In Oregon, it came yesterday,
I voted for Ralph Nader! LOL!

Got mine in the mail last week, apparently they're a bit quicker on the draw in Washington.

Lots of things on the ballot and candidates in Spokane County to study up on before filling it out ...

Got my Washington one last week.

Voted straight Republican except for the judges and such where I voted "Write-In" and left it blank.

There was only one candidate in those runnings, so it really doesn't matter!

Straight Republican just for the sake of voting Republican?
Just wondering????

We've got ours.

Everybody, but for my father in law, is voting a straight Democratic ticket.

He's probably going to go there, but we won't know for a bit.

All of us are working through the ballot measures. After reading these goofy things, I seriously think we should sharply limit the funding available or permissible for generating them.

Oregon is always dealing with test bed measures and they consume time and carry significant risk we just don't need.

Not liking many of these at all. Never do.

My father is the only family member voting Republican. He's doing it because he doesn't want to be part of Obama's SOCIALIST nation. He's been listening to LimBALH's bullshit for the last 3 weeks and he's convinced that Obama's going to take his guns (he has none) and turn us into a socialist nation.

Skybill-

Just so I understand, you left a place blank on your mail in voter card?

It's my understanding you have fill it completely out to be considered legal.

If I am wrong then let me know.

I'm voting for the Republican attorney general candidate in Oregon. :-)

Andrew

I saw Sarah Palin on Cnn looking at the signs the people made, one said "I'm the only Republican at my school!"
I voted Republican when there was one running! :-O

My vote is sacred to me. So, whom I vote for is none of anyone's business. Ballot Measures on the other hand are different than voting for people. I pretty much voted no on ALL the Oregon ballot measures. Sponsored by Sizemore? No. Vague? No. The only one I voted yes on was the open primary one.

"You are not required to vote for all offices or measures on the ballot." Details

Vern--

No, I got my ballot on Friday.
I *mailed it* yesterday! ;o)

> He's [Trixter's father] doing it because he doesn't want to be part of Obama's SOCIALIST nation.

If your dad had been listening to Bill Valentine instead of Rush Limbaugh, he would know that dirigism (or dirigisme) is the correct term to use, not socialism. Socialism means that businesses are owned and run by the government. Dirigism means that businesses are privately owned but heavily regulated. I think it is a safe bet that things will move in a more dirigistic direction in the US, even if McCain wins.

I think the only reason you wouldn't want to let someone know who you voted for is because you're ashamed of your vote.

Straight Republican just for the sake of voting Republican?
Just wondering????

Yep. I don't vote for Democrats. I'd toss my ballot in the trash first.

Skybill-

Just so I understand, you left a place blank on your mail in voter card?

It's my understanding you have fill it completely out to be considered legal.

If I am wrong then let me know.

Chris, I'm not sure. What I left blank was the name part of the write in field.

I haven't mailed it yet, so I'll check and see. If that's the case then I'll write some name in there. Probably Mickey Mouse!

My ballot is still sitting on my table next to the lazyboy. I am waiting till Halloween to see what happens next that may change my mind in the presidential race.

I like the piece I just read about 'drive up voting ' in California. No burger and fries, just a 'vote ' please !

Vitalogy wrote:

I think the only reason you wouldn't want to let someone know who you voted for is because you're ashamed of your vote.

I think that I have made it abundantly clear whom I voted for in the Presidential race. I even posted the Reagan clip that was posted here on myspace. I tried posting to Facebook but it added the comment by the original Youtube poster and I couldn't edit that out. :P
So, if anyone on this board can't figure it out by my posts, they need to go back and read them.

Skybill..
That's one of the main reasons YOUR party is the party of yesteryear and not the party of today. That's sad to hear....

I guess I wasn't clear. Seeing that your myspace page says you live in Eugene, I'm a tad more clear now (at least I hope!)

I have to say Trixler is right. People voting for the same old ethics lacking Republicans over and over again brought us to the state we are in today.

Besides Skybill, I thought you were solidly against returning long time politicans to office, and McCain is just that.

Why not pick a third party candidate?

Currently there aren't any 3rd party candidates that I would support. Also, a vote for a 3rd party right now would most likely just take a vote from McCain.

While I am not overly thrilled with McCain, I definitely don't want Obama to win.

In this election, like the last one, we are not choosing the person who is going to be best for the country; we will be choosing the person who will be least bad.

My ideal scenario would be for McCain to win do a good job in his first term, get re-elected then about 2/3 of the way thru that term be incapacitated in some way that he couldn't be President anymore and Palin would take over.

