If the elections were held tomorrow, who would you vote for?

[Zeta]

I personally, do not believe there is even a group C. Every President has done things that were wrong, so it isn't like any single one is perfect, heh.

I really liked the way that Baron put it. The difference between the way I used my internet sources and the way Garelock used his, is the fact that you can open any history textbook/biography and see the points that I brought up. His were just news articles. Granted, in the future these things will definately be put into history books, but more will be done about them. They will find exactly where all their intelligence faults occured, and ways that they could and should have seen past them.

I agree with Chibi on a few points. He did a very good job in Afghanistan, and I completely agree with her saying that it is hard to go through with plans when people are opposed to it. That makes complete sense. I should have brought that in sooner, but was too preoccupied. I really liked that, good job.

[QUOTE]Now onto paragraph two. You know although I really like the war on Iraq, because in my mind no one else would've taken the measures to stop Suddam, I don't think he lied to us. As it has been said in this thread even Clinton stated there were WMD's in Iraq. That was the information we had at the time, granted it was bad information, it was the info we had on the time. I respect Bush on the fact that he acted on the information that he had. Many people call this idiotic, but the simple fact is most people don't do that now, and in a world of genocide and terrorism I think thats important.[/QUOTE]


Exactly what I was saying, I am glad to see that some people can atcually understand what I am talking about.

Bush is overall, the true lesser of the two evils. He has been C-in-C for four years. He at least has some clue as to what comes with this position, moreso than Kerry. Imagine if Roosevelt had lost his re-elections, and some other President was running the country. Things would change, possible for the worse, possible for the better. This is the same thing going on here. Change something out in the middle, and it will only go in a different direction than planned. Rather stay on a straight path, and know exactly what we are trying to do, to the best of our ability.

[Panda]

Just a friendly reminder. Do not use this thread to flame each other. Discussion on the different views of the political landscape is fine, name calling and flaming is not.

[Boba Fett]

[QUOTE=Baron Samedi][size=1]Side A contests that Bush is an idiot with no clue, no plans, and should be kicked out and lynched for the war on Iraq and just being a general moron.

Side B contests that Bush isn't actually that bad, and that whilst he has done wrong things, and questionable things, you cannot lay all the blame solely at his feet.[/size][/QUOTE]

[color=green]Side C Contests that Bush has been an all around great president on the economic, domestic and foreign policy fronts. He?s made his share of minor mistakes, but nothing that should give cause for serious opposition to a second term.

Side D Contests that Bush is the worst thing that?s ever happened to America, and would like to see him physically hurt. This group thinks everything Bush touches is instantly defiled?

Simply put, side C is where I stand. I couldn?t agree more with Siren about arguing with others on these points.[/color]

[Brasil]

[quote name='Boba Fett']Simply put, side C is where I stand. I couldn?t agree more with Siren about arguing with others on these points.[/quote]Huh? I think you may have mistaken me for someone else here, Dave, lol.

Okay, uh...I've read through this thread, and it's all one big pissing contest here, a pissing contest I'm not going to be drawn into. Some of this thread is just so absurd that it's not even worth pointing out some major flaws in both sides of the arguments. There are some points that are just total misinterpretations of what the two candidates are saying...it's like the members are trying to spin it so it suits their argument or something. I'm not going to get into that, however. What I am going to clear up is No Child Left Behind, because as far as I can tell, nobody here really knows or understands anything about it, regardless of being for or against it.

As to avoid any pointless comparisons between myself and particular hot-headed members here, I'm not going to profess myself as any real authority on the matter--rather, any official authority on the matter. But I believe I have enough experience in the field of education to be able to make a reasonable assessment of NCLB. Those of you who know me and talk to me on a regular basis know me to be very "with it" when it comes to education, educational psych, and education theory, so I'm not talking out of my -ss here, like some have been.

Okay, a few months back, probably in Jan 04, there was a thread on NCLB in OL. If you run a search in the Archives, you'll find it. DeathBug and I had a bit of a talk about NCLB, and more or less simply explored what the implications of and reasoning behind NCLB were. Ultimately, the conclusion reached was that NCLB was going to prove more detrimental than anything else, due to some incredibly questionable planning and approaches.

