NationStates Jolt Archive

I will confess that after all these months of campaigning, I really have no better idea of what he proposes than I did from the beginning. He keeps talking about change, but I don't think I've picked up on what changes he intends to make or how he proposes to do so.

Note: this is not a thread for asserting that his opponent is superior -- just discussing what the heck it is he's trying to sell us.

Yes, I'm trying to get some debate going -- after desticking the election thread and saying "Have at it," there's been no new political threads I can see -- and some spambitching going on in the huge thread.

I recall seeing several news pieces, now mind you I don't have a direct quote out of his mouth, saying that he's in favor of mandatory volunteering in schools and colleges.

That's one thing.

(What is "mandatory volunteering" anyway?)

"Mandatory volunteering" sounds like an oxymoron to me.

Perhaps requiring that students select some kind of community service?

"Mandatory volunteering" sounds like an oxymoron to me.

Perhaps requiring that students select some kind of community service?

Perhaps. Making people volunteer kind of defeats the point of volunteering, IMO. At that point, it's not volunteering. It's slave labor.

I think he also intends to increase the Peace Corp and humanitarian aid, but I don't really know that much about him. Honestly, all this election stuff has started to get on my nerves and I've stopped paying attention.

Oh hell.

Oh hell.

Yes? You had something to contribute?

"Mandatory volunteering" sounds like an oxymoron to me.

Perhaps requiring that students select some kind of community service?
They do that in Ontario now. Students have to complete 10 hours of community service before getting their high school diploma.

They introduced it after I finished though and I did volunteer work anyways so it wouldn't have really mattered to me. I think the point is to get students into the community and do something for others and all.

I don't see why this would be a presidential platform though, isn't education mostly a state thing there?

don't see why this would be a presidential platform though, isn't education mostly a state thing there?

Partially, but schools depend also on Federal Funding. See the No Child Left Behind laws.

In other words: "You're free to do it your own way, and we're free not to fund you if you do."

I will confess that after all these months of campaigning, I really have no better idea of what he proposes than I did from the beginning. He keeps talking about change, but I don't think I've picked up on what changes he intends to make or how he proposes to do so.

Note: this is not a thread for asserting that his opponent is superior -- just discussing what the heck it is he's trying to sell us.

Yes, I'm trying to get some debate going -- after desticking the election thread and saying "Have at it," there's been no new political threads I can see -- and some spambitching going on in the huge thread.

I think he's promising to change his mind on a regular basis... Not an uncommon promise in politics.

I think he's promising to change his mind on a regular basis... Not an uncommon promise in politics.

Heh, well that's a given.

However, I was hoping to find some specifics on what he plans to do.

"Mandatory volunteering" sounds like an oxymoron to me.

Perhaps requiring that students select some kind of community service?
One of the things I've noticed with schools around here is that they limit the opportunities to those that the school approves of. I'm confident that Obama's opportunities will exclude many things that people willingly volunteer for, such as church work, in favor of more politically correct tasks.

Partially, but schools depend also on Federal Funding. See the No Child Left Behind laws.

In other words: "You're free to do it your own way, and we're free not to fund you if you do."
Why can't he do something like have a federal commission to determine whether intelligent design should be taught in science class so it can be prohibited from schools if they want federal funding?

Although this may be punishing the kids in the worst places education-wise.

Heh, well that's a given.

However, I was hoping to find some specifics on what he plans to do.
Me too. I doubt that I would favor any of them, but he certainly is vague.

Heh, well that's a given.

However, I was hoping to find some specifics on what he plans to do.

well, thats the main problem with barrack, he only speaks in general, and very vague terms about what he intends to do (him clearing up what his stance on iraq is being an example of how he likes to give himself as much room as possible, until people start getting upset). IMO, if you're afraid to tell people what you plan on doing, maybe you shouldn't be doing it, especially if you're supposed to be representing those people.

One of the things I've noticed with schools around here is that they limit the opportunities to those that the school approves of. I'm confident that Obama's opportunities will exclude many things that people willingly volunteer for, such as church work, in favor of more politically correct tasks.

I thought Obama was in favor of "faith based initiatives" or some such.

Why can't he do something like have a federal commission to determine whether intelligent design should be taught in science class so it can be prohibited from schools if they want federal funding?

Although this may be punishing the kids in the worst places education-wise.

If he did that, it would open a huge can of whoopass for him.
First, you'd get people screaming about their First Amendment rights being violated, although I have to say I feel that Intelligent Design has absofuckinglutely NO PLACE in a state-run and therefore secular school. I don't understand why it is that people can't do their religious instruction in religious schools or Sunday School.

Secondly, all the nutcases in the midwest and southern states (whom he hasn't much chance of wooing anyway) would definitely be in the McCain camp should Obama suggest this.

When you put it like that (as slave labor that is). A few of the jokes about Obama enslaving "the white man" (though not only whites) start to have a bit support.

P.S. I'm not racist, I just hate: People that choose not to pay attention in class and then say it’s not their fault they’re stupid.

People that ask for equal rights for everyone and then expect special treatment.

Corrupt governments (hint, hint: United States of America, not saying the US is the worst. China is much worse.)

Wannabe gangsters. This includes just about any “gang” in America. The only real gangsters are the Mafia, the Stasi and the Yakuza.

African Americans (or anyone else for that matter) that think that black people should get special treatment just because “the white man” enslaved their ancestors. Guess what, African slavery was started in Africa by Africans!

Anyone that thinks it’s okay to kill a harmless animal just because they think it tastes good.

The FDA, FTC, pharmaceutical companies, lobbyists, and all fast food companies.

I think the reason people commonly don't know exactly what Obama stands for is that he's just come off a VERY contentious Primary campaign and straight into what will be a very contentious Presidential campaign.

And one thing you have to be when the campaign is close is flexible. In politics, being flexible means not firmly saying ANYTHING in terms of policy. It's all about maneuvering and in any contest, maneuvering is the key to victory.

McCain has pretty much made his positions known, and so Obama's campaign has to gauge the American people's reactions to those stands before Obama can take a stand of his own, in a way that's calculated to draw more votes to him. I think over the next couple of months we'll start seeing more firm positions out of the Obama camp.

...either that or he will lose.

I seem to have heard some blending of the words "reform" and "health system", no?

Is he one of those wild-eyed radicals who suggest that being sick might be the only real requisite for receiving treatment?

I will confess that after all these months of campaigning, I really have no better idea of what he proposes than I did from the beginning. He keeps talking about change, but I don't think I've picked up on what changes he intends to make or how he proposes to do so.

Note: this is not a thread for asserting that his opponent is superior -- just discussing what the heck it is he's trying to sell us.

Yes, I'm trying to get some debate going -- after desticking the election thread and saying "Have at it," there's been no new political threads I can see -- and some spambitching going on in the huge thread.
It would appear that Obama's only substantive "change" is moving from left of center to center. I see him as a chameleon and an opportunist rather than a dedicated practitioner of real change.

Arianna Huffington (http://www.alternet.org/election08/90465/?page=entire)critiques Obama audacity to move towards the middle:

I can unequivocally say: the Obama campaign is making a very serious mistake. Tacking to the center is a losing strategy. And don't let the latest head-to-head poll numbers lull you the way they lulled Hillary Clinton in December.

Running to the middle in an attempt to attract undecided swing voters didn't work for Al Gore in 2000. It didn't work for John Kerry in 2004. And it didn't work when Mark Penn (obsessed with his "microtrends" and missing the megatrend) convinced Hillary Clinton to do it in 2008.

Fixating on -- and pandering to -- this fickle crowd is all about messaging tailored to avoid offending rather than to inspire and galvanize. And isn't galvanizing the electorate to demand fundamental change the raison d'etre of the Obama campaign in the first place?
Yup....just another typical politician.....

I seem to have heard some blending of the words "reform" and "health system", no?

Is he one of those wild-eyed radicals who suggest that being sick might be the only real requisite for receiving treatment?

Yar but very nonspecific. I liked what he said early on about having it done on a voluntary basis through private HMOs... I'm against nationalized health care but if we must do it at least it should be done through private industry and be voluntary in case some want to opt out.

But that doesn't seemed to get mentioned much anymore since he no longer needs to distinguish himself from other Democrat candidates who also supported some form of national health care.

his underpants once a week whether he needs to or not, maybe?

Or maybe the curtains in the Oval office.

Quick post for right now. Have to go and tend to my nations government.

Obama is for liberal change. Obama is for his kind of change and to win the election. Obama claims only he is for change, his opponents are not for change. Obama claims only he is for good, his opponents are not for good.

Obama is not above taking positions on issues just to get your votes, like he claims his opponents are.

Very self righteous, very arrogant.

Obama is not the saint of change you can believe in he claims to be.

I will confess that after all these months of campaigning, I really have no better idea of what he proposes than I did from the beginning. He keeps talking about change, but I don't think I've picked up on what changes he intends to make or how he proposes to do so.

Why, he's creating change so that the hopes of the American public can be realised!

*nods*

<snip>But that doesn't seemed to get mentioned much anymore since he no longer needs to distinguish himself from other Democrat candidates who also supported some form of national health care.

So, is talking about a national health care system a change, or do the Republicans talk about it too? I thought I'd heard, early on, that all parties agreed that the Government (whoever it was) had to do something about ensuring all citizens had access to basic health care.

I recall seeing several news pieces, now mind you I don't have a direct quote out of his mouth, saying that he's in favor of mandatory volunteering in schools and colleges.

