Good question.  McCain's plan just uses taxpayer dollars to prop up the corrupt HMO system.  They keep raising prices, we keep paying for it, yet no one gets better healthcare and there are no controls on costs at all.

Obama's plan doesn't go far enough either, but it's a far better start.

What, marrying one and supporting him through college to the tune of $20,000 isn't putting enough of my money where my mouth is? (Housing, clothing, food, health care....adds up to more than a monthly donation).

And Hamas endorsed Obama.

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Hamas_Endorses_Obama/2008/04/17/88754.html

As does Al Jazeera:

http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/Al_Jazeera_Obama/2008/10/21/142620.html

Nixon got us out after the American people put a gun to his head and ordered him to.  Before that (though he did continue negotiations to get us out of Vietnam), he escalated and widened the conflict into adjoining nations (Cambodia, Laos, etc.) along with Johnson, and yes Kennedy started it in a failed effort to cover France's retreating ass, hehe. 

There endeth the irrelevant Vietnam history lesson.

Regardless, my point was a FINANCIAL one, not a "who started/was responsible for".  I was mentioning this in the context that it was Ford and then Carter who were stuck with the bills of Vietnam and all the ramifications that came along with that.

And all Carter was hosed with was a mild recession...which I remember as NO FRIGGIN BIG DEAL when I lived through it.  Yet you want to pretend that he's a worse President than Lil Bush?!  On what scale does a minor 1970's recession compare with what even the most conservative analysts are touting as the Second Great Depression?!

Who gives a rat's ass?!  And I'm sure Charles Manson supports god-knows-who!  What does THAT have to do with anything at all!?

A whole BUNCH of staunch conservatives have started endorsing Obama as well this week. 

Wait!  Are you saying that these staunch conservatives and Hamas are now working TOGETHER?! 

Are the conservatives in the RNC now palling around with terrorists?! 

OMG you've discovered something...as completely irrelevant as it can be.

Seriously, who'd be dumb enough to vote/not vote for someone based on any other NUTTER's opinion?

SNAP!

Geezus....anyone that can even remotely try and compare Jimmy Carter to George Bush is either insane or is completely out of touch with reality. George Bush has done more damage to this country in his sleep than Carter could have ever done awake. And Carter wasn't all that bad of a president...everyone just made fun of him because he was a peanut farmer.

"It's not his fault, (insert name) did it." ...."nuh uh, (insert another name) started it!"  "Did not!"  Did too!" "Did not!" "Did too!"

I'm sick of it all.

Hmm.  Not to niggle, but - from the article you cite:

The emphasis is mine.  That would appear to contradict your claim.  Furthermore, the article reports that the number arrived at was an 'estimate' based on an 'incomplete' household survey (a poll) asking simply if anyone had died, with at least two fudge factors - an assumption of underreporting of deaths and an 'allowance' for out-migration, without the benefit of citation as to the basis for either.  Further yet, I found no basis or evidence for reliable estimates of the rate of violent deaths prior to the invasion; I doubt there are any, though mass graves suggest they certainly occurred.  Interestingly, the survey asked for the number of deaths during the 3 years after the invasion but for the number of deaths which occurred during only the 2 years prior.  Not sure why the asymmetry.

In any event, one of us appears to have a reading comprehension problem.  I'm open to enlightenment.

The first thing that needs to be done is CHANGE the system.  Besides working to build up a multi-party system for the long term, reforming the lobbyist system, and ending the HMOs. it means throwing the bums out who've been bought and paid for by BOTH SIDES.

And once the election is over, which is going to dominate this debate until next week, I would LOVE to spend time in these forums talking about alternatives and solving these problems.  I hope you do too, sir.

Fair enough.  It's late for me and I've been doing a lot of posting, hehe.  But this doesn't undermine my argument, now does it?

I only chose that as the LOWEST number.  There are much higher ones, and either way, with or without combatants, we're still responsible for starting all of this.  Pre-emptively, without due cause, without being attacked first, without any strategic need whatsoever for our country.  Saddam was de-clawed in the first Gulf War, period.

Well, actually, Yes, it does.  And casts at least some doubt on the underpinnings of other arguments you've made.

Also the BEST number, bad a number as it is.  Changing the subject must be a tactic covered in 'Debate 101' - but if the end result turns out to be a relatively stable & democratic Iraq, I have no problem with us accepting 'responsibility' for it.

During Saddam?  How soon we forget. But you seem to be a rational person, let me ask you.  Is an Iraqi life less important than an American life?

edit: removed...missed Diawa's response

the joy of being an "independant" is I don't feel constrained to be loyal to any single party. I think there should be some balance on both sides that isn't there due to the "liberal" and "conservative" constraints.

I personally don't trust the democratic candidate and certainly know too much about his running mate to like the idea of having him in second command.

I also have to say I am concerned that the republican candidate isn't going to help America as much as he probably could.I feel though that unfair emphasis is being put on his running mate's wardrobe and family life. If this candidate's running mate was male these things would not be of concern.

Instead of concentrating on important matters, like healthcare, pharmaceutical and insurance  companie's monopolies on the healthcare market, overseas outsourcing of American jobs, and the economical issues here in America, and lastly how the issues of the wars we are fighting in can be resolved , we are inundated with bickering and stupid commercials that say nothing but make the candidates look "rosy and bathed in light".

I think we've become a society of "survivor" voters."" I like the way he looks and think he has made strong 'alliances' and so I will not 'vote him off'."" (never mind that he has gotten where he is through trickery and sneaky whispering)

there is always good on both sides of the liberal/conservative fence. The question we need to really think about though is does that good really outweigh the bad? Choose your candidate based on what you KNOW he will do FOR the country that is positive. the best way to do that is to look at his past decisions and how they effected the country thus far.