Quite possibly the most disturbing portion of NCLB is the evaluation criteria that a school is rated on in order to assess what the school "needs." The sole evaluation criterion, it seems, is standardized testing. If you were to read up on the raging debate over the standardized test, you would see that the validity and effectiveness of those Scantrons are being heavily scrutinized, and you may ask yourself why.

The answer particularly relates to ethnic and cultural backgrounds that may or may not enable a student of said ethnicity or culturicity (may not be an actual term, keep in mind) to do as well as they could. Scantrons are believed to level the playing field. What many do not realize is that that "level" playing field sometimes is setting a height that students are unable to achieve, whether it be learning disabilities, simple test anxiety, or simply a lingual/ethnic/background barrier. I mean, let's face it. We've all had our fair share of test anxieties in our schooling career, and we've all bombed Scantrons before. Given this, does it make sense for an entire school's "grade" to be based on those test results?

Actually, it's not even plural, too. From what I've read, and from the actual legislation, there is only one (yes, one) standardized test given per year. A comparison to the GEPAs, HSPAs, PSATs, etc., is an accurate comparison. Furthermore, the tests are not repeated for each class each year, instead...I'll use the following as an example:

You have the Junior class, the class of 2001. They're taking the NCLB test in their Junior year and score...an 80.

The next year, in order to accurately chart the school's performance, it would make sense to test the class of 2001 in their Senior year, right? Not according to NCLB.

The class of 2001's test score is going to be compared against the class of 2002's test score when they take the test the very next year, in their Junior year.

Now, perhaps things have changed since I was last in school (although, I was the graduating class of 2001), but in no way is a comparison between actual, physical grades appropriate, but that's what NCLB is doing.

[center]***EDIT INSERT*** [/center]

We all know that no two classes are identical, and totally equal in ability. It's simply understood. If the class of 2001 has a better overall skill and ability with the material than the class of 2002, and has a greater capacity and probability to respond successfully in the test setting, how is comparing the two scores supposed to give an accurate representation of the instructors, school, or education process?

It's essentially stacking the deck in favor of government-imposed educational reconstruction.
[center]***END EDIT INSERT***[/center]


[center]***EDIT INSERT #2***[/center]


[left]I attended a Board of Education meeting last night, and apparently, NCLB is far more damaging than we may think. If these evaluation criteria weren't bad enough, there's also a straight test score standard across the board.[/left]


[left]This may seem fine, but when we realize that NCLB is requiring that Special Education Students do as well and perform on the same level as Regular Students, something is dreadfully wrong here.[/left]

[center]***END EDIT INSERT #2***[/center]

That's just the evaluation criteria. Do keep in mind that NCLB was...signed into law, or at least went active, to the best of my recollection, back in 2000 or 2001, possibly 2002. I believe it was 2001. Schools are given approximately three to four years to improve.

What happens if they don't improve, you may ask? There are a few different "stages."

The first is Early Warning, I believe, where the school is simply warned. Fair enough.

The second is a Choice, where schools are required to enable parents to transfer their children to another, more successful school within the same district.

The third stage is...I believe Corrective Action. This is similar to the chaos that enveloped the Philadelphia Public Schools a few years ago, when Mayor Street proposed a total government-enforced restructuring.

Let's examine these stages. The Early Warning is fine. I don't see a problem with that by itself, although NCLB is quite half-baked, and those evaluating the performances aren't really educated about education, so any Early Warning based on their recommendations is bunk, and I'll get to that in a moment.

This Choice stage...I recently got my hands on a progress report of the school systems in South Jersey, and three high schools caught my attention: Lenape, Cherokee, Shawnee. They were all labeled "Choice." They're also all in the same district. I don't think I need to explicitly point out the flaw here, lol.

Let's talk Corrective Action. This basically gives the government the power to step in and fire just about any staff member they like and replace them with whomever they like. That's what it boils down to. Again, maybe things have changed over the past few years, but if there is even half the level of instructor excellence at my old high school now than there was when I was there, these instructors do not deserve to lose their jobs.

We're talking about losing good teachers who know how to teach. I quoted Last Comic Standing in the thread, and I'm going to quote it again. The following was said by one of the judges when they were deciding whether to accept Rob, a Kindergarten teacher who is also a fantastic comedian:

"Are we gaining a great comic, or losing a good teacher?"

That's one of the points here. The education institution cannot afford to lose good teachers. That's the bottom line.

[center]***EDIT INSERT***[/center]

We keep hearing about how the school system needs good teachers and such, well, how about not cutting the good ones already there?