That's one thing.

(What is "mandatory volunteering" anyway?)

Mandatory volunteering is having a set number of hours of community service a student must have to graduate. At my highschool, it is 15 hours a year, 25 hours senior year, as well as a senior project. Not doing your hours is a good way to fail.

One of the things I've noticed with schools around here is that they limit the opportunities to those that the school approves of. I'm confident that Obama's opportunities will exclude many things that people willingly volunteer for, such as church work, in favor of more politically correct tasks.

It depends...I volunteer to watch little kiddies on the High Holy Days, and I got hours for it. I just put "child care" under what I was doing, and they accepted it. I saw no need to tell them what kind.


As for Obama, his website has lots of the stuff he is doing...but it is all at least six pages of rhetoric before getting to the one paragraph answer. The only stuff I could sit through without vomiting was
1-Pull out troops one or two combat brigades per month, so all combat troops are out of Iraq in 16 months. However, he will leave some troops for rapid deployment. (Yes, I know he has gone back and forth on this recently but that is what is on his sight)
2-Make an oil profits windfall tax. Oil companies would have the choice of paying a pisspot full of dough to the government, or use all the money for alternate energy research.

I gathered there were quite a bit more specifics than that. There is the "change" in health care; Edwards' campaign pretty much insured that Hillary and Obama both got down to brass tacks and saying they wanted to create a plan to fix health care at the national level.

There is the "change" regarding Iraq - i.e., getting out of it.

There is the general "change" in foreign policy that both Obama and Clinton promised - that they would actually consult with allies and engage in diplomacy rather than engaging in Bush-like behavior (unilateral foreign adventures, a "screw you" attitude towards the international community, etc).

There are the traditional "changes" that every new candidate promises to address - the legal snafu of immigration, the security of social security, et cetera.

His keystone "change" has been a promise to "change" the way we do politics - to shift away from partisanship, anger, hate, fear, and the Dark Side (TM).

...OK, maybe he didn't talk about the Dark Side (TM). Sorry, Lucas...

his underpants once a week whether he needs to or not, maybe?

Or maybe the curtains in the Oval office.
Oh no, not that. Especially not his underpants.

You'ven't missed anything; he isn't telling of specific changes he would make and how they're improvements. 'Change' is a buzzword for these campaigns. Idiots get excited at the word, forgetting that a change is value-neutral (it can be for the better or for the worse). BO's slogan is equally vapid "yes we can". It doesn't assert anything. It strings together positives: yes instead of no, we instead of I (liberals love that one), and can instead of can't. It's triple+ good!

Either of the remaining Presidential candidates will oversee this depression as a transitory step into the NAU and a national ID card next term. Too bad Ron Paul betrayed his fans and backed out of the race.

You'ven't missed anything; he isn't telling of specific changes he would make and how they're improvements. 'Change' is a buzzword for these campaigns. Idiots get excited at the word, forgetting that a change is value-neutral (it can be for the better or for the worse). BO's slogan is equally vapid "yes we can". It doesn't assert anything. It strings together positives: yes instead of no, we instead of I (liberals love that one), and can instead of can't. It's triple+ good!
Considering that the voters are in a rabidly anti-incumbent mood, plastering the word "change" upon yourself seems to be a good idea.

Obama's initials s*ck, BO instantly reminds me as the acronym for body odor! :eek:

"[W]e are going to grow our foreign service, open consulates that have been shuttered and double the size of the Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy," said Obama. "We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we have set. We have got to have a civilian national security force that is just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded."

He's going to fund a national security force that will exist that is just as powerful as the military, just as strong, just as well funded.

"Security force" is an armed force. So he's making another armed force, to supplant the military.

That, and double the size of the Peace Corps (the latter wouldn't cost as much as the military by any stretch).

He's saying he cannot rely on the military (probably for reasons that Democrats don't consider it politically reliable).

Nice promise there. So between mandatory volunteering (Obama Youth) and the armed adjunct to the military (the Obama SS), I am getting that fascist tingle.

His website used to say that the surge was a complete failure. Now he's begrudgingly calling it a success on his site.

Between the military and Iraq saying that the troops will start coming home (beginning a few months before the election), and the last of the surge troops come home this month, I wonder how he's going to take credit for bringing the troops home. They'll already be on their way.

That might stymie McCain more than Obama.

He said he would negotiate with Iran, and now it looks like Bush is making that happen this week (including opening offices in Iran). So that's already done.

I think the change he's proposing is that he'll change his mind. Or that he'll propose things, and the most popular ideas will be done before he gets in office.

A presidential candidate selling us on change is nothing new. It's been done before, by another of the "greats" (as ranked by U.S. Presidential historians): Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Anybody that has listened to his election speeches would pick up on his rather shallow policy stance. His position was simple: "Look at what a F*&king mess Hoover got us into. I promise to be different."

And Hoover was a smart guy. He knew what was headed his way, but he was a business man and a capitalist, and he didn't believe that the federal government's authority should cover something that he felt belonged in the realm of private charity. If you were to have FDR in office when Black Tuesday went down, then the American people wouldn't be asking for a showman, they'd be asking for a cool headed academic, which would have been Hoover.

"[W]e are going to grow our foreign service, open consulates that have been shuttered and double the size of the Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy," said Obama. "We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we have set. We have got to have a civilian national security force that is just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded."

He's going to fund a national security force that will exist that is just as powerful as the military, just as strong, just as well funded.

"Security force" is an armed force. So he's making another armed force, to supplant the military.

That, and double the size of the Peace Corps (the latter wouldn't cost as much as the military by any stretch).

He's saying he cannot rely on the military (probably for reasons that Democrats don't consider it politically reliable).

Nice promise there. So between mandatory volunteering (Obama Youth) and the armed adjunct to the military (the Obama SS), I am getting that fascist tingle.


Sigh* When has the military ever been politically unreliable? When has the army ever refused to obey a president based on their political affiliation?

I don't like Obama, but calling him a facist is pushing it. And the whole national security force is probably refering to the Peace Corps. His idea of National Security is having diplomacy before we blow shit up and avoiding war completely. Reopening consulates? How is that facist? The Peace Corp promotes peace. Peace=good National Security.

Google For Government

and

Letting the public weigh in on bills in a forum before they are signed into law

using networking technology to bring the government back to the people

Sigh* When has the military ever been politically unreliable? When has the army ever refused to obey a president based on their political affiliation?

I don't like Obama, but calling him a facist is pushing it. And the whole national security force is probably refering to the Peace Corps. His idea of National Security is having diplomacy before we blow shit up and avoiding war completely. Reopening consulates? How is that facist? The Peace Corp promotes peace. Peace=good National Security.

Doubling the size of the Peace Corps isn't the only thing he's talking about.

He wants a security force as powerful and as well-equipped as the military.

Security force = armed force.

Doubling the size of the Peace Corps (his words) wouldn't even come close to being as well-funded as the military.

I will confess that after all these months of campaigning, I really have no better idea of what he proposes than I did from the beginning. He keeps talking about change, but I don't think I've picked up on what changes he intends to make or how he proposes to do so.

Note: this is not a thread for asserting that his opponent is superior -- just discussing what the heck it is he's trying to sell us.

Yes, I'm trying to get some debate going -- after desticking the election thread and saying "Have at it," there's been no new political threads I can see -- and some spambitching going on in the huge thread.

What kind of change?

Fashion change! :)

I will confess that after all these months of campaigning, I really have no better idea of what he proposes than I did from the beginning. He keeps talking about change, but I don't think I've picked up on what changes he intends to make or how he proposes to do so.

Note: this is not a thread for asserting that his opponent is superior -- just discussing what the heck it is he's trying to sell us.

Yes, I'm trying to get some debate going -- after desticking the election thread and saying "Have at it," there's been no new political threads I can see -- and some spambitching going on in the huge thread.

Everything I can tell from his commercials/positions, he will try to change everything it is possible o change. He's gonna fix the economy, the state of education, he'll get us out of Iraq, he'll revolutionize our civil rights, bring a new age of freedom, end the housing crisis, make college affordable to everyone.

Now, how he actually plans to do everything, I'm not sure, I don't know if Barack Obama understands the limits of the American Executive Branch, but, hey, if his unrealistic, over-idealistic promises get him elected, well, good for him. I've never really heard how he will fix every possible problem America ever had, or will have, and it honestly sounds to me like he's getting himself ridiculously over his head in promises, probably due to his general political inexperience, but I can tell you... I won't be voting for him.

I seem to have heard some blending of the words "reform" and "health system", no?

Is he one of those wild-eyed radicals who suggest that being sick might be the only real requisite for receiving treatment?

WOrse. He might be one of those wackos that think people having easy access to preventative healthcare might save everyone money as opposed to people who can only go to the emergency room when they are deathly ill.

I will confess that after all these months of campaigning, I really have no better idea of what he proposes than I did from the beginning. He keeps talking about change, but I don't think I've picked up on what changes he intends to make or how he proposes to do so.

I can see, though, you do, since you're posting on the Internet. In all seriousness, I there is abundant information available online. Try reading Obama's Blueprint for Change, which can be found here:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

It's 64 pages long, so no quick answers there, but if you want to know, read. Try reading the New York Times or the Washington Post.

IMHO, it would be a welcome change to have someone intelligent in the White House, which Obama would certainly be.

MODEDIT: If you click "edit" on this post, you'll see the formats I used to make Kat's post a separate quote and your link clickable.

Peace=good National Security.

Yep... worked out for Belgium in 1914 too!

