss off the rest of the world, the more enemies we make. No Democratic leader is against fighting terror. But we need an intelligent way of doing it, and make allies at the same time. I've never felt as unsafe as an American when I travel abroad, since Bush came into power. We are NOT any safer today.

If you feel so unsafe, then why dont you leave. I feel safer. Maybe I am weird, but I do not care about a couple of phone taps and warrants. I am not doing anything wrong. They can come to my house if they want. The only people beside the ACLU that care about phone taps and warrants and criminals, and do you think I care what they think?

You realize that the majority of funding for the war comes from those "southern tip of manhattan" people you talk about. 8/10 the top tax contributing states are blue, you realize. Additionally And there are plenty of states in middle america that went blue.

No, those people think they have the most money. Every city, parish, county and area of this great country has weathy people and you will soon be one of them (as will I). We are going to pay 42% of our salary so that people in the poorer areas of the country do not have to work. I live in a very poor city (especially after hurricane season), but I still think there needs to be some level of personal responsibilty. I know of a line cook at a great Oyster restaurant in New Orleans. He got 12000 from FEMA after Katrina. What do you think he did with that money. Well he is not working. He is still in Memphis, living in a government trailer or hotel (not sure), on your tab. There are plenty of jobs and places to live in his area (his apartment is also fine), but he lives off of your dime. I would rather him work.


Education is largely a state issue. That's the problem. You realize that the red states are the least educated in the country.
For example:
http://www.ginandtacos.com/education.jpg
http://chrisevans3d.com/files/iq.htm
Not much more else to say on this.

Have you ever lived in a red state? I would guess no. There a lot of reasons that do not have do to with federal government on why those states have poor education. However, it only looks at public education. People in those states with any brain go to private school. Also, in the blue states, look at the education in the city versus the rural areas of MA, NY, IL, CA. I believe you would see similiar results if they did not have the rich suburbia help even out the playing field.


Some great racists in the republican party. The friggin senate majority leader belonged to an all white country club. Homophobes, sexists. Oh plenty of them too... Strom Thurmond, David Duke, etc.

Affirmative action has done more to demoralize and devalue african americans than any other piece of legislation. Stop with the stereotypes.


To quote David Cross: Bush wants us to invest our future ability to cloth and feed ourselves on the stock market. Do you know how crazy that is??? Have you seen the stock market lately? Why not just bet the money on a hourse?

I enjoy debating politics. But please, at least give me a challenge instead of superficial arguments that have no merit like "Republicans are better at fighting the evil doers."

At least Bush wants people to feed themselves. Ted Kennedy and John Kerry would rather them line up on a food line in every major city so that we could feed the country. I would rather people get jobs and feed themselves.

It is easy to be for every social welfare program. It is easy to give people money. It is not easy to actually get someone a job, teach them to take care of themselves, and educate them. This is why Republicans want more money to be at the state/city level. They do not want nationwide welfare. WHy are more people working during the Bush administration then during the "economic boom" of the Clinton administration?

Also, toxic-mc...do you like your money? Do you really trust politicans with it, no matter what party? If yes, then vote dem. If no, then vote rep.

 

[toxic-megacolon]

If you feel so unsafe, then why dont you leave. I feel safer. Maybe I am weird, but I do not care about a couple of phone taps and warrants. I am not doing anything wrong. They can come to my house if they want. The only people beside the ACLU that care about phone taps and warrants and criminals, and do you think I care what they think?

This does not address my argument at all.



No, those people think they have the most money. Every city, parish, county and area of this great country has weathy people and you will soon be one of them (as will I). We are going to pay 42% of our salary so that people in the poorer areas of the country do not have to work. I live in a very poor city (especially after hurricane season), but I still think there needs to be some level of personal responsibilty. I know of a line cook at a great Oyster restaurant in New Orleans. He got 12000 from FEMA after Katrina. What do you think he did with that money. Well he is not working. He is still in Memphis, living in a government trailer or hotel (not sure), on your tab. There are plenty of jobs and places to live in his area (his apartment is also fine), but he lives off of your dime. I would rather him work.