[center]***END EDIT INSERT***[/center]


Now, I'd like to hit on that point I made earlier about who is recommending these changes and so forth.

If you were to closely read the legislation, and just pay attention to what it's really saying, you will see that there is really no mention made at all of including actual educators, administrators and instructors in the evaluation process, or even as members on the recommendation board. What does this mean?

It means that those making recommendations based on those test scores are really nothing more than consultants, who are brought in to "trim" things but have no real knowledge of the intricacies of the school system.

There's a character in Dilbert called Catbert, and he functions more or less as a consultant for Human Resources. He's the villain of the comic, really, and with good reason. He exists only to torture Dilbert. That's not unlike what these consultants are doing now, quite honestly. They're not helping if the school systems are failing more and more, lol.

Some point about resumes was made, some arguing that you need a resume to be effective, others arguing that you don't.

I've not taught actual classes yet, and my resume mainly consists of working for Virtua Memorial Hospital, Radiology Division, Transcriptionist, for the past two years. But that doesn't mean my ideas and approach to education are bad. Sometimes, we need a fresh perspective on things, and I can say without ego that my fresh perspective will help to improve many, many things in the current school system in America. Sometimes, we just need a fresh start, a new angle, a new approach, a new face.

Just because I don't have 20 or 30 years of experience teaching doesn't mean I'm going to suck as a teacher, and even though the stakes are raised in the Presidency, likewise, I don't think a fresh face, fresh start, fresh perspective should be treated as guaranteeing a bad Presidency. I'm relatively neutral in terms of party allegiances, but I must say that both sides aren't very appealing here, lol.

I mean, I'm looking at the Republicans here arguing that we shouldn't villify Bush, that Bush isn't evil, etc etc., but then in the very same page accusing Kerry of being some anarchist or something, who will doom our nation if he's elected, etc etc.

Am I the only one who sees a very glaring example of hypocrisy? This isn't even only targeted at the Republicans. I'm seeing this type of behavior from both sides here.

If you're going to insult the Democrats for saying Bush is "Satan," but then say Kerry is "Satan," how does that work? If you're going to insult the Republicans for saying Kerry is "Satan," but then say Bush is "Satan," how does that work?

I'm not picking a fight here, but it's pretty weird.

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[color=darkviolet]Okay, so the three debates have been held, finished and reviewed. I guess. According to most polls Kerry won all three debates. Except possibly in Florida because they have to do a recount. Heh heh heh.
(well, you try to be alert and everything on three hours of sleep and taking care of a baby.)

So, what do you think? Did Kerry win all three debates, or did Bush? Was it a tie? Or maybe a 2:1 ratio? Anyways, let me know what you think on that. I'll giv my reply later.[/color]

[Drix D'Zanth]

[QUOTE=ChibiHorsewoman][color=darkviolet]Okay, so the three debates have been held, finished and reviewed. I guess. According to most polls Kerry won all three debates. Except possibly in Florida because they have to do a recount. Heh heh heh.
(well, you try to be alert and everything on three hours of sleep and taking care of a baby.)

So, what do you think? Did Kerry win all three debates, or did Bush? Was it a tie? Or maybe a 2:1 ratio? Anyways, let me know what you think on that. I'll giv my reply later.[/color][/QUOTE]

Yeah, Kerry was pretty well prepared for his debates. I have to feel bad for Bush, when it comes to public speaking, he is no Olympiad. I agree with bush's arguments and peiced most of what he was obviously "trying to say" together in my mind. When it came to the war and foreign policy. Bush just doesn't know how to put his ideas into words very... eloquently. IMO Kerry flopped the domestic issues debate. I have no idea where he stands after that... All he convinced me was that he won't vote for something he believes him as long as it threatens his political capital.

[Boba Fett]

[QUOTE=ChibiHorsewoman][color=darkviolet]Okay, so the three debates have been held, finished and reviewed. I guess. According to most polls Kerry won all three debates. Except possibly in Florida because they have to do a recount. Heh heh heh.
(well, you try to be alert and everything on three hours of sleep and taking care of a baby.)

So, what do you think? Did Kerry win all three debates, or did Bush? Was it a tie? Or maybe a 2:1 ratio? Anyways, let me know what you think on that. I'll giv my reply later.[/color][/QUOTE]

[color=green]I think that Kerry did very well in the first debate, and trounced Bush on style. Although both candidates performed well content-wise in the first sparring match, Kerry did do a little better in this category as well.