Strong, assertive military = good National Security, "Si vis pacem para bellum."

WOrse. He might be one of those wackos that think people having easy access to preventative healthcare might save everyone money as opposed to people who can only go to the emergency room when they are deathly ill.

Right right, the "everyone will save money if they don't have to pay for their own healthcare!" standpoint, I'll never have to pay a dime for any of my injuries (but, you know, nevermind the gigantic tax hike so I can pay for everyone elses 'sickness' and 'illness')

If Obama wins, he'll pull all the soldiers out of Iraq, then send a draft, so that they and more people HAVE to go over and fight a Vietnam-War-esque war. What I mean by that is this war is pointless and stupid.

I really don't care and all, because my colleagues at work told me this. But looking at my age, i'll probably get drafted by his second term. If he has one. Not to be racist or anything (i respect blacks), but let's hope Obama does not have a second term, at most.

If Obama wins, he'll pull all the soldiers out of Iraq, then send a draft, so that they and more people HAVE to go over and fight a Vietnam-War-esque war. What I mean by that is this war is pointless and stupid.

I really don't care and all, because my colleagues at work told me this. But looking at my age, i'll probably get drafted by his second term. If he has one. Not to be racist or anything (i respect blacks), but let's hope Obama does not have a second term, at most.

If there's a draft, the party that puts it in place will be committing political suicide.

Yep... worked out for Belgium in 1914 too!

That...was a terrible example. Especially given that I did not say we should cut back on our military. Nor has Obama, coincidentally. He said we should have a larger National Security force, which I interpret to mean he wants to have the Peace Corps create, you know, goodwill...good feelings...a good outlook...to the U.S.? Something we haven't have since we started being strong and assertive.

Strong, assertive military = good National Security, "Si vis pacem para bellum."

Strong military, yes. Assertive? Not so much.
Ask the Romans (since you seem so fond of Latin...which, by the way, I don't know). Ask the Russians in Afghanistan. Hell, ask how secure we were back in the 70's. A good breeze would have blown over our military when we were being "assertive" in Vietnam.
Why, you can even ask the British in 1776. Or in 1812.

A strong military, used to protect a Nations assets, is an invaluable tool in diplomacy and security. An assertive military is a good way to turn the world against you.

Read some Clausewitz. Or Sun Tzu.

So, is talking about a national health care system a change, or do the Republicans talk about it too? I thought I'd heard, early on, that all parties agreed that the Government (whoever it was) had to do something about ensuring all citizens had access to basic health care.
What??? No, no, the Republicans are totally opposed to anything that even remotely suggests that the government has to do something about "ensuring all citizens have access to basic health care": that's socialism, and the first step toward throwing us all into the gulag, has always been the Republican position.

Right right, the "everyone will save money if they don't have to pay for their own healthcare!" standpoint, I'll never have to pay a dime for any of my injuries (but, you know, nevermind the gigantic tax hike so I can pay for everyone elses 'sickness' and 'illness')

Well, think about it this way: We're already paying for everybody's healthcare. Or do you honestly think that hospitals and insurance companies just eat the losses cause by the sick that can't pay? Nope. they tack it on to every service they offer and they pass it on to the insurance companies so in the end, those of us that can afford healthcare already pay for those who can't. So I guess the question is; would you rather pay for yearly physicals, blood pressure medication and insulin, or would you rather pay for life-saving intensive care, emergency surgery and heart transplants?

Because one way or another, we are all paying for everybody's healthcare already.

If Obama wins, he'll pull all the soldiers out of Iraq, then send a draft, so that they and more people HAVE to go over and fight a Vietnam-War-esque war. What I mean by that is this war is pointless and stupid.

I really don't care and all, because my colleagues at work told me this. But looking at my age, i'll probably get drafted by his second term. If he has one. Not to be racist or anything (i respect blacks), but let's hope Obama does not have a second term, at most.

I'm way ahead of you on that one! (Meaning that for the sake of America, I hope he doesn't have one term.)

I don't think there will be all that much the Senator from Wall Street will be able to accomplish.

The likelihood on a long U shaped recession is now very high, so I imagine most of his only term will be mired in recriminations and party infighting. Specially when all the top democrats in the house and senate finally get tagged for their shenanigans with the financial industry.

It will be Lolday.

When you put it like that (as slave labor that is). A few of the jokes about Obama enslaving "the white man" (though not only whites) start to have a bit support.

P.S. I'm not racist, I just hate: People that choose not to pay attention in class and then say it’s not their fault they’re stupid.

People that ask for equal rights for everyone and then expect special treatment.

Corrupt governments (hint, hint: United States of America, not saying the US is the worst. China is much worse.)

So far, meh. Not terribly hard to dislike corruption.

Wannabe gangsters. This includes just about any “gang” in America. The only real gangsters are the Mafia, the Stasi and the Yakuza.

I'll make sure that MS13 gets your opinion on this topic.

African Americans (or anyone else for that matter) that think that black people should get special treatment just because “the white man” enslaved their ancestors. Guess what, African slavery was started in Africa by Africans!

This excuses whites as perpetuators of slavery exactly how?

Anyone that thinks it’s okay to kill a harmless animal just because they think it tastes good.

So you hate wolves, orcas, bears, lions -- all meat-eating animals? We're omnivores -- designed to eat anything we can get a hold of and prepare. I understand enjoying being a vegan/vegetarian, but actually hating carnivores? Relax.

Also, "harmless" is a relative term.

The FDA, FTC, pharmaceutical companies, lobbyists, and all fast food companies.

Really? "Hate"? You have my pity.

Right right, the "everyone will save money if they don't have to pay for their own healthcare!" standpoint, I'll never have to pay a dime for any of my injuries (but, you know, nevermind the gigantic tax hike so I can pay for everyone elses 'sickness' and 'illness')

Well, it works well for Japan, Germany, Scandinavia, the UK, France...please tell me, how is it in any way moral to profit from illness and infirmity?

Doubling the size of the Peace Corps isn't the only thing he's talking about.

He wants a security force as powerful and as well-equipped as the military.

Security force = armed force.

Doubling the size of the Peace Corps (his words) wouldn't even come close to being as well-funded as the military.
It will be if you make big enough cuts to the budget of the existing Army...

Well, think about it this way: We're already paying for everybody's healthcare. Or do you honestly think that hospitals and insurance companies just eat the losses cause by the sick that can't pay? Nope. they tack it on to every service they offer and they pass it on to the insurance companies so in the end, those of us that can afford healthcare already pay for those who can't. So I guess the question is; would you rather pay for yearly physicals, blood pressure medication and insulin, or would you rather pay for life-saving intensive care, emergency surgery and heart transplants?

Because one way or another, we are all paying for everybody's healthcare already.

This.

Doubling the size of the Peace Corps isn't the only thing he's talking about.

He wants a security force as powerful and as well-equipped as the military.

Security force = armed force.
NO. By "security force" here, he MEANS the larger Peace Corps, which he asserts will do more for our security than armed force will. I would have thought this was a rather simple point to understand.

I'm way ahead of you on that one! (Meaning that for the sake of America, I hope he doesn't have one term.)

I'm glad you're not calling me a "RACIST CHINK OMGOMGOMGOMG BANHIM OMG IMA GO OUT AN EAT PIZA WIT MAH WIEF IN MAH BLAK SUV AN BE A TEEDHUR AND TECH REMOT ISLANNNNNNN HGOW MUCH OF A FAGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG HE IZ". Oh, and sorry for reciting the life story of my English teacher. He hates me, I hate him back.

It will be if you make big enough cuts to the budget of the existing Army...

And that is a good idea why???

NO. By "security force" here, he MEANS the larger Peace Corps, which he asserts will do more for our security than armed force will. I would have thought this was a rather simple point to understand.

Yay! Someone agrees with me! :D

After having him as senator of Illinois, I have yet to see any "change" come about. But I am more willing to have a do-nothing on board, than having McSame.

After having him as senator of Illinois, I have yet to see any "change" come about. But I am more willing to have a do-nothing on board, than having McSame.
Well, wouldn't that be the same? McSame and doing nothing which leads to nothing done so you still get the same?

So, is talking about a national health care system a change, or do the Republicans talk about it too? I thought I'd heard, early on, that all parties agreed that the Government (whoever it was) had to do something about ensuring all citizens had access to basic health care.

Not really. People have been talking about it for years.

I don't know what reference you mean. I'd think it highly unusual for a Republican to say that considering they generally oppose Socialized healthcare and anything that resembles it.

Which is why, I think, Obama's ideas have merit. Not technically a socialized entity yet paid for by Government. Personally, I do not believe it's the responsibility of Government to provide health care but if it must happen then this is the way I'd be in favor of.

All men of power are the same, all empty promises, never any action.

"Mandatory volunteering" sounds like an oxymoron to me.

Perhaps requiring that students select some kind of community service?

In grade 9 I lived in Ontario and we had that. It was hard though; I dropped off resumes at the local YMCA, soup kitchen and humane society but the university students took up all the spaces and I didn't have any experience, so they didn't want me. The only places to volunteer where at the local hockey rink selling tickets or at the hospital. I tried the hospital but fainted at the sight of a child in pain. So I volunteered at the rink, I was treated worse there than at any job I've ever had (came home with bruises from having my ass grabbed by middle age hockey fans), hated what I was doing and didn't get paid. It put me off volunteering for years. (Well, just two.... but still)

All men of power are the same, all empty promises, never any action.