Did you even remember what this original part of the argument was ABOUT?




Have you ever lived in a red state? I would guess no.

You guessed wrong.

People in those states with any brain go to private school.
What are you basing this on?

MA, NY, IL, CA. I believe you would see similiar results if they did not have the rich suburbia help even out the playing field.
Rural education in NY or IL is VERY different than WV or GA. Pretending its not is just ignorant.


Affirmative action has done more to demoralize and devalue african americans than any other piece of legislation. Stop with the stereotypes.
The Republican calling the Democrat racist?


At least Bush wants people to feed themselves. Ted Kennedy and John Kerry would rather them line up on a food line in every major city so that we could feed the country.

Who wouldn't? Show me a quote in proper context. from any respected politician that says that we should just have people live it up. Don't just make up random, unprovable statements.

WHy are more people working during the Bush administration then during the "economic boom" of the Clinton administration
Because there are more working age Americans currently. If you are a republican you DONT want Bush to have credit for what has happened to the economy in the last 6 years. You're supposed to blame it on Al-Qaeda and the ACLU, because the economy is way off track.

Also, toxic-mc...do you like your money?
I do, but not nearly as much as Cheney-Burton or Enron.

Do you really trust politicans with it, no matter what party? If yes, then vote dem. If no, then vote rep.

Ideally I'd want a third choice. Its ironic that you can put a party that produces the likes of Ashcroft, DeLay, and Cheney in the same paragraph as "trust." Obviously most Republicans are good people. Its the people that they they choose to represent them are a little questionable.

I am kind of annoyed at myself for entering this thread. We've all heard each others side. Bush got crushed in the presidential debates, but that didn't change anyone's mind about anything. I know I'm not going to get to anyone here. Its sort of like convincing a county hospital patient that Hot Cheetos and Pepsi is not an ideal breakfast, and that 100 dollar shoes is not a wise use of a welfare check. ITS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.




]

 

[militarymd]

myterioso is definitely a democrte

 

[toughlife]

I'm an ignorant ex-military redneck anesthesiologist who lives in the south....and I'll pick one Dick and one Bush.

I thought you were asian. Only whites can be rednecks. If you are asian but feel white then you are a twinkie.

 

[toxic-megacolon]

myterioso is definitely a democrte

You're on!

 

[cubs3canes]

You're on!

Good debate. I love a good debate.

 

[driverabu]

I agree. You should also realize that it is a FACT that the war make the war on terror worse. Iraq was not a terrorist state before the war and now it is. It has become a breeding ground for terrorists who want to kill American soldiers. Almost as many soldiers died in the war as the number of people who died on 9/11.The money we spent so far hasn't done much. Iraq doesn't even have electricity 24/7. Bush got us into such a mess its very difficult to find a solution. I don't know how anyone can vote republican in the next elections unless its a free-minded thinker like McCain. Sen. George Allen is just a lackey for Bush and would be more of the same.

Speaking of which....I can't think of one decent American who could possibly vote democrat in the next elections...all they want to do is give away all of our hard earned dollars to people who don't want to work!!! The proof is in the pudding...just pay attention to how the darn democrats are trying to sway the black and hispanic vote towards them and away from the republican party....they will promise them anything and everything if they vote democrat. To think that Iraq wasn't a breeding ground for terrorists before we invaded and that Bush turned it into one is just plain stupid....didn't you listen to that tape of SoDamnInsane talking about how the West (i.e. for those dummies out there, the United States!) would eventually go down in flames by the use of a "dirty bomb?" Who is the democratic party going to vote for in 08, Hillary? That woman doesn't give a rats behind about anybody but herself and Chelsey...Comparing the House of Representative being run like a plantation....what kind of idiot would say something like that? FOR ALL YOU SMART PEOPLE OUT THERE...VOTE REPUBLICAN IN 08!! I'm not saying that Bush is the brightest guy out there because he is not, but he does not speak for the rest of the decent Republicans....