Just imagine how PISSED Hillary would be about not being the first woman president!!! Now that would be fantastic!

Anything to piss off Hillary is OK in my book.

I definitely don't want Obama to win.

No reason??? Just don't want him to win.... Maybe that's why I can't vote for McCain...

Palin would take over.
For the love of God up above! Now I know that your insane Sky....
WOW!

Anything to piss off Hillary is OK in my book.

Including the election of someone ethically challenged? You're a businessman and Palin, the president, isn't going to be kind to your pocketbook (consumers will not have money to spend).

Besides, hasn't Obama already pissed off Hillary by denying her the White House? If anything, he deserves your vote for that. Then in 4 years you can vote him out if he doesn't measure up.

I've asked this question before but what is it that people are afraid Obama might do?

With McCain, I've a list. With Palin, an even longer list. Obama, hmm?

Ok ok... ease up. Skybill has a right to express his political positions, not only here but on his ballot. While I disagree with his choice, I will offer him the same respect I would hope to be given in return. I know quite a few people that won't vote one party or the other and the thought of a third party candidate is heresy. My high school swimming/water polo coach is one just off the top of my head. Did his political leanings make me respect him less? No. And it shouldn't here either. Civility in political discourse needs to be reinvented in America. The screaming talking heads, the divisiveness of both parties, and the politics of fragmentation don't get issues resolved. I think everyone the boards can agree that while we might disagree on minutiae of policy there can be a common ground found for all.

On the other hand this is a public forum and the person posted his choice in this very thread with no gun at his head, thus fair game. If he didn't reveal his choice I wouldn't be attempting to squeeze it out of him. Besides, saying anything to piss off Hillary is OK in my book as an answer to a question in a public forum usually is an invitation for further response.

Civility in political discourse needs to be reinvented in America.

Since the founding fathers, political discourse hasn't been as civil as it could have been. We're not going to change it now.

I've asked this question before but what is it that people are afraid Obama might do?

A partial list; (for me anyway)

Socialized Medicine
Raise Taxes
Gun Control
More Government giveaways
Appoint liberal judges to the Supreme Court
Further gut the Military
Lead our Country further down the road to socialism

Just a few of my disagreements with him.

"I think everyone the boards can agree that while we might disagree on minutiae of policy there can be a common ground found for all."

Absolutely there is!

It's called the public interest and it's not often talked about because that has been carved out into partisan ideological fiefdoms. IMHO, this divisive crap lets corporations increase their freedom at our expense.

And yes, I'm anti-corporation where it comes to profit being built AT THE EXPENSE of the public interest. Business should make as much as it can, but it needs to do so by adding value, not bleeding it from the common interest we all share.

That's roads, police, creative works (public domain after copyright expires), personal freedom, the environment, etc...

We may differ, and in fact we do differ, on just what the public interest is, and that's the discussion that is necessary going forward. Expanding on that and setting some boundaries, other than "the market will decide" will help with the level of discourse greatly.

As a thought exercise, consider an issue that is non-partisan! Tough huh? Well, it shouldn't be.

Somewhere we've embraced the idea that an ideology is a solution when it's really just a reasoning tool. eg: It's possible to take a liberal or conservative approach to a PUBLIC matter, in the hopes of arriving at a solution that SERVES the PUBLIC INTEREST.

Instead, we vote for conservatives and or liberals and others, thinking then that is the right approach, based on our ideology. This is not getting us anywhere, simply because blindly applying an ideology does not make for a means to an end.

Developing the means to achieve an end, requires applying ideologies to real world dynamics, with the idea of changing the state of things now in order to realize a different state of things tomorrow.

We used to do this a lot more than we do now.

Wedge issues are used to tag things as being in one camp or the other. This is a false choice or perception.

eg: nobody owns faith! Everybody has some measure of faith because everybody shares the state of living in the world where a large number of things are unknown.

another eg: Liberals will take your guns.

Governments take guns. People empower governments to do so (at least here they do) through apathy (letting it happen out of fear), or through ignorance (belief that we are better off without them somehow)

If we are to get along, we absolutely must be capable of differentiating these things as PUBLIC MATTERS and use ideology to drive ideas that can become policy after robust debate.

The debate is only robust and only serves the public interest if MULTIPLE ideologies are represented and heard.

And that, BTW is the downside of one party control. The only saving grace on this one, for me personally, is Obama clearly being willing to work to restore the debate and end the division. We shall see when he builds his administration.