Especially in SimCity.

Well, wouldn't that be the same? McSame and doing nothing which leads to nothing done so you still get the same?

No, McCain will be doing things, such as starting wars with Iran, and keeping us in Iraq. So, he will be doing bad things. So i'd rather have nothing done, than a bunch of crappy things done.

No, McCain will be doing things, such as starting wars with Iran, and keeping us in Iraq. So, he will be doing bad things. So i'd rather have nothing done, than a bunch of crappy things done.
Ah I get what you mean. "Same" refers to different things.

And that is a good idea why???
Wake up. The US is almost ten trillion dollars in debt why?

Because the US spends as a "base military budget" - even by the DoD's own internal estimates - at least triple that of the nearest potentially hostile rival (China). This really hasn't dropped significantly since the end of the arms race of the Cold War.

In the past five years and change, the US has burned about $3 trillion in total costs relating to the war in Iraq.

The US can and should cut back on military spending by a couple hundred billion dollars. Maintaining insane military expenditures in times of peace has meant an incredible price tag attached to wars, has given hawks incentive to engage in ill-advised wars like Iraq, and is probably a substantial indirect cause of the US's economic difficulties today.

<snip>I don't know what reference you mean. I'd think it highly unusual for a Republican to say that considering they generally oppose Socialized healthcare and anything that resembles it.<snip>


It wasn't a specific reference because I can't remember where I heard it. I think it may have been a commentator, possibly one of our national radio's correspondents, or perhaps a re-broadcast of NPR. Anyway, it was something to the effect that all parties in this election agreed that the health system had reached rock bottom, and this time every party had put out a plan to do something about it.

My assumption that this would have to mean "basic health care for all" is probably the result of living in Australia. I've never lived anywhere where it wasn't a given that you'd be looked after if you were sick. I couldn't imagine anyone wanting to "fix" a system in such a way that it still didn't provide that.

This JibJab video pretty much sums it up. (http://sendables.jibjab.com/)

The US public debt is only about 5.2 trillion. The rest is just vapor. Many municipalities and states are in over their heads, but that's okay because they historically default all the time.

The US also needs a large military budget to counteract the epic deflationary forces which are a result of domestic policy. Fighting wars is even better for that purpose.

Wake up. The US is almost ten trillion dollars in debt why?

Because the US spends as a "base military budget" - even by the DoD's own internal estimates - at least triple that of the nearest potentially hostile rival (China). This really hasn't dropped significantly since the end of the arms race of the Cold War.

In the past five years and change, the US has burned about $3 trillion in total costs relating to the war in Iraq.

The US can and should cut back on military spending by a couple hundred billion dollars. Maintaining insane military expenditures in times of peace has meant an incredible price tag attached to wars, has given hawks incentive to engage in ill-advised wars like Iraq, and is probably a substantial indirect cause of the US's economic difficulties today.

Read a history book. When has cutting back on our military ever done good? Lets review-

1. We had almost no centralized military during 1812, and the lack almost undid us.
2.Due to not having an organized, federal military in the 1860s, the Confederacy was able to win battle after battle until the Union got its shit together. By the way, there is a draft.
3. World War One. We have a miniscule army, then oh no! World War! We need to start a draft to make up for our lack of military funding.
4. World War Two. Due to HUGE cutbacks in the standing army after the first world war, we have diddly shit to fight back against the Japanese with, one of the key reasons why we had our asses handed to us by the Japanese in the begining of the war. Again, a draft is instated.

It is never a good idea to cut back defense spending. Ever. How can you possibly blame the debt on our military? Blame our civilian leaders, blame the shitty way they have run the economy. Soldiers don't get paid shit, and you want to cut back even more? How do you pay them when they are already grasping for straws? Do you think the army is going to cut back on research and developement? Hell no! You are saying we should screw the people who risk their lives for you. Think about that.

Our economy is in the shitter because of irresponsible spending on the part of congress, added to shitty economic plans and a war we don't need. It is not the military's fault.

Read Sun Tzu. Read Clausewitz. Then tell me that cutting back on military spending is a good idea.

I will confess that after all these months of campaigning, I really have no better idea of what he proposes than I did from the beginning. He keeps talking about change, but I don't think I've picked up on what changes he intends to make or how he proposes to do so.

Note: this is not a thread for asserting that his opponent is superior -- just discussing what the heck it is he's trying to sell us.

Just to be boring and obvious, Obama's campaign has a reasonably specific list-o'-campaign-promises on his website here (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/): (Click "The Blueprint For Change" for 64-page PDF summary or scroll down for issues.)

Not that much of this is being analyzed/debated/covered at all in the news media right now, but that's par for the course, especially as he hasn't made any policy speeches recently.

It wasn't a specific reference because I can't remember where I heard it. I think it may have been a commentator, possibly one of our national radio's correspondents, or perhaps a re-broadcast of NPR. Anyway, it was something to the effect that all parties in this election agreed that the health system had reached rock bottom, and this time every party had put out a plan to do something about it.

My assumption that this would have to mean "basic health care for all" is probably the result of living in Australia. I've never lived anywhere where it wasn't a given that you'd be looked after if you were sick. I couldn't imagine anyone wanting to "fix" a system in such a way that it still didn't provide that.

I'd imagine the Republicans would see it differently in light of THE BIG SECRET. (cue dramatic music) THE BIG SECRET is something that folks like Obama or Hillary wouldn't want revealed, and one that liberals in this country pretend doesn't exist. What is THE BIG SECRET?

That healthcare is already subsidized by the Government.

It's true. People who can't afford it can choose from a variety of local, state and federal programs that will provide at least basic healthcare for those who can't afford it on their own.

For example, when my first son was born I was a VERY young father and my wife was a VERY young wife. I had just graduated and she was still in High School. Neither of u s could get a job that actually had a health care plan so we applied for Medical Assistance through the State of Maryland. As a result, all of her prenatal visits were free, there was a small co-pay for medications, the baby's delivery and hospital care were free, then both of them were covered from that point forward. Even certain foods were covered through the WIC program.

We lived that way until I was able to get a decent job and handle the health insurance myself. At no time were they not covered and while I wasn't, if I'd had some kind of accident or illness there were programs for that too.

So when Obama speaks in favor of a national health care fund that works through private HMOs then I can live with that, because essentially that's the system we used at the state level and it worked well. I also like that his system would be voluntary, so that if you could afford a health care plan of your own and preferred to do so, there would be no obstacles.

Obama isn't promising some change... he just wants some change for the vending machine. It doesn't accept notes.

Obama isn't promising some change... he just wants some change for the vending machine. It doesn't accept notes.

Now that's change we can believe in.

Read a history book. When has cutting back on our military ever done good? Lets review-

1. We had almost no centralized military during 1812, and the lack almost undid us.
2.Due to not having an organized, federal military in the 1860s, the Confederacy was able to win battle after battle until the Union got its shit together. By the way, there is a draft.
3. World War One. We have a miniscule army, then oh no! World War! We need to start a draft to make up for our lack of military funding.
4. World War Two. Due to HUGE cutbacks in the standing army after the first world war, we have diddly shit to fight back against the Japanese with, one of the key reasons why we had our asses handed to us by the Japanese in the begining of the war. Again, a draft is instated.

It is never a good idea to cut back defense spending. Ever. How can you possibly blame the debt on our military? Blame our civilian leaders, blame the shitty way they have run the economy. Soldiers don't get paid shit, and you want to cut back even more? How do you pay them when they are already grasping for straws? Do you think the army is going to cut back on research and developement? Hell no! You are saying we should screw the people who risk their lives for you. Think about that.

Our economy is in the shitter because of irresponsible spending on the part of congress, added to shitty economic plans and a war we don't need. It is not the military's fault.

Read Sun Tzu. Read Clausewitz. Then tell me that cutting back on military spending is a good idea.

This made me lol. The budget isn't high because we're overpaying soldiers or what have you. Perhaps because we spend so much damn money developing expensive weapons, bombs, aircraft, and ships so we can go fight pet wars. It's funny that you mention WWI, since we really did not have to get involved in that. And you leave out the Vietnam War, nice. Having a big budget really helped us that time, right?

I don't understand people's infatuation with the military and the idea that they're "protecting us" and "risking their lives for us." How are they protecting us in Iraq? How did they protect us in Grenada? In Lebanon? In Panama? How on earth did they do anything for us then? It sounds like they do it for whoever gives the orders. How often do you hear someone defending the soldiers involved in wars and military atrocities as "just following orders"? I thought they were risking their lives for us, but apparently they're just following any old order they're given...

How would cutting back on spending billions of dollars on developing the world's most deadliest bomb/gun/missile stop them from protecting us? Do we need millions of armed to the teat soldiers, with an air force to boot, all the damn time??

Obama isn't promising some change... he just wants some change for the vending machine. It doesn't accept notes.

The Onion: Black Guy Asks Nation For Change (http://www.theonion.com/content/news/black_guy_asks_nation_for_change)

Just to be boring and obvious, Obama's campaign has a reasonably specific list-o'-campaign-promises on his website here (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/): (Click "The Blueprint For Change" for 64-page PDF summary or scroll down for issues.)

Not that much of this is being analyzed/debated/covered at all in the news media right now, but that's par for the course, especially as he hasn't made any policy speeches recently.
It's interesting that after 64 pages of promises, he's posted three sentences listing accomplishments. None of those accomplishments were, by the way, ever voted on in the US Senate, let alone made law...

Talk about a paper tiger.