Cheney beat Edwards like a red headed stepchild in the Vice Presidential debate, and I think that significantly helped express the Republican Party position on many key issues. Edwards smile at the beginning of the debate was pricelessly cheesy.

I didn?t watch the second Presidential debate, so I won?t comment on it.

The third and final debate was very close, and Bush really improved. He was clearer, and although he stammered a little, he was able to come off as more likeable than Kerry. However, I think that Kerry?s comments about Mary Cheney were completely uncalled for, and since Edwards also made a comment about her sexuality, it?s obvious there?s a concerted effort to out her for political advantage. That disgusting tact is what, for me, made Bush seem like the winner of the third debate. [/color]

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[quote name='Boba Fett][color=green']Cheney beat Edwards like a red headed stepchild in the Vice Presidential debate, and I think that significantly helped express the Republican Party position on many key issues. Edwards smile at the beginning of the debate was pricelessly cheesy. [/color][/quote]

[color=darkviolet]I have to dissagree with that comment. I think Edwards did much better than Cheney on that debate. Infact, I got rather annoyed with CHeney after he repeatedly brought up Edwards' senate record mentioning that it wasn't a very extensive record. After a while Edwards mentioned that he was a young senator (true) and that a lengthy resume doesn't necessarily mean that the person is fit for the job.

So you thought Edwards' smile was cheesy? I thought it was cheesy when Cheney mentioned during a tour a few months back that 'if you thought 9/11 was bad just watch what happens if you vote for John Kerry.' Heck, forget cheesy, I thought it was downright unprofessional.[/color]

[quote name='Boba Fett][color=green']However, I think that Kerry?s comments about Mary Cheney were completely uncalled for, and since Edwards also made a comment about her sexuality, it?s obvious there?s a concerted effort to out her for political advantage. That disgusting tact is what, for me, made Bush seem like the winner of the third debate. [/color][/quote]


[color=darkviolet]I have to agree with you on that. Who gives a crap what the sexual orientation of a candidate's child is? I wasn't considering voting for Cheney's daughter she's not running. Not that it would matter if she was, I don't chose a candidate based on sexual orientation, religious afiliation or any other pointless thing as that. Although, to be honest part of the reason I'm not voting for Bush is because he relies too heavily on his faith.

I do think the out her thing is kind of funny though. The majority of America knows that Mary Cheney is a lesbian. There was a cartoon on it back in July in one of the local papers Bush and Cheney were sitting together and Bush is saying: So, explain to me again why you won't support my ban on Gay marriages. Okay, that may have been pointless to the post, but you understand what I meant.


I do feel that Kerry did much better than Bush in the first two debates. Bush looked too ansty and made all sorts of faces during the time Kerry talked. I thought that was rude.

HOnestly though, I wish they'd both leave out things that happened 30 years ago and everyone's personal lives out of debates. Someone should pass a bill about that. Only problem is that they're all politicians, so that would mean that if a bill like that was passed everyone would have to resort to silly things like telling the truth and sticking to the issues.[/color]

[Juu]

[color=deeppink][size=1]Well, about Mary Cheney. Is her sexuality something she should be ashamed/embarrassed about? He said: "And I think if you were to talk to Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you that she's being who she was, she's being who she was born as. ", and to me, that doesn't sound like an insult. Of course, it may have been a bad choice to specifically point out the vice president's daughter, but it's ironic that the vice president would agree to pass a ban on gay marriage when his very own daughter happens to be lesbian.

It's just that I find a lot of his arguments cancelling each other out. I'll support his idea that the members of the supreme court should be impartial, but after saying that, he'll add that 'but I wouldn't select someone who wouldn't allow 'Under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance'- which is totally opposite. Also, I found it hilarious when he was saying "I own a timber company? Need some wood?" to Kerry, and it turns out that he DID, in fact, own a timber company several years ago. But, in a way, that could be understandable seeing how his family owns so many companies.