And that's a risk, but a risk I'm quite willing to take, given the known alternatives presented to us by the Republicans so far. They need to get some work done, their house in order, to be ready to enter the debate proper, have their ideas and ideology stand on it's merits, not on the strength of their ability to bully, cheat, corrupt and abuse power.

Think about it. If their way of doing things was so damn good for us, why the need to lie, cheat, steal and bully their agenda?

Anyway Moman, you are quite right. It's difficult to always be civil because of these problems.

One counter point is that we won't see significant change unless there is social pressure to do so.

eg: If somebody is a bigot, and somebody else does not call them on it, then as a society we are embracing the idea that it's perfectly ok to be a bigot. (and it's just not) We live with the idea that they have the right to try and be a bigot, but they too must live with the reality that many non-bigots are gonna make them feel like shit about it.

And that's the core of the first amendment.

I'm always cautious to limit what we call civil, as in "hate speech" that's really just extreme disapproval. Too many artifical boundaries in this and we lose the benefit of the very discourse we need to keep ourselves both out of trouble and in a growing state of improvement.

Frankly, "Anything to piss off Hilary" is exactly what Skep said it is. I'm of the mind to consider that somebody willing to say that is also somebody that can take the heat for having said it.

My own position here is to press hard on the value judgment.

Is pissing Hilary off worth the damage we are gonna see from McCain? Worse, Palin is an out of the closet theocrat, who makes Cheney look like a teddy bear by comparison!

The woman actually said the Vice runs the Senate!

Think about the ramifications of that level of ignorance and it's impact on future policy decisions and our discourse.

It's not worth it, and that's a really easy burden to meet. Easy enough that I don't buy that as a valid position. It's a cop out for some other thing.

And saying that other thing might just be more painful than taking the heat for the Hilary comment.

Fair is fair you know!

For the record, I've met Skybill and like him. That does not mean I'm not gonna apply the pressure, when warranted. I also fully expect the same treatment in like kind.

We grow stronger and better that way. No pain, no gain.

And that's what the founders intended with the first amendment.

Skybill, I might not convince you, but we are friends, so I hope you will hear me out. I want to address some of your concerns about Obama.

"Socialized Medicine" was the Clinton plan, but Obama wants to offer something different. His proposal helps you pay for the insurance you already have at work, and helps businesses to afford to insure more workers. If you are not insured through your job, you can pick your own plan, your own doctors and your own hospital. It will also make sure families can provide health care for every child -- including your new grandkid. He has no mandated insurance for adults. It is entirely voluntary. McCain, on the other hand, would tax all health insurance as income.

Obama will "Raise Taxes" on the top 5% of earners in the United States. Period. Everybody else will get a break. Folks earning $250,000 or more will return to the same tax level they had under Bill Clinton. The increase for the wealthy is only going from 36% to 39%. Small businesses will have absolutely no capital gains tax, can claim deductions for putting investment into growth, and every business will get a tax credit for hiring Americans. Unlike the current system, seniors will not pay tax on Social Security unless they are doing very well without it, there will be no tax breaks for outsourcing jobs, and folks will no longer be able to squirrel away billions tax free in tiny island banks.

"Gun Control" is a hot button issue, but we all agree that preserving the Constitution is important. Like every member of law enforcement, Obama wants to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. He has absolutely no problem with law abiding citizens who want to bear arms. Will a mentally ill college kid have a harder time buying a gun on-line to mow down his classmates? Probably, yes. Will a sportsman be affected? Absolutely not.

"More Government giveaways" are not possible at this juncture. As if 10 billion a month to Iraq is not enough of a candy store for fraud and waste. All government contracts will be reviewed, no-bid gravy boats will be scuttled and failed programs will be axed. Off-shore tax loopholes and subsidies for overseas jobs will be cut off. Only businesses that grow our domestic economy, hire stateside employees, or develop homegrown green energy sources and new technologies, can benefit from the system. Military service will be a bona fide path to education and the American dream. Kids who want to go to college will have to earn it, but the opportunity will be created for them to do it. Old people will be taken care of because they paid taxes all their lives. He does plan on the sort of investments that Eisenhower made in the 1950s in our infrastructure, but that is a net positive for everybody.

"Appointing liberal judges to the Supreme Court" is only a concern if you are among the folks who are wanting to overturn Roe vs. Wade. Obama appointees will not be enacting Federal mandates for state determined issues like gay marriage. Since a few of the current members of the bench are either mute or extreme, a balance will once again be struck. It will be harder to justify pay discrimination against women (like Goodyear), there will no free passes for ignoring the rule of law (like domestic spying), and it will be far more difficult to permanently destroy vast natural resources, force the government and private sector to clean up your mess, and put thousands of people out of work without compensation (like Exxon). The new justices will be much more aware of their responsibility to preserve and protect our liberties and the Constitution.