This made me lol. The budget isn't high because we're overpaying soldiers or what have you.

I specifically said that they are underpaid.

Perhaps because we spend so much damn money developing expensive weapons, bombs, aircraft, and ships so we can go fight pet wars.

Yeah, lets stop developing ways to keep our troops safe, aka ways to destroy the enemy before they have a chance to fight back. Cus you know, all the other countries out there are going to stop making more destructive weapons!

oh wait...

It's funny that you mention WWI, since we really did not have to get involved in that. And you leave out the Vietnam War, nice. Having a big budget really helped us that time, right?

I never said we did have to get involved in World War One. But funny enough, the country wanted us too. And we did. Isn't it wierd how, back in the old days, we actually did something when U.S. citizens got killed?

As for Vietnam, look at the casualty ratio and tell me that our budget, which allowed us to have more powerful weapons, didn't do anything. Vietnam was lost because our political leadership didn't have the stones to do what needed to be done in the begining, and then got us stuck in a war that didn't matter.

I don't understand people's infatuation with the military and the idea that they're "protecting us" and "risking their lives for us." How are they protecting us in Iraq? How did they protect us in Grenada? In Lebanon? In Panama? How on earth did they do anything for us then?

I'm in the Army, and I joined for people like you. Not to go fight in some shit ass part of the globe. Where I go is the choice of my lawful superiors, in this case, the president. Who YOU elected.

And Grenada was a dumb choice...we were liberating captured U.S. students.

I've talked to lots of soldiers, funny enough, and all of us serve the people of the United States. So when you guys screw up and elect someone who gets us in a war, its not our fault...its yours.

It sounds like they do it for whoever gives the orders. How often do you hear someone defending the soldiers involved in wars and military atrocities as "just following orders"? I thought they were risking their lives for us, but apparently they're just following any old order they're given...

You know what, your right. We should just not follow orders and do whatever the hell we want! Yeah!
Involved in wars...huh...isn't it wierd how soldiers do that?
As for the atrocities, "just following orders" is not an excuse for me. If I am ever given an order I know is illegal, I will refuse on the grounds of it being unlawful, which is entirely in my rights.
If you think we don't risk our lives for you, live somehwhere where the government uses the army to control its people. You'll see the difference between risking ones life for other people, and risking ones life for themself.

How would cutting back on spending billions of dollars on developing the world's most deadliest bomb/gun/missile stop them from protecting us? Do we need millions of armed to the teat soldiers, with an air force to boot, all the damn time??

Yes, we do. Because if you decide to stop making the deadliest bomb/gun/missile, our enemies wont. And personal courage can only go so far when the troops are equipped with outdated weapons and supplies.

I'm in the Army, and I joined for people like you. Not to go fight in some shit ass part of the globe. Where I go is the choice of my lawful superiors, in this case, the president. Who YOU elected.

Funny, I don't remember electing any president thus far.

Yeah, lets stop developing ways to keep our troops safe, aka ways to destroy the enemy before they have a chance to fight back. Cus you know, all the other countries out there are going to stop making more destructive weapons!

Which ones? The US has the deadliest military force in the world by a large margin.


Yes, we do. Because if you decide to stop making the deadliest bomb/gun/missile, our enemies wont.

Ok, I find this funny. Which enemies have the capability to develop weapons that the US does? Did it occur to you if perhaps we stopped building a massive military and stopped acting like jerkoffs to the rest of the world that perhaps we'd have less enemies and less people willing to develop weapons against us?

My personal suspicion is that his change will be pretending to throw away the unconstitutional powers taken by Bush while exceeding his legitimate authority in areas that are more favored by Dems. It's tacking to the left instead of tacking to the right, to use a sailing analogy. We'll still go in the same general direction.

*disclaimer* I am a Ron Paul supporter, and the only REAL change I want to see is a massive reduction in the federal government. Anything else is counterfeit change or a change for the worse. I plan to vote for Chuck Baldwin, although I would have preferred to see the Constitution party choose Alan Keyes.

That...was a terrible example. Especially given that I did not say we should cut back on our military. Nor has Obama, coincidentally. He said we should have a larger National Security force, which I interpret to mean he wants to have the Peace Corps create, you know, goodwill...good feelings...a good outlook...to the U.S.? Something we haven't have since we started being strong and assertive.



What YOU interpret his meaning to be and what he actually means can be galaxies apart from each other. Of course, since he never, ever utters a specific unless he's trapped like a rat in a corner, it's hard to say what he actually means. Which is one of my biggest problems with him.

Can't stand him, can't stand McCain. Looks like I'll be writing my own choice this year.

Wake up. The US is almost ten trillion dollars in debt why?

Because the US spends as a "base military budget" - even by the DoD's own internal estimates - at least triple that of the nearest potentially hostile rival (China). This really hasn't dropped significantly since the end of the arms race of the Cold War.

In the past five years and change, the US has burned about $3 trillion in total costs relating to the war in Iraq.

The US can and should cut back on military spending by a couple hundred billion dollars. Maintaining insane military expenditures in times of peace has meant an incredible price tag attached to wars, has given hawks incentive to engage in ill-advised wars like Iraq, and is probably a substantial indirect cause of the US's economic difficulties today.

Okay, now it's time for some basic math. Yes, the US has burned about $3 trillion over in Iraq, and I'm pretty sure we can all agree this is a BAD THING(tm). Now, let's subtract 3 trillion from 10 trillion - insert the commas and carry the 1...yes, looks like we have a 7 trillion dollar balance left over from the war in Iraq.

Now, where do you think all this money is going? Not to the military. Rather, a large chunk of it is going to all those pet projects Congress likes to tack on to other bills. Save the spotted snail-darter. Fund the guy who's trying to come up with purple-flavored mint juleps. Use public funds and a flimsy excuse to pay back the guy who paid off their houses.

Do we really need someone in the White House who actually believes bigger government is a good thing? Do you truly, honestly believe that, even after we take away the Army's budge for playing in Iraq, the budget is going to decrease? It won't. It will skyrocket. That's the nature of big government - spend more, do more, be more.

Now, do you really think, in this economy, most businesses (i.e. those not in the oil industry or associated with the oil industry) can afford their taxes being jacked up to pay for this bigger government? They can't. We'll see more and more businesses...out of business.

Yes, Obama's plan is genius. Let's destroy the economy in one fell swoop.

What YOU interpret his meaning to be and what he actually means can be galaxies apart from each other. Of course, since he never, ever utters a specific unless he's trapped like a rat in a corner, it's hard to say what he actually means. Which is one of my biggest problems with him.

Can't stand him, can't stand McCain. Looks like I'll be writing my own choice this year.

Sad but true. =/ I think I'll vote for Micky Mouse.

Funny, I don't remember electing any president thus far.

Are you not from the U.S., or just under 18?



Which ones? The US has the deadliest military force in the world by a large margin.

Many people will take issue with this. For one, it is not a large margin. While I am sure that the U.S. could indeed defeat any other country in a stand up, knock down fight, it would hardly be a "large margin". If it was such a large margin, then why do people always laud china?



Ok, I find this funny. Which enemies have the capability to develop weapons that the US does?

Take your pick. China, Russia, any EU country...(not saying the EU is an enemy, but just pointing out the other countries which can indeed match our capability for R&D)

Did it occur to you if perhaps we stopped building a massive military and stopped acting like jerkoffs to the rest of the world that perhaps we'd have less enemies and less people willing to develop weapons against us?

Have I considered not being such bad neighbors would help? Absolutely, and you will get no argument from me in that corner.

Have I considered that having a smaller army would mean less enemies? Not even remotely. Do you honestly think the U.S. is a superpower because the world likes us? Maybe it's our economy? Our culture? No. No to all.
The reason we are considered a superpower is because we can kick nine shades of hell out of any country, anywhere in the world. Nevermind the fact that we can nuke them into oblivion.

Read history, and show me a single example of an empire that lost military strength and didn't get the shit kicked out of it by its neighbors.

A cut n paste from a different forum I frequent.




You can verify a lot of this here
http://money.cnn.com/news/specials/election/2008/index.html

INTERESTING DATA JUST RECEIVED ON TAXES

Please spread the word.

This is something you should be aware of so you don't get blind sided. This is
really going to catch a lot of families off guard. It should make you worry.

Proposed changes in taxes after 2008 General election:

CAPITAL GAINS TAX

MCCAIN
0% on home sales up to $500,000 per home (couples). McCain does not propose any change in existing home sales income tax.
OBAMA
28% on profit from ALL home sales

How does this affect you? If you sell your home and make a profit, you will pay 28% of your gain on taxes. If you are heading toward retirement and would like to down-size your home or move into a retirement community, 28% of the money you make from your home will go to taxes. This proposal will adversely affect the elderly who are counting on the income from their homes as part of their retirement income.

DIVIDEND TAX
MCCAIN 15% (no change)

OBAMA 39.6%

How will this affect you? If you have any money invested in stock market, IRA, mutual funds, college funds, life insurance, retirement accounts, or anything that pays or reinvests dividends, you will now be paying nearly 40% of the money earned on taxes if Obama becomes president. The experts predict that 'Higher tax rates on dividends and capital gains would crash the stock market, yet do absolutely nothing to cut the deficit.'

INCOME TAX
MCCAIN (no changes)

Single making 30K - tax $4,500
Single making 50K - tax $12,500
Single making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 60K- tax $9,000
Married making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 125K - tax $31,250

OBAMA (reversion to pre-Bush tax cuts)

Single making 30K - tax $8,400
Single making 50K - tax $14,000
Single making 75K - tax $23,250
Married making 60K - tax $16,800
Married making 75K - tax $21,000
Married making 125K - tax $38,750

Under Obama, your taxes will more than double!