Anyway, if I could vote, I'd vote for John Kerry/John Edwards- especially after watching each of the debates (twice/read the transcripts- nerd, excuse me). Kerry is being stronger in his recent speeches, and hopefully it'll be enough to convince the nation in the end. =/[/color][/size]

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

[quote name='Juuthena][color=deeppink][size=1]Of course, it may have been a bad choice to specifically point out the vice president's daughter, but it's ironic that the vice president would agree to pass a ban on gay marriage when his very own daughter happens to be lesbian. [/color'][/size][/quote]
Actually, you may have somehow missed it, but Cheney said he disagreed with Bush on the issue during the VP debate. He said he considered marriage a matter for the states to decide, not something to mess with in the Constitution.

Oh, and Cheney slaughtered Edwards in the VP debate, by the way. Unlike Edwards, his responses weren't 100% content-free (as are most of Kerry's actually). Cheney, surprisingly to me, had some very good replies when it came to foreign policy (with the exception of Israel, concerning which I liked Edwards's stance much more, although the Dems' proposed foreign policy would endanger Israel more than Bush's actually).

The thing is, I hate that Kerry/Edwards pretend like it's unacceptable to have lightened up on Afghanistan, though really the problem is it's just hard to explain to the American people that fighting in Afghanistan using ground troops is a horrible idea and will just cause more American casualties, nothing else.

As for the presidential debates, I actually think Bush did better in those as well (on content; screw appearance and manner). Bush, unlike Kerry, didn't just non-stop criticize. He provided some concrete answers to things. A good example is the flu vaccine question. Bush actually addressed the issue in focus. Kerry responded by saying that under Bush nobody has medical insurance but under him everybody will have "the options" to get whatever insurance they want, provided they can afford it. That's not even a plan, lol. That's just saying "well, look, we're not gonna pay for you, but we'll allow you to choose whatever insurance plan you want provided you pay for it. You don't have to, but you can." Thanks, lol. Because right now I'm just throwing money at United Care and they're like "dude, we don't want your dirty money, go talk to someone else."

Just for some background, Kerry's plan has estimates that 97% of Americans would keep their current health plan. That means... let's see... assuming a population of 300 million (I think it's lower)... 9 million at best would get insurance (this is, if you check, above the realistic estimate, though certainly not near the bullcrap "campaign time" estimate of 27 million, which doesn't even make sense with the 97% which appears along with the 27 all over the place). And the vast majority of that insurance won't cover costs completely. ... Basically what this has to do with flu vaccine shortage I have no idea. It has nothing to do with it, actually.

Eh, the more I watch and read the more pro-Bush I get. And I'm ultra-ultra-far-left, too. (Not that Kerry's all that liberal, and not that domestic liberal/conservative issues are top priority now, but still).

[Guest spike123]

well kerry pushing for the draft so im going with bush

[Brasil]

Two things here.

One, about Kerry mentioning Cheney's daughter. The question posed was "Is Homosexuality a choice?" Bush's response was a total cover, lol. "I don't know." [i]Of course[/i] he knows what the real answer to that question is, lol. It's not a choice. If it were a choice, you'd see countless people jumping the fence, as it were. If it were a choice, you wouldn't have millions of people who are totally confused about their sexual orientation and sexual identities in life. That's the bottom line here, and Bush certainly believes it's a choice, lol.

Kerry's response, his mention of Cheney's daughter, was no personal attack at all on anyone. I'm not sure if anyone paid attention to Kerry's response on that point, but I believe it went something like this, "If you were to talk to Vice President Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you that she's just being who she is."

I don't know if anyone here gave that statement any thought as to what it meant, but Kerry was saying that Homosexuality isn't a choice; it's just how some people are. It's just people being who they are.

Two, I'm hearing people praising Bush because they were able to piece together what he was saying...and then criticize Kerry for being too vague. I'm going to suggest that people should treat both candidates equally here. If someone praises Bush because they can understand what he's saying because they're piecing things together in their own minds, Bush is being vague, lol. In the same breath, those people then criticize Kerry for being vague, but did these people actually give Kerry the same kind of consideration and benefit of the doubt that they gave Bush? I have a feeling the answer is a pretty big "No."

I know it's difficult for most, but at least look at the debates objectively, and judge the candidates performances equally and objectively.

People have said that they have no idea where Kerry stands on particular issues, and I have a feeling one of these issues is Abortion. Let's see what Kerry said, heh. He mentioned how he was raised Catholic, brought up on Catholic values, etc, but then said that he simply can't allow his religious convictions to dictate what he does concerning other people's lives in the case of Abortion. That's pretty clear to me that he's Pro-Choice.