No President has done more to "Further gut the Military" than our current leader. Troop pay is stagnant, our men and women are ill-equipped, and every one of them have to spend their own money for basics like toiletries, uniforms and body armor. Many are sent into battle without basic things to keep them safe like proper training and good equipment. They routinely serve six year hitches with five tours of duty. These conflicts are stretching them to the breaking point. The promised benefits like college are often just bait-n-switch. Veterans health care is an utter nightmare. Private contracting has eliminated many mundane jobs like KP, while charging exponentially more money than the Pentagon for the same shitty chow. An Obama administration will bolster our troops. I do anticipate a reduction in no-bid contracts, and a higher standard for those who provide weapons, aircraft, vehicles and the like. I also see our soldiers finally getting the respect and support that they deserve. His allies in this regard are not mushy liberals unless you count General Jim Jones, or Senators Dick Lugar and Jim Webb in that crowd.

After eight years of an administration borrowing billions from a communist superpower, it is hard to imagine anyone doing more to "Lead our Country further down the road to socialism" than the current crew. Our taxes have been subsidizing huge industries, private armies, the banking system, and stockbrokers. If you mean restoring Social Security benefits to seniors, yes, he is going to do it. If you mean reinforcing our private healthcare system so it is preventative, and not just a "disease care" system, yes. If you mean creating huge programs for ne'er-do-wells, no, it is not gonna happen.

Forget about all the hype and distortion of the campaigns. Obama is a whole lot more fiscally conservative than his counterparts. He is more socially conservative too. His record is proof. He has a very solid grasp of the Constitution and that includes the second amendment. His proposed big projects are in infrastructure, education, energy and economic development. These are steps to insure our future in a global economy. He also cares far more about our military, returning veterans and their families than any of this current group in office.

I hope folks will forgive me for saying so, but honestly Bill, Obama is actually pretty square. He is not a celebrity or messiah or superstar at all. He is a really smart, really logical, really rational, really dedicated public servant. He was born with a natural knack for civics, a way with people, and a deep love of America. His success is due to decades of dedication, not sudden adoration. George Will called him "boring" and I think that is a good attribute. America could do with a whole lot less chaos right about now.

If you know the facts, you might disagree with him, but he is not very far from the center. There are really solid reasons why so many conservatives are backing Barack Obama.

One other thing about being civil.

So, it's ok for us to have a discussion and differ on socalized medicine, for example.

However, if that discussion is robust and the merits outweigh the risks, in the minds of enough Americans, then we are gonna give it a shot.

Again, if the current conservative ideology says we take it private, and that idea has merit, then let it stand on merit!

Tell us why we shouldn't have national health care.

Instead of that, we've got voter suppression, lies, robocalls and god knows what else!

Why do that, if the ideas themselves have merit?

Worse, if we've got people who are gonna do that, and other people who support them doing that, because they think they are right and either cannot or won't do the work to meet their burden, what do we do then?

Let them do it anyway?

No way man! That's exactly what got us here in the first place.

Speak or be spoken for. I won't do worse, but I absolutely will go to the mat on a matter, if I see the other burden has not been met, and a dodge of some kind is being used to rule the day.

That's not American at all. None of us should stand for it --ever.

Dealing with that dilemma is just not always nice and civil Moman. And sadly, that's just how it is.

And maybe I'm not on the high ground for that. In fact, I think I'm not. But then again, I can only take so much shit before I lower the bar and deal as good as I was dealt.

No worse, mind you. When the level of discourse rises, I'll rise too. I'll also try really hard to take the high road and demonstrate we can go there and get stuff done, but I absolutely have had enough of being hobbled by thinking that must always be the way of things when others do not share that same belief.

My position on socalized medicine, AKA national single payer health care, is simple.

Through no fault of my own, despite having paid a ton in premiums, I've lost my home and my equity because somebody in my family happened to get sick.

Instead of being self-employed, I'm essentially enslaved to a corporation that is literally forced by law to give me some level of access to health care that won't by law, exploit me to a degree that makes it useless.

By law, I cannot obtain private health care that makes sense. By law, those private corporations will try to exploit me to the max, by delivering the least care possible for the most dollars possible.

That's the business they are in! Go read their financial statements and documents of incorporation. It's all right there.

I would absolutely love to be self-employed again and be able to enjoy the wealth I am currently forced to build for others.