How does this affect you? No explanation needed. This is pretty straight
forward.

INHERITANCE TAX

MCCAIN 0% (No change, Bush repealed this tax)

OBAMA Restore the inheritance tax

How does this affect you? Many families have lost businesses, farms, ranches, and homes that have been in their families for generations because they could not afford the inheritance tax. Those willing their assets to loved ones will only lose them to these taxes.
NEW TAXES BEING PROPOSED BY OBAMA

New government taxes proposed on homes that are more than 2400 square feet.

New gasoline taxes (as if gas weren't high enough already)

New taxes on natural resources consumption (heating gas, water, electricity)

New taxes on retirement accounts, and last but not least....

New taxes to pay for socialized medicine so we can receive the same level of medical care as other third-world countries!!!

What Barack Obama proposes is irrelevant, because any "change" he brings will be largely cosmetic - if even that. More likely, we will get more of the same: bigger government, less freedom, more warmongering abroad, etc.

Take your pick. China, Russia, any EU country...(not saying the EU is an enemy, but just pointing out the other countries which can indeed match our capability for R&D)





What about the fact that the US spends twice as much as the entire world combined on defense? Twice as much as the rest of the ENTIRE world COMBINED. Why is that?

What about the fact that the US spends twice as much as the entire world combined on defense? Twice as much as the rest of the ENTIRE world COMBINED. Why is that?


Easy answer, and can you please source it? It just seems kinda out there...

We spend that much money on our military so that every man and woman who we send into combat is given the best equipment it is possible for the U.S. to produce or buy. That is why all of our troops have body armor, modern weapons, and some of the best training there is. Because unlike many countries out there, we actually care about our troops.

I believe Obama's vagueness and ambiguity about what he plans to do when elected means that, whatever it is:
1. It is unconstitutional in some way, shape, or form
2. It is extremely unpopular, so much so that he CAN'T talk about it until after he's sworn in lest nobody vote for him, thereby handing the election to McCain

I suspect he intends to "enslave the white man" somehow, and legislate politically correct racism.


I'm not racist, I just hate: People that choose not to pay attention in class and then say it’s not their fault they’re stupid.

People that ask for equal rights for everyone and then expect special treatment.

Corrupt governments (hint, hint: United States of America, not saying the US is the worst. China is much worse.)

Wannabe gangsters. This includes just about any “gang” in America. The only real gangsters are the Mafia, the Stasi and the Yakuza.

African Americans (or anyone else for that matter) that think that black people should get special treatment just because “the white man” enslaved their ancestors. Guess what, African slavery was started in Africa by Africans!


QFT.

You can verify a lot of this here
http://money.cnn.com/news/specials/election/2008/index.html

INTERESTING DATA JUST RECEIVED ON TAXES

Please spread the word.

This is something you should be aware of so you don't get blind sided. This is
really going to catch a lot of families off guard. It should make you worry.

Proposed changes in taxes after 2008 General election:

CAPITAL GAINS TAX

MCCAIN
0% on home sales up to $500,000 per home (couples). McCain does not propose any change in existing home sales income tax.
OBAMA
28% on profit from ALL home sales

How does this affect you? If you sell your home and make a profit, you will pay 28% of your gain on taxes. If you are heading toward retirement and would like to down-size your home or move into a retirement community, 28% of the money you make from your home will go to taxes. This proposal will adversely affect the elderly who are counting on the income from their homes as part of their retirement income.

DIVIDEND TAX
MCCAIN 15% (no change)

OBAMA 39.6%

How will this affect you? If you have any money invested in stock market, IRA, mutual funds, college funds, life insurance, retirement accounts, or anything that pays or reinvests dividends, you will now be paying nearly 40% of the money earned on taxes if Obama becomes president. The experts predict that 'Higher tax rates on dividends and capital gains would crash the stock market, yet do absolutely nothing to cut the deficit.'

INCOME TAX
MCCAIN (no changes)

Single making 30K - tax $4,500
Single making 50K - tax $12,500
Single making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 60K- tax $9,000
Married making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 125K - tax $31,250

OBAMA (reversion to pre-Bush tax cuts)

Single making 30K - tax $8,400
Single making 50K - tax $14,000
Single making 75K - tax $23,250
Married making 60K - tax $16,800
Married making 75K - tax $21,000
Married making 125K - tax $38,750

Under Obama, your taxes will more than double!

How does this affect you? No explanation needed. This is pretty straight
forward.

INHERITANCE TAX

MCCAIN 0% (No change, Bush repealed this tax)

OBAMA Restore the inheritance tax

How does this affect you? Many families have lost businesses, farms, ranches, and homes that have been in their families for generations because they could not afford the inheritance tax. Those willing their assets to loved ones will only lose them to these taxes.
NEW TAXES BEING PROPOSED BY OBAMA

New government taxes proposed on homes that are more than 2400 square feet.

New gasoline taxes (as if gas weren't high enough already)

New taxes on natural resources consumption (heating gas, water, electricity)

New taxes on retirement accounts, and last but not least....

New taxes to pay for socialized medicine so we can receive the same level of medical care as other third-world countries!!!

THIS is why I will not vote for Obama - 'cause he's gonna jack up taxes! And not just on the rich, but the middle class too!

THIS is probably the "something" that I spoke of in my previous post in this thread.

I think he's a proponent of the "the more things change, the more they stay the same" school of thought.

Many families have lost... farms
I DEMAND to see even one of this happening as a direct result of inheritance tax.

DIVIDEND TAX
MCCAIN 15% (no change)

OBAMA 39.6%

How will this affect you? If you have any money invested in stock market, IRA, mutual funds, college funds, life insurance, retirement accounts, or anything that pays or reinvests dividends, you will now be paying nearly 40% of the money earned on taxes if Obama becomes president. The experts predict that 'Higher tax rates on dividends and capital gains would crash the stock market, yet do absolutely nothing to cut the deficit.'


This is slightly disingenuous as Obama will not change current levels of taxation on dividends for people earning under $250,000

"Long-term capital gains used to be taxed differently than dividends, which were subject to one's top income tax rate. Under the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, gains and dividends are treated equally. Currently the most one would pay is 15%.

Both rates are scheduled to rise by 2011 - long-term gains to 20% and dividends would once again be taxed a taxpayer's top income tax rate for dividends.

Obama would continue to treat gains and dividends equally and would keep the current rate in place for everyone except high-income households."

How can you possibly blame the debt on our military? Blame our civilian leaders, blame the shitty way they have run the economy. Soldiers don't get paid shit, and you want to cut back even more? How do you pay them when they are already grasping for straws?

Soldiers don't make their own weapons. The military industrial complex does. And when they stop charging 4-5 digit sums for handfuls of nuts and bolts, you might have a point.


Read history, and show me a single example of an empire that lost military strength and didn't get the shit kicked out of it by its neighbors.

Russia spends far less in terms of dollars on its conventional forces than the US does, and has a roughly equal performance when it comes to invasion and occupation capabilities, which the US has a habit of doing for the last what, 30 years?

You might want to look at where those billions of dollars are actually going, before blabbing about how they're going towards "getting the best possible equipment". Remember Dick Cheney's "Go with the army you have, not with the army you want" comment?

Concerning warring with Iraq:
Obama is absent from the list of congressmen who voted against the war
http://usliberals.about.com/od/liberalleadership/a/IraqNayVote.htm
he didn't vote
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8XwNCbSTQE
because he wasn't against warring with Iraq. He's for invading other countries, continuing to use America as the world's police
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uw2XTC1V4fk

In Illinois:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/12/obama.death.penalty.ap/
http://illinoischannel.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!B0DB128F5CD96151!2433.entry

13 revoked death sentences could serve as evidence that a bill Obama supported prevents citizens in Illinois from suffering in death row. The same man, Obama, was absent from voting on a war which has cost more than 13 lives unnecessarily. So he has neglected more important responsibilities he's employed for (like voting for war) and a reform on death penalty protocol in his state does not compensate for him skipping work, it's comparative import reveals him to be worse.
Another reform he's big on is against gov. subsidiaries in the name of farming to entities which do not farm and successful farmers. His solution? Give subsidiaries to organic farmers and their ilk instead. Subsidiaries are fundamentally harmful. Obama wanted the gov. to continue dispersing them. The change he proposes maintains an ill system