 

[OzDDS]

Or Vote Hillary and then by the end of her term.. you'll get be equal partners in your anesthesia group practice with CRNAs who work less, make more, and have no legal responsibilty and pass the malpractice bill to you. 🙂

 

[toughlife]

Speaking of which....I can't think of one decent American who could possibly vote democrat in the next elections..all they want to do is give away all of our hard earned dollars to people who don't want to work!!! The proof is in the pudding...just pay attention to how the darn democrats are trying to sway the black and hispanic vote towards them and away from the republican party....they will promise them anything and everything if they vote democrat. To think that Iraq wasn't a breeding ground for terrorists before we invaded and that Bush turned it into one is just plain stupid....didn't you listen to that tape of SoDamnInsane talking about how the West (i.e. for those dummies out there, the United States!) would eventually go down in flames by the use of a "dirty bomb?" Who is the democratic party going to vote for in 08, Hillary? That woman doesn't give a rats behind about anybody but herself and Chelsey...Comparing the House of Representative being run like a plantation....what kind of idiot would say something like that? FOR ALL YOU SMART PEOPLE OUT THERE...VOTE REPUBLICAN IN 08!! I'm not saying that Bush is the brightest guy out there because he is not, but he does not speak for the rest of the decent Republicans....

I agree

 

[militarymd]

I thought you were asian. Only whites can be rednecks. If you are asian but feel white then you are a twinkie.

This nurse where I work tell me that I'm the only redneck asian that she knows...I'm not sure what she means.

 

[jwk]

I agree. You should also realize that it is a FACT that the war make the war on terror worse. Iraq was not a terrorist state before the war and now it is. It has become a breeding ground for terrorists who want to kill American soldiers. Almost as many soldiers died in the war as the number of people who died on 9/11.The money we spent so far hasn't done much. Iraq doesn't even have electricity 24/7. Bush got us into such a mess its very difficult to find a solution. I don't know how anyone can vote republican in the next elections unless its a free-minded thinker like McCain. Sen. George Allen is just a lackey for Bush and would be more of the same.

Gee I'm glad YOU are the one with the FACTS. I'm not sure where you get those FACTS, but why should WE question those FACTS when they're coming from YOU? 😴

Why are you scared for foreign ownership of the ports? This is the least of our worries. First, no port will actually be "owned" by UAE. They will actually be "run" by UAE.

Second, the big fear is that all of a sudden the workers at the ports are going to be foreign nationals with Middle East ties or even worse al-queda (sp?) ties. This is is not going to happen as long as the longshore union as anything to say about it. In order to load a ship at any port in the US, a unionized longshoreman has to be the workforce. If you think any longshore union is going to let foriegn nationals join their union or kick them out of the port you are crazy.

So what does this mean. All the UAE port deal means that a foreign company will run the business of loading and unloading at 6 ports including the one near my house in New Orleans. The workers will not change. The money will just go to UAE instead of Great Britian. There is very little change of security risk to the ports.

The problem with your argument is that port operators DO play a part in national security, and some of the information they handle in playing that role involved classified material. It goes beyond simply loading and unloading cargo. Me? I would prefer classified material relating to national security NOT go to any Islamic nation, "friend" or not, at this point in time.

So, which party is it more beneficial to be apart of for Anesthesiologists? Which party is more in line with keeping teh best interests of Anesthesiologists?

True, we all have differenes of opinions, but could ppl please give clear/factual info as to which party is more 'pro-anesthesia"? If you could even give me leads, that woudl be great.