I would buy health insurance through private entities, if I could actually trust them to deliver care, instead of deny it and just take the dollars.

And again, the only thing that prevents that from happening across the board is Oregon State law that mandates coverage and prohibits them from canceling expensive patients.

In the private sector, where individuals buy insurance, that law does not apply, meaning if most of us ever use our individual policy, we run the risk of extremely high rates, and or being denied future coverage.

And once that happens, you are uninsurable period.

Now, there is the emergency room. Well ok. That cost me about 60K dollars, for that one visit where we are told we can get care, if we don't have insurance. That's the McCain fall back right?

Well, I guess the one advantage to renting is that I don't have to worry about much. Then again, I'm not building anything for myself either.

Funny how that works huh?

I have Canadian friends. They don't worry about these things. They don't fear losing it all over some sickness and they get the care they need.

They can get better care, if they want to pay for it too, but they get the care they need without being turned into some kind of slave to others, simply because somebody fell ill at the wrong time.

I'll take that deal ANYTIME.

Just give us a single pay system, cut private insurance to optional luxery policies, and reduce the overhead those companies bring to the table and pass that savings right along to the American people.

Yep. I'm sold. Been there, done that and let me tell you, it really sucks.


Raise taxes?

Heh.. What do you think about the Republicans selling our future for war profits now? What do you think about them pushing to deregulate the markets so they can gamble with your pension and 401K dollars?

What about the devaluation of the dollar Skybill?

That's a tax you know. It's a tax on your working wage, and it's a tax on those dollars you've saved. There are no shelters for that. It's just worth less, and they just print more and you just work harder.

Nice deal huh?

Government Giveaways?

Hell, the Republicans pushed for the biggest ass giveaway ever! Bush basically said, we need to bail out wall street, and pushed for continuing to pay off the CEO's too!

I'm quite tired of having risk pushed onto me. Had enough. This whole privatize the profits, socalize the losses crap is another damn tax. It's a tax on your future earnings Skybill.

It's just not a tax right now.

Does that make a difference? It sure does to me. Having lost what I built up to retire on, I'm looking hard at having to build again, and seeing a lot of that future already sold.

Fuckers.

Maybe I'll just leave that topic right there, but to say I'm sure glad we didn't give the Social Security away to the same markets that lost all our 401K gains over the Bush administration.

Go ahead and look at it. Look at your statement from 2000 and subtract. It's ugly man. Really ugly. Most people gained absolutely nothing over the last 8 years.

That's a tax on your golden years.

Liberal Judges to the Supreme Court.

Well, just how many conservative ones do we need? All of them? Doesn't that sort of defeat the purpose of having the court in the first place? Afraid of having your ideas on how things should be done stand on their merits?

Maybe we should just legislate everything. Thought conservatives were about individual freedom and states rights.

Packing that court with all conservatives means circumventing the democratic process. That's not American, it's fascist.

Republicans have broken the military. Troops are stretched to the absolute limit, and to add salt, they pushed hard AGAINST rewarding them proper!

Took a freshman DEMOCRAT, named Jim Webb, to step up and push that through. Only after he was going to look like a total ass in an election year, did we see McCain finally try and take some credit for good legislation he and his party blocked over and over.

Now, having said those things, let's just say we differ! It's all good man. We can have a beer and talk about cars and radio and I like you as much as I always have.

Let your ideas stand on their merit. That's what the vote is for.

You vote your interest, I vote mine and together we engage the process and decisions get made.

Afraid it won't go your way? Fair question right?

Have you thought perhaps it just shouldn't?

I have. I think the same thing about my ideas for how it should go to.

The difference between us is supporting parties that are willing to fight below the belt to push their stuff through. Mine won't, yours will.

Honestly, I can totally grok why you hold the positions you do Skybill. What I can't get is how you can support the party, given the harm it's done and the lies, corruption and stealing it has also done.

I can't help but ask the question, "If the conservative way is so good for us, so right, how come we have to endure so much crap over conservatives making damn sure it's their way or the highway?"

they think they are right and either cannot or won't do the work to meet their burden, what do we do then?

Here's something for the 23 percenters to think about . . . It was pretty difficult to sit through 6 years of pure BS ("we KNOW where they are", remember?) only to have the new Democrats and Poseci let Bush off the hook after the 2006 election (accountability, hmm?) in the name of "civility", but if McCain wins along with his truly inept VP, I'm going to stoop to their level and make their lives just plain miserable in a way I haven't done with Bush. I'm quite sure I'm not alone.