Economically:
If you've an open mind peruse offered evidence to evaluate it rather than refusing a new idea. The Federal Reserve issues credit backed by the American government's debt. To repay its' debt the American government has agreed to oblige the Federal Reserve at interest using credit from the Federal Reserve. Notice that this arrangement is cyclical. Every time the US government borrows from the Federal Reserve it owes more than it borrowed and must borrow more to pay off its' previous obligation. Such an arrangement assures that the US will 1) never be free of debt and 2) need ever-increasing substance as collateral.
The Federal Reserve's credit is worthless by default. $200000
on a record to the Bureau of Engraving and Printing has no more tangible product paired with it than my writing of it in this note. What gives a dollar worth are things seized by the federal government.
http://www.the-privateer.com/1933-gold-confiscation.html
What benefits and drawbacks are there then to such an economic system? Any entity, person or company, who secures a grant from the Federal Reserve is helped: he is given worth supplied by Americans, taken by the US government, at no cost to himself or the Federal Reserve. If Haliburton wants to build a bridge in Iraq and is issued a credit of $1000000 then it has new money to spend. But the real* value of money can not be created by saying or writing "you have $1000000"; it must be drawn from elsewhere. Remember the gold confiscation? That's an example of something physical (gold) taken to give the Federal Reserve's word (credit) weight. But gold hasn't been ordered submitted by Americans in decades so how is that "$1000000" financed? You donate a fraction of your dollar's real worth to Haliburton. We keep using dollars, which are good because the Federal Reserve says so, and we all donate from our possessions to whatever entity the Federal Reserve creates new credit for. So the first benefit of the Federal Reserve system is 1) entities the Federal Reserve chooses to back can buy possessions they haven't earned; the first drawback is 2) whoever's using Federal Reserve credit is always losing some of the real value he worked for as the American gov. takes on greater debt and the Federal Reserve introduces more units of credit.
Presuming you've a conscience and I explained some of the situation adequately, it must seem unfair. There's no justification for the Federal Reserve&co. to take of Americans' earnings to pay for what they want. It would be fairer for the Congress to issue money without usury instead of placing Americans' in debt.
You've probably wondered, what does all this have to do with Obama? He hasn't even acknowledge the unfair aspects of this system -that's what. He has given no indication of an intent to return currency-issuing to the Congress. It's the most substantial topic absent from his presidential campaign. I have wanted a President who would discontinue the American gov.'s unfair arrangement with the Federal Reserve. I found such a President in Ron Paul but he quit.
If you want to know more about our financial institution
http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/mcfadden.html
is a start. If you still want to know more contact me. If the drawbacks to the Federal Reserve system I've written here aren't sufficiently ill to convince you abolition's necessary contact me and I'll tell of others.


*Real value=the physical possessions procurable with a unit of currency. It is inversely proportional to Number value=the number of units in possession. If you have $5 and can buy a shoe for $5 then the currency you possess has a real value equivalent to a shoe and a number value of 5.
:eek: :mad:

Concerning warring with Iraq:
Obama is absent from the list of congressmen who voted against the war
http://usliberals.about.com/od/liberalleadership/a/IraqNayVote.htm
he didn't vote
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8XwNCbSTQE
because he wasn't against warring with Iraq. He's for invading other countries, continuing to use America as the world's police
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uw2XTC1V4fk

In Illinois:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/12/obama.death.penalty.ap/
http://illinoischannel.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!B0DB128F5CD96151!2433.entry

13 revoked death sentences could serve as evidence that a bill Obama supported prevents citizens in Illinois from suffering in death row. The same man, Obama, was absent from voting on a war which has cost more than 13 lives unnecessarily. So he has neglected more important responsibilities he's employed for (like voting for war) and a reform on death penalty protocol in his state does not compensate for him skipping work, it's comparative import reveals him to be worse.
Another reform he's big on is against gov. subsidiaries in the name of farming to entities which do not farm and successful farmers. His solution? Give subsidiaries to organic farmers and their ilk instead. Subsidiaries are fundamentally harmful. Obama wanted the gov. to continue dispersing them. The change he proposes maintains an ill system

Economically:
If you've an open mind peruse offered evidence to evaluate it rather than refusing a new idea. The Federal Reserve issues credit backed by the American government's debt. To repay its' debt the American government has agreed to oblige the Federal Reserve at interest using credit from the Federal Reserve. Notice that this arrangement is cyclical. Every time the US government borrows from the Federal Reserve it owes more than it borrowed and must borrow more to pay off its' previous obligation. Such an arrangement assures that the US will 1) never be free of debt and 2) need ever-increasing substance as collateral.
The Federal Reserve's credit is worthless by default. $200000
on a record to the Bureau of Engraving and Printing has no more tangible product paired with it than my writing of it in this note. What gives a dollar worth are things seized by the federal government.
http://www.the-privateer.com/1933-gold-confiscation.html
What benefits and drawbacks are there then to such an economic system? Any entity, person or company, who secures a grant from the Federal Reserve is helped: he is given worth supplied by Americans, taken by the US government, at no cost to himself or the Federal Reserve. If Haliburton wants to build a bridge in Iraq and is issued a credit of $1000000 then it has new money to spend. But the real* value of money can not be created by saying or writing "you have $1000000"; it must be drawn from elsewhere. Remember the gold confiscation? That's an example of something physical (gold) taken to give the Federal Reserve's word (credit) weight. But gold hasn't been ordered submitted by Americans in decades so how is that "$1000000" financed? You donate a fraction of your dollar's real worth to Haliburton. We keep using dollars, which are good because the Federal Reserve says so, and we all donate from our possessions to whatever entity the Federal Reserve creates new credit for. So the first benefit of the Federal Reserve system is 1) entities the Federal Reserve chooses to back can buy possessions they haven't earned; the first drawback is 2) whoever's using Federal Reserve credit is always losing some of the real value he worked for as the American gov. takes on greater debt and the Federal Reserve introduces more units of credit.
Presuming you've a conscience and I explained some of the situation adequately, it must seem unfair. There's no justification for the Federal Reserve&co. to take of Americans' earnings to pay for what they want. It would be fairer for the Congress to issue money without usury instead of placing Americans' in debt.
You've probably wondered, what does all this have to do with Obama? He hasn't even acknowledge the unfair aspects of this system -that's what. He has given no indication of an intent to return currency-issuing to the Congress. It's the most substantial topic absent from his presidential campaign. I have wanted a President who would discontinue the American gov.'s unfair arrangement with the Federal Reserve. I found such a President in Ron Paul but he quit.
If you want to know more about our financial institution
http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/mcfadden.html
is a start. If you still want to know more contact me. If the drawbacks to the Federal Reserve system I've written here aren't sufficiently ill to convince you abolition's necessary contact me and I'll tell of others.


*Real value=the physical possessions procurable with a unit of currency. It is inversely proportional to Number value=the number of units in possession. If you have $5 and can buy a shoe for $5 then the currency you possess has a real value equivalent to a shoe and a number value of 5.
:eek: :mad:

They used to have stuff like this in the old days before the internet, written on notebook paper with notes sideways in all the margins then they would copy and tape them to telephone poles all around town.

They do that in Ontario now. Students have to complete 10 hours of community service before getting their high school diploma.

They introduced it after I finished though and I did volunteer work anyways so it wouldn't have really mattered to me. I think the point is to get students into the community and do something for others and all.

I don't see why this would be a presidential platform though, isn't education mostly a state thing there?

Not 10 hours, 40 hours.

One of the things I've noticed with schools around here is that they limit the opportunities to those that the school approves of. I'm confident that Obama's opportunities will exclude many things that people willingly volunteer for, such as church work, in favor of more politically correct tasks.

I wouldn't be so sure. He has proposed expanding faith based initiatives. Allowing students to "choose" to volunteer in a church program is not a problem from a political or legal issue. Telling students they would have to choose a program with religious organizations is a problem. Obama is trying to show that the "religious right" does not have a cornerstone on faith. It was easy to try and paint Democrats as against religion in the past. I don't think that wedge can be driven this year.

Kat, thanks for allowing us to discuss the election at will, but this move has sadly come too late. Half of this board left and moved on because they were unable to freely discuss the #1 event going on.

"[W]e are going to grow our foreign service, open consulates that have been shuttered and double the size of the Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy," said Obama. "We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we have set. We have got to have a civilian national security force that is just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded."

He's going to fund a national security force that will exist that is just as powerful as the military, just as strong, just as well funded.

"Security force" is an armed force. So he's making another armed force, to supplant the military.

That, and double the size of the Peace Corps (the latter wouldn't cost as much as the military by any stretch).

He's saying he cannot rely on the military (probably for reasons that Democrats don't consider it politically reliable).

Nice promise there. So between mandatory volunteering (Obama Youth) and the armed adjunct to the military (the Obama SS), I am getting that fascist tingle.

So he's a communist yet fascist person. He's also a Muslim who has a crazy Christian preacher. He's only out for black people, but he promises to give relief to middle class Americans of all colors, religions, and creeds. He's a liberal anti-religion candidate that wants to expand faith based initiatives. Do you see how fucking stupid this generalization shit is yet?

They do that in Ontario now. Students have to complete 10 hours of community service before getting their high school diploma.

They introduced it after I finished though and I did volunteer work anyways so it wouldn't have really mattered to me. I think the point is to get students into the community and do something for others and all.

I don't see why this would be a presidential platform though, isn't education mostly a state thing there?
I had to do 150 hours as part of the International Baccalaureate in 11th and 12th grade. We all would divide our activities between "Awareness", "Creative" and "Action".

What??? No, no, the Republicans are totally opposed to anything that even remotely suggests that the government has to do something about "ensuring all citizens have access to basic health care": that's socialism, and the first step toward throwing us all into the gulag, has always been the Republican position.

Yes, because we (Bush Republicans) won't negotiate with terrorists. We have declared Iran the Axis of Evil and a state supporter of terrorism. So now we've opened up negotiations with Iran at a level not seen before. So while we're negotiating with terrorists we're not negotiating with them. Don't you see the logic. We also don't torture. Except for when we waterboard and force water into the lungs of detainees. "The United States doesn't torture!" Of course that's only when we are not torturing in every aspect of the words according to Geneva and international law. They believe in the free market economy and it is not the role of government to bail out failed banks and corporations. That is, until they bail out lenders, banks, etc. Then it's just...awe fuck it. This was just to show what the term flip flopping really means. Changing your mind is not flip-flopping. Saying one thing and doing another IS flip-flopping hypocritical bullshit.