Going back to the OP -

BOTH parties have members that are interested in the "best interests of anesthesiologists". ASA-PAC provides contributions to members of both parties to those legislators at the state and national level. Those political contributions are meted out based SOLELY on issues relating to anesthesiology and organized medicine. Abortion, the Iraq War, federal funding for highways, FEMA, yada, yada, yada are NOT the concern of the ASA-PAC.

I would encourage any of you to attend the ASA Legislative Conference held each spring in Washington, DC. You'll find it an eye-opening experience, and you'll learn a TON about politics and how the ASA and ASA-PAC try to represent YOUR interests in Washington, DC and state capitals around the country.

 

[HunterGatherer]

...all they want to do is give away all of our hard earned dollars to people who don't want to work!!! The proof is in the pudding...just pay attention to how the darn democrats are trying to sway the black and hispanic vote towards them and away from the republican party....

Could you be more clear on who are these lazy MFers that do not want to work? 🙄

 

[hoop_jumper]

I can. They are called supervising MDAs.

Could you be more clear on who are these lazy MFers that do not want to work? 🙄

 

[Danger Man]

I can. They are called supervising MDAs.

Hoop-jumper, what is up with you my man? What do you have against MDAs? I get it, you applied to several anesthesia programs and were told that you would have to settle on being a surgeon.

 

[blocks]

Hoop-jumper, what is up with you my man? What do you have against MDAs? I get it, you applied to several anesthesia programs and were told that you would have to settle on being a surgeon.

Nope, he's just another wanna-be doctor SRNA. He didn't have the stones to man up and be the best trained in healthcare, so instead of applying to medical school, he became a nurse, and is now convinced he is the equal or superior of a physician by training to become an nurse anesthetist. But deep down, he's just not comfortable with that. He is a joke--there are plenty of excellent CRNA's, but anytime you see one making insecure babblings like this, it cheapens the entire field.

Rock on hoop...we're not laughing with ya, we're laughing at ya.

 

[cubs3canes]

The problem with your argument is that port operators DO play a part in national security, and some of the information they handle in playing that role involved classified material. It goes beyond simply loading and unloading cargo. Me? I would prefer classified material relating to national security NOT go to any Islamic nation, "friend" or not, at this point in time.

The actual port workers will not change. That was the premise in my arguement. The port workers will be still be the longshoreman that have been there for years.

However, this arguement is mute because UAE pulled out last night.

 

[toughlife]

I can. They are called supervising MDAs.

and the lazy one whos who didn't work hard enough to make to med school are now CRNAs.

 

[katinka]

all they want to do is give away all of our hard earned dollars to people who don't want to work!!!

Unfortunately, I feel this is a simplified statement attempting to describe a complex situation. Life is not one-dimensional, as your statement would lead one to believe. Many of the people living in our country that you would describe as “not wanting to work” in fact do want to work or do work, many of them multiple jobs. However, in the poorer communities, there is a lack of access to resources and a long history of disenfranchisement that acts as an invisible roadblock to their success. In addition, many of the jobs available to those in the poorer communities are minimum wage jobs, which I think you would be hard pressed to argue is a living wage. After Katrina, we saw just how impoverished a large number of people are in our country and it was disturbing.

So why not go to college and get a higher education so they can get a higher paying job, right? You decided to go to medical school…. which obviously followed a successful tract at a four year college. For many, this is an easily attainable option whether they decide to take it or not. However, for a very large set of our population, going to college has never been an option. Not because they could not succeed in college but because of the lack of resources, lack of availability, and lack of hope. For me, it was never a question….. if I wanted to go to college, I could at any time. Now imagine if you were raised in a poor family, no one before you has gone to college, no one encourages you to go to college and the option of college has never felt open to you. It doesn’t mean it’s still not an option for you, but for many it poses an insurmountable challenge.