I'm not Pro-Kerry and I'm not Pro-Bush, but I do award points where points are due, and I sense that both sides here aren't giving points where points are due.

Now, about this whole job issue...I'll just mention that in no way did Bush [i]actually answer[/i] the question about getting Americans back their jobs, instead going on and on about improving the quality of Education in America. If you were to just look up a few posts at my extended analysis of No Child Left Behind, you'll see just where I stand on Bush's "I'm Improving American Education" nonsense. I agree that our Education system can be improved upon, but NCLB is going to [i]crumble the system[/i]. Really, there's no way in hell that Bush could possibly be well-informed about things and still think he's helping Education.

And it's unfortunate that Kerry didn't go after Bush about that, because it was a point that [i]needed[/i] to be made: Bush isn't helping Education at all, and an improved Education still isn't going to magically win back American jobs, either. If jobs are being outsourced/lost to foreigners because foreigners work for less, what makes anyone think that educating Americans further will reverse that trend? And especially when the President's idea of improving Education is NCLB?

[Soliel]

[COLOR=GREEN] Hum, you say that your not for either Bush or Kerry, Siren, but you seem to be leaning more towards Kerry. At least that's how I interpeted your post. Anyways, I figured this would be a good time for me to bring up a fact about voting in this country (the United States). Our political system is a two-party system. Yes, I know there are several other minor parties, but right now there are two major parties that share power, Democrats and Republicans. Now you may be wondering why the heck I'm talking about stuff most off us already know, but just hold on, I'll get to my point in a second.

Now what I'm saying is because of this two-party system, most of the time, it's a canidet from one of these two parties that wins the presidential race. So the point I'm trying to make, if you haven't gotten it already, is that if you're really against a cerain canidet, you should vote for the person most likely to win. I say this because it really seems that people really don't like either of the people running for office, but they seem to dislike one more than the other. I just want to ask all of you to keep this in mind when and if you vote.

And before anyone starts yelling at me for demeaning the minor parties, just let me say this. I never said that minor parties were not important in the political process, in fact, they can be quite valuable. Third-party canidets aren't afraid of what the public thinks of them, since they know they'll lose the race anyway, so they bring up touchy issues that the major canidets may be afraid to talk about but still need to be addressed. In this way the public can get a better idea of where they stand on these issues and make a more informed desision at the polls on election day. Or maybe I'm just giving to American people too much credit.

Well, I just wanted to add that to the discussion. And I got my absentee ballot in the mail today, finally. :D Looking at what wrote, I guess I actually did learn something in Civics last year.[/COLOR]

[Brasil]

SolarPrinces, like I said, I award points where points are due, and honestly, Kerry earned those points. Historically, I've been Centrist...Neutral, Moderate, etc, and I've viewed debates/speeches/talks/etc from a more or less unbiased platform. I lean towards Kerry because he's simply saying the more sensible thing, you know?

Tell you the truth, I'm really not that big a fan of either of them. I think that while Kerry has a better idea of what's going on lately, he's not the solution to everything, but he's coming across as the better choice on a lot of really important issues (Abortion, Education, Job Reform, Healthcare Reform, for example).

I kind of look at the whole Pro-Life argument as pretty null and void for the most part, actually, because there are Pro-Lifers constantly saying how we need to protect innocent life and so on, but it seems like they don't realize we can just walk not even four blocks north from Rutgers-Camden and see people who desperately need our help, right this very second.

Perhaps it's just me, but I'm not seeing much being done to improve those people's health. I don't mean to turn this into some melodramatic bleeding-heart Liberal-fest, as I absolutely loathe that phrase, even being a Moderate, but there are people not even thirty minutes away from where I live that most of the time are just scraping to get by. Something tells me that their Healthcare isn't what it should be, either.

So, it's like...when I hear that everyone in America is all fine and dandy, or getting back on the right track, getting good Healthcare and so forth, and when I know for a fact that there are people in Philly, Camden, really any city in our country, that are sick and can't get the medical attention they need, I simply can't believe that the quality of US Healthcare is all that good at all, honestly. There are people still suffering from medical troubles, and just coming from me...I find that very unacceptable.

And, really, I feel like most domestic issues are getting horribly mishandled, like they're getting ignored when it comes to the War on Terror. I look at it this way:

If we don't keep Domestic America healthy, there won't be any America to protect.