?

I enjoy talking about politics and sometimes I like to write down and share my thoughts. I've been trying to come up with some unique ways of stating this particular idiom. Any help from fellow Internet creeps would be much appreciated!

The industries hit hardest are ones that were built on greed and corruption (Wall Street, big oil, overzealous lenders), illegal immigration has slowed to a trickle, the value of the dollar is rising as assets are being liquidated, and people are becoming more aware of the dangers of debt spending so they'll try harder to actually live within their means. Plus it can't be a healthy thing that financial corporations were so closely tied to our national economy. So is this crisis just our economy purging itself of things that were poisoning it?

I don't understand how after all we've been through in the war on terrorism Senator McCain could get upset about doing whatever it takes to capture Osama Bin Laden and his officers. Yes Pakistan is an ally, but what kind of friend would prevent you from defeating your worst enemy?

...then why is the unemployment rate spiking and why are jobs being outsourced overseas at an unprecedented rate? Bush has been cutting taxes for the wealthy for several years now, so what have the positive benefits been for us as a nation?

As medical technology improves we're able to keep people alive for longer and longer. Even if they have medical problems that make them completely incapable of keeping themselves alive, we are able to keep them functioning until some sort of medical catastrophe takes place. People are often completely dependent on medical procedures, devices such as breathing or feeding tubes, and the care of nursing professionals for decades before they die. As a result the costs of medical care, geriatric care, and social security have gone through the roof. Also the quality of life for many of our elderly degrades immensely over time until there is very little that they can do other than survive.

If we continue to do everything in our power to keep everyone physically alive, eventually most of our resources would be spent on those who are incapable of having a normal life. Do we have to start becoming more accepting of death as a society?

I can't seem to recall anyone being financially crippled by the taxes that led to a national surplus, but then again I was still a kid at the time. Also, have tax cuts created more prosperity for any working class Americans? Specific examples would be appreciated.

I recently heard that there are over 2,000 juveniles (at the time of the crime) who are serving a life sentence in jail without the possibility for parole. Most of these kids were involved in some sort of death, like killing their parents or involvement in a gang. Are we sending the wrong message by saying that these young people are beyond repair and don't ever deserve a second chance? Are there 15 year old hardened criminals who can't change?

In several criminal investigations, journalists have actually been prosecuted for not releasing information about their sources. If a source knows that they will be able to stay anonymous, they will be much more likely to supply information. Sort of like how a defendant can tell his lawyer the whole truth without risk. If you protect their privacy there might be some cases that you don't solve, but there could be more criminal activity that you find out about. Should you force journalists to give up their sources or give them a special privilege?

Many times people seem to focus on civilian casualties or apparent mistreatment of people by the military. But in today's combat it seems as if anyone can be used as a fighter, and some even try to disguise themselves as civilians in order to gain access to sensitive areas. Also when you're under constant threat and your friends are dying at your side, it's fairly common to develop a hatred of your enemy. But when there's no obvious enemy force, the hatred might become more general and frustrating. So aren't the less popular actions of the military an unfortunate but natural outcome of fragmented guerrilla warfare?

Is there any direct link or statistics that support these claims? Watching too much TV and playing into consumerism seem like the more direct threats to me.

It seems that because of the scale and devastation in this one attack, international terrorism has become our number one fear even though it's very rare. Will we continue to be haunted by the specter of this attack and the boogeyman of terrorism for the forseeable future, or would doing something powerfully symbolic like capturing Osama Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri be enough to put our focus back on our own hopes and dreams? Or is there some other way to reduce people's fear?

It sure seemed to me as if his intelligence, insight, and honesty make the amount of time spent in Washington seem fairly trivial. Is anyone creating the opinion that he is too green after actually getting to know him?

I know that we have it pretty good here in America, and many think that people should follow suit with our version of democracy in other parts of the world. But is it our decision to make? And aren't there other ways of encouraging human rights and free elections without using military action?

And how can we achieve it? Clearly we can't go from country to country wiping out all governments that house terrorists, can we? And don't just say "A safer world" or "Kill all the terrorists", I'm talking about more specific goals.

First, let me say that I think we need universal health care. But I've seen some potential problems with Hillary's plan. It places much of the health care burden on employers, forcing them to pay for health care for each of their employees. She's included tax subsidies for small businesses to ensure that the cost isn't too much for them to handle, but this is where I get worried.

Won't this plan encourage employers to have as few employees as possible so that they can avoid these extra costs? What constitutes a "small business"? Will a lot of local businesses that have started to expand be the ones who are hurt the most? And when a small business tries to grow, will the cost of losing these tax subsidies hinder their growth?

To me it seems like it might become similar to our welfare situation where some people make more money if they simply stay on welfare as opposed to if they get a job. To be fair though, I don't know a lot about the structure of these subsidies. Do any of you?

The way I understand it conservatives support minimizing the government's level of power and control over people. Isn't getting involved in military skirmishes all over the world just a government exerting more control? Policing the world seems like big government, not small.

Then again, banning abortion would be another form of government control. I'm so confused.

To me it just seems like everyone chipping in through taxes to take care of each other. Insurance companies are only interested in making money, so they do whatever they can to deny people treatment. If we could ridirect all the profits from the insurance and pharmaceutical industries into government regulated health care, why wouldn't it work? What's the downside?

There are plenty of dying and suffering people in the world. There are plenty of lives of fully grown human beings that could be saved. So why is there so much emphasis placed on unwanted fetuses?

Isn't humanity based on our consciousness and not just our body? Until a fetus has a functioning brain is it anything more than a pile of dividing cells inside the woman? Is it really murder if something is not self-aware? Shouldn't we care about how the mother's life will be since only she can determine how her children's lives will turn out? Aren't the people who are already here more important?

I've heard the argument that since criminals will have guns "no matter what" private citizens need guns to protect their families. Studies and statistics show that a gun in the house is much more likely to kill a friend or family member than to be used on an intruder. So what is it that makes them so appealing?

Don't more guns equal more shooting? Pointing a gun at a criminal seems like it would make them more likely to react violently, if only in self-defense. Easy accessability means that there are more casual criminals and spontaneous shootings.

Personally I'm not as worried about hardened criminals as I am about being shot by someone who wields a gun like a toy. It's a highly efficient instrument of death that because of our current laws can be picked up by any disgruntled high school outcast or paranoid trigger-happy neurotic. Aren't there other ways to keep your family safe? Are they really that unsafe to begin with? Maybe I just haven't lived in a bad enough neighborhood.