But all that aside, as I guess we probably won’t see eye to eye on those issues…… having part of my salary go to assisting others who have less access to resources or are disabled or what have you seems like such a small thing compared to the travesty of the men, women and children in our country who live and die in extreme poverty. Your right, if it were about fairness…it’s not fair that my salary partly goes to others. But to me it is not about fairness, it is about human decency. I am saddened by the despair in our country, and it doesn’t bother me that some of my money goes to helping those in despair. Call me a bleeding heart liberal, as I’m sure that is what you are thinking. And maybe you’re right, but I think there are worse things to be than someone who simply cares about the plight of others.

 

[driverabu]

Could you be more clear on who are these lazy MFers that do not want to work? 🙄

Sure, no problem....people on welfare...who have been on welfare for say....most of their life! If you want me to say black people, I'm not, because that's not the truth. There are plenty of my peeps (hispanics) and whites on welfare for way too long. Look, if the democratic party keeps telling people on welfare not to worry because they'll be taken care of..IF they vote democrat, exactly what incentives are these welfare recipients being given to get off their butts, quit having babies and get to work? Absolutely NO incentive..hell I wouldn't either! On the other hand, you have the Republican party who says yeah, we'll give you welfare, get you back on your feet, help you find a job, but after 2 years, if you don't have some kind of a job and the records show that you haven't even tried to get a job, you are not going to be receiving the money of hard working Americans anymore!!! Period!! That IS what a capitalistic society is isn't it? You work, you get money, you work harder, you get more money, etc. etc.? I guarantee you that these same people on welfare who think that the government will take care of them for the rest of their lives will get off their arses and look for work if the government told them that. You don't believe me? Please pay close attention once again to how the Democrats try to win people over as opposed to the Republicans...then we can talk. 😎

 

[driverabu]

poorer communities, there is a lack of access to resources and a long history of disenfranchisement that acts as an invisible roadblock to their success. In addition, many of the jobs available to those in the poorer communities are minimum wage jobs, which I think you would be hard pressed to argue is a living wage. After Katrina, we saw just how impoverished a large number of people are in our country and it was disturbing.

First of all, read my latest post which explains a little more of my "simple statement" which wasnt' simple at all. Second of all, what you are saying is proving my point. there is a history of disenfranchisement and that is true. My arguement is that that history came about...or partially came about by democrats promising those unfortunate poor people free money. Look, my point is that if you give people money, there is no incentive to work and after years and years pass, you have the situation that you just described. read my post before this one and then we can talk about this

 

[katinka]

Sure, no problem....people on welfare...who have been on welfare for say....most of their life! If you want me to say black people, I'm not, because that's not the truth. There are plenty of my peeps (hispanics) and whites on welfare for way too long. Look, if the democratic party keeps telling people on welfare not to worry because they'll be taken care of..IF they vote democrat, exactly what incentives are these welfare recipients being given to get off their butts, quit having babies and get to work?

Okay, so if I am to follow your argument here, then tell me what incentive we are giving corporations to get off welfare? I am often frustrated that people get so riled up about social welfare, but turn their face from the vast amount of government spending that goes to corporate welfare in this country...... and we're talking about welfare to corporations that turn grand profits every year, far greater than the sum of all our incomes will ever be.

 

[HunterGatherer]

Sure, no problem....people on welfare...who have been on welfare for say....most of their life! If you want me to say black people, I'm not, because that's not the truth. There are plenty of my peeps (hispanics) and whites on welfare for way too long. Look, if the democratic party keeps telling people on welfare not to worry because they'll be taken care of..IF they vote democrat, exactly what incentives are these welfare recipients being given to get off their butts, quit having babies and get to work? Absolutely NO incentive..hell I wouldn't either! On the other hand, you have the Republican party who says yeah, we'll give you welfare, get you back on your feet, help you find a job, but after 2 years, if you don't have some kind of a job and the records show that you haven't even tried to get a job, you are not going to be receiving the money of hard working Americans anymore!!! Period!! That IS what a capitalistic society is isn't it? You work, you get money, you work harder, you get more money, etc. etc.? I guarantee you that these same people on welfare who think that the government will take care of them for the rest of their lives will get off their arses and look for work if the government told them that. You don't believe me? Please pay close attention once again to how the Democrats try to win people over as opposed to the Republicans...then we can talk. 😎

So the Democratic Party should be swaying the vote of the "people on welfare...who have been on welfare for say....most of their life". In your previous post you mentioned swaying the black and hispanic vote. I see where you are coming from now. 🙄

 

[Danger Man]

Okay, so if I am to follow your argument here, then tell me what incentive we are giving corporations to get off welfare? I am often frustrated that people get so riled up about social welfare, but turn their face from the vast amount of government spending that goes to corporate welfare in this country...... and we're talking about welfare to corporations that turn grand profits every year, far greater than the sum of all our incomes will ever be.

Make no mistake--you are truly a bleeding heart liberal. If Katrina proved anything, it is that the government is basically inept at taking care of problems--whether they arise acutely or chronically. We have literally spent billions of dollars on social programs and to what result? We have more poor people who are less educated and less interested in becoming educated. We have created an underclass in society that has NO INCENTIVE to work or become educated. We are failing poor people not by "disenfranchisement" but by not giving them a reason or incentive to better their plight. We have created a group of people who continue to be reliant on Uncle Sam.

When it comes to our schools we have also faltered. Our public school system will only be as solid as the families who send their kids for an education. Education must be stressed at home by the parents and other family members. If education is not made a priority, NO AMOUNT OF MONEY CAN HELP THE SCHOOLS!!! The disintegration of the family is the main problem in the US and no government program can help--people need to take some responsibility for their actions (having kids out of wedlock, quitting school, crime).

By the way, at least we get something back from corporate welfare (l love these lefty words)--jobs, productivity, SS taxes, and personal income tax revenue. Our return from social welfare?--Please fill me in.

 

[toxic-megacolon]

By the way, at least we get something back from corporate welfare (l love these lefty words)--jobs, productivity, SS taxes, and personal income tax revenue. Our return from social welfare?--Please fill me in.

What do you think is the biggest difference is between living in the the US and, say, India for a doctor. I mean in your day to day life? As a doc in India you would have a great standard of life for yourself, probably be able to bribe your way into not paying taxes. Hell you might even be able to afford servants, etc. So why the US? Please don't say something cliche like "freedom" because there are MANY countries with more freedom than us...
One of the biggest things you would notice is in developing countries you see people on the streets, dying, starving, etc. On a daily basis. How could you watch that everyday on your commute to work? You really think that by taking away welfare, many of these people are going to work? No they are in the worst possible situation right now, and many are not going to change. They are going to come out on the streets begging for money. What are we going to tell our kids. Yeah, we can afford it as a country, but screw 'em, they don't work, so its their choice to starve, watch them rot on the street.
That is part of what makes America great. We don't accumulate thousands of people on our streets without homes. Keep cutting welfare, and yeah, you'll have more money in your bank account, and so will millions of Americans, but Houston is going to start looking like Bombay or Mexico City! Welfare is totally frustrating and unfair. But its something that we are just going to have to do.

 

[katinka]

Make no mistake--you are truly a bleeding heart liberal.

Ah, you sweet talker, you’re making me blush. 😛

When it comes to our schools we have also faltered. Our public school system will only be as solid as the families who send their kids for an education. Education must be stressed at home by the parents and other family members. If education is not made a priority, NO AMOUNT OF MONEY CAN HELP THE SCHOOLS!!! The disintegration of the family is the main problem in the US and no government program can help--people need to take some responsibility for their actions (having kids out of wedlock, quitting school, crime).

You are absolutely right. Here is the thing— we agree on our recognition of what is the problem, but we disagree on our application of a solution. I just don’t see how the answer to an ever-growing problem is to turn our backs on the problem. Of course, simply subsidizing the poor and the indigent is not enough to solve the problem when the surrounding infrastructure and system is so broken. And yes that includes the family as you mentioned and the education system. These are two institutions that used to be highly regarded in our society and have slowly been thrown by the wayside. We don’t pay our educators enough to give incentive for those who would be quality teachers to go into the field. Further, there is a major difference between the qualities of teacher in the upper class schools versus the inner city schools. Not to mention the paucity of after school programs in the inner cities that would help to keep our kids off the streets and away from gangs and drugs. And without a stable family base, we basically have provided little hope or security to those growing up in such despair.
It is a profoundly difficult problem to solve, and in all honestly I don’t know what the answer is and I doubt either you or I have come up with it. We just have 2 different philosophies and probably neither is right.

By the way, at least we get something back from corporate welfare (l love these lefty words)--jobs, productivity, SS taxes, and personal income tax revenue. Our return from social welfare?--Please fill me in.

Well…here’s one I know personally………my birth father left my mother with 2 young children and no money. She had no job. She didn’t have a college education (she dropped out of UC Berkeley in her freshman year to run away with my father…..). Not to mention, she couldn’t afford childcare in order to get a job. So, she went on welfare for several months (less than a year) while she learned some marketable skills and eventually found a job. She ended up becoming a very successful businesswoman and raised my brother and me comfortably. We have both grown up to become successful and productive members of society ourselves, and I think we are giving quite a bit back to society. Honestly, that story is not unusual…….there are many, many people just like my mother who have benefited greatly from social welfare, and society has benefited greatly as well.

 

[Jalopycat]

Ok I guess I'll bite.

Before I went to medical school I was a social worker. I was also a democrat. A bleeding heart democrat. I thought I could help everybody. Well, the truth is, the people I saw on welfare didn't want my help. They had nicer TV's than I had, more food than I had, got free daycare, and got more money back on their taxes than they paid in. Thousands more. It bothers me that I'm forced to support this lifestyle with my hard earned money. And has anyone ever noticed that the fattest people in the US are the poor ones? Obviously nobody in this country is starving while they are living off Uncle Sugar.

And if anyone fails to remember, terrorism was a problem way before Bush came into office. We just refused to see it for what it was. Anybody happen to remember the first World Trade Center bombing, the USS Cole bombing in Yemen, or the US embassy bombing in Tanzania? I do. And I also remember we did nothing. Oh sure, we arrested a few guys, but we essentially did nothing. Had we addressed the problem then, maybe things wouldn't be so out of control now.

Ok I'm finished. You guys get the idea where I'm at on these issues. 🙂

 

[Tiagao]

[The disintegration of the family is the main problem in the US and no government program can help--people need to take some responsibility for their actions (having kids out of wedlock, quitting school, crime).


👍

 

[cubs3canes]

[The disintegration of the family is the main problem in the US and no government program can help--people need to take some responsibility for their actions (having kids out of wedlock, quitting school, crime).


👍

I also agree with us.

 

[ultraconsrvativ]

The Dems solution to health care is to give more power to mid level practitioners such as nurse practitioners and CRNAs and reduce physicians power and reimbursement. Remember Bill Clinton, via an outgoing executive order, allowed CRNAs to practice independently without a physician. Bush overturned it quickly. Dems want socialized medicine also.

 

[cubs3canes]

The Dems solution to health care is to give more power to mid level practitioners such as nurse practitioners and CRNAs and reduce physicians power and reimbursement. Remember Bill Clinton, via an outgoing executive order, allowed CRNAs to practice independently without a physician. Bush overturned it quickly. Dems want socialized medicine also.

This is the key to living in the future the way we live now. If we want to turn into our big brothers up North were everyone waits 6 months for an appointment and no one makes any money, then vote for the Dems.

I agree that access to healthcare needs to change in some respect for the lower classes of america. However, the one-payer system does not work. Do not quote me on this but isn't like 50-60% of the entire Canadian budget spent in healthcare. This is not what we want. No one wins in this situation, the patients or the physicians.