Concerning warring with Iraq:
Obama is absent from the list of congressmen who voted against the war
http://usliberals.about.com/od/liberalleadership/a/IraqNayVote.htm
he didn't vote
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8XwNCbSTQE
because he wasn't against warring with Iraq. He's for invading other countries, continuing to use America as the world's police
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uw2XTC1V4fk

He didn't vote because he wasn't in the US Senate yet. He did, however, make a speech about it before the vote occurred:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech


In Illinois:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/12/obama.death.penalty.ap/
http://illinoischannel.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!B0DB128F5CD96151!2433.entry

13 revoked death sentences could serve as evidence that a bill Obama supported prevents citizens in Illinois from suffering in death row. The same man, Obama, was absent from voting on a war which has cost more than 13 lives unnecessarily. So he has neglected more important responsibilities he's employed for (like voting for war) and a reform on death penalty protocol in his state does not compensate for him skipping work, it's comparative import reveals him to be worse.
Another reform he's big on is against gov. subsidiaries in the name of farming to entities which do not farm and successful farmers. His solution? Give subsidiaries to organic farmers and their ilk instead. Subsidiaries are fundamentally harmful. Obama wanted the gov. to continue dispersing them. The change he proposes maintains an ill system

Economically:
If you've an open mind peruse offered evidence to evaluate it rather than refusing a new idea. The Federal Reserve issues credit backed by the American government's debt. To repay its' debt the American government has agreed to oblige the Federal Reserve at interest using credit from the Federal Reserve. Notice that this arrangement is cyclical. Every time the US government borrows from the Federal Reserve it owes more than it borrowed and must borrow more to pay off its' previous obligation. Such an arrangement assures that the US will 1) never be free of debt and 2) need ever-increasing substance as collateral.
The Federal Reserve's credit is worthless by default. $200000
on a record to the Bureau of Engraving and Printing has no more tangible product paired with it than my writing of it in this note. What gives a dollar worth are things seized by the federal government.
http://www.the-privateer.com/1933-gold-confiscation.html
What benefits and drawbacks are there then to such an economic system? Any entity, person or company, who secures a grant from the Federal Reserve is helped: he is given worth supplied by Americans, taken by the US government, at no cost to himself or the Federal Reserve. If Haliburton wants to build a bridge in Iraq and is issued a credit of $1000000 then it has new money to spend. But the real* value of money can not be created by saying or writing "you have $1000000"; it must be drawn from elsewhere. Remember the gold confiscation? That's an example of something physical (gold) taken to give the Federal Reserve's word (credit) weight. But gold hasn't been ordered submitted by Americans in decades so how is that "$1000000" financed? You donate a fraction of your dollar's real worth to Haliburton. We keep using dollars, which are good because the Federal Reserve says so, and we all donate from our possessions to whatever entity the Federal Reserve creates new credit for. So the first benefit of the Federal Reserve system is 1) entities the Federal Reserve chooses to back can buy possessions they haven't earned; the first drawback is 2) whoever's using Federal Reserve credit is always losing some of the real value he worked for as the American gov. takes on greater debt and the Federal Reserve introduces more units of credit.
Presuming you've a conscience and I explained some of the situation adequately, it must seem unfair. There's no justification for the Federal Reserve&co. to take of Americans' earnings to pay for what they want. It would be fairer for the Congress to issue money without usury instead of placing Americans' in debt.
You've probably wondered, what does all this have to do with Obama? He hasn't even acknowledge the unfair aspects of this system -that's what. He has given no indication of an intent to return currency-issuing to the Congress. It's the most substantial topic absent from his presidential campaign. I have wanted a President who would discontinue the American gov.'s unfair arrangement with the Federal Reserve. I found such a President in Ron Paul but he quit.
If you want to know more about our financial institution
http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/mcfadden.html
is a start. If you still want to know more contact me. If the drawbacks to the Federal Reserve system I've written here aren't sufficiently ill to convince you abolition's necessary contact me and I'll tell of others.


*Real value=the physical possessions procurable with a unit of currency. It is inversely proportional to Number value=the number of units in possession. If you have $5 and can buy a shoe for $5 then the currency you possess has a real value equivalent to a shoe and a number value of 5.
:eek: :mad:[/QUOTE]

Kat, thanks for allowing us to discuss the election at will, but this move has sadly come too late. Half of this board left and moved on because they were unable to freely discuss the #1 event going on.

Really? I will remind you that we were initially BEGGED to make one election sticky. When people asked us to reconsider that, guess what? we did.

It's unfair to say people were unable to freely discuss the election -- they chose not to post in the sticky, and not to ask us to rescind that policy... and we're also in the middle of what is, for most people, their vacation. Things get slow this time of year EVERY YEAR, and they pick up in September EVERY YEAR.

So, if you've got something to say about the topic at hand, go on and say it, but if you're just going to complain about "the board is DYING" (which we've heard every year for the past five years) please start a new thread on that topic.

But the real* value of money can not be created by saying or writing "you have $1000000"; it must be drawn from elsewhere. Remember the gold confiscation? That's an example of something physical (gold) taken to give the Federal Reserve's word (credit) weight.

The biggest question that no gold-standard advocate has been able to answer me is this: what makes gold intrinsically valuable? The amount used for industrial purposes is nothing compared to the amounts used for jewelry, and other than aesthetics it really has no use. If people didn't value it for that purpose, it would be worthless, or at least far less valuable than copper, tin or iron. Even agricultural products would be worth more, since we can always do without jewelry but we certainly can't do without food.

From a purely economic standpoint, there are other commodities far more valuable, portable, abundant and useful than gold and I see hardly any reason why gold has any more intrinsic value than fiat money.

The biggest question that no gold-standard advocate has been able to answer me is this: what makes gold intrinsically valuable? The amount used for industrial purposes is nothing compared to the amounts used for jewelry, and other than aesthetics it really has no use. If people didn't value it for that purpose, it would be worthless, or at least far less valuable than copper, tin or iron. Even agricultural products would be worth more, since we can always do without jewelry but we certainly can't do without food.

From a purely economic standpoint, there are other commodities far more valuable, portable, abundant and useful than gold and I see hardly any reason why gold has any more intrinsic value than fiat money.

Considering the fact that gold has been desired by people for thousands of years it would be a safe been to assume it won't lose its value any time soon. History should give you your answer.

Considering the fact that gold has been desired by people for thousands of years it would be a safe been to assume it won't lose its value any time soon. History should give you your answer.

People valued a lot of things in years past that are worthless today. I hardly believe gold will retain its value forever, no more than cowrie shells, salt, indigo, silk, spices or any commodity now plentiful. And unlike salt or spices, gold lacks any widespread utility.

People valued a lot of things in years past that are worthless today. I hardly believe gold will retain its value forever, no more than cowrie shells, salt, indigo, silk, spices or any commodity now plentiful. And unlike salt or spices, gold lacks any widespread utility.

Wealth.

Gold symbolizes wealth.

People lust after wealth. People kill for wealth, beg for wealth, etc. People (some, not all) will do just about anything for wealth.

As long has humans have greed, then the lust for wealth will stay put. And gold, historically, and currently, symbolizes wealth.

People valued a lot of things in years past that are worthless today. I hardly believe gold will retain its value forever, no more than cowrie shells, salt, indigo, silk, spices or any commodity now plentiful. And unlike salt or spices, gold lacks any widespread utility.

Wait, silk's not good anymore?

Wait, silk's not good anymore?

Silk is pretty cheap and easily available compared to only a couple of centuries ago. Same with salt and spices; nobody would think of paying huge sums of money for small amounts of them or using them as a store of value today. You can go to a local grocery store and buy what would have once been a king's ransom worth of spices for a pretty small sum.

Ultimately, increased supply caused these stores of value to depreciate considerably and there isn't really any reason why it can't happen to gold.

Silk is pretty cheap and easily available compared to only a couple of centuries ago. Same with salt and spices; nobody would think of paying huge sums of money for small amounts of them or using them as a store of value today. You can go to a local grocery store and buy what would have once been a king's ransom worth of spices for a pretty small sum.

Ultimately, increased supply caused these stores of value to depreciate considerably and there isn't really any reason why it can't happen to gold.

...
We suddenly discover that the bedrock of Madagascar is 12carat gold?

Perhaps an oil change? Pitching change?

...Sex change?

Silk is pretty cheap and easily available compared to only a couple of centuries ago. Same with salt and spices; nobody would think of paying huge sums of money for small amounts of them or using them as a store of value today. You can go to a local grocery store and buy what would have once been a king's ransom worth of spices for a pretty small sum.

Ultimately, increased supply caused these stores of value to depreciate considerably and there isn't really any reason why it can't happen to gold.

We can't MAKE gold yet. Indigo dye can be turned out by the thousands of tons instead of having to be carefully made by artisans stewing purple snails, Rayon and nylon and dacron and lots of other artificial fabrics can be made spun fine and spun pretty similar to silk. ships carry hundreds of thousands of tons of good around the world in weeks instead of long slow trains of camels plodding along in the midst of bandit raids, taking many months overland.

But gold still comes out of the ground, not out of factories.

Diamonds used to be hard to come by, now they're able to truck coal in one end of a factory and cart out industrial diamond out the other, and the posibility of true gem quality diamonds from a factory is improving.

by diamonds and coal are both still carbon, gold is gold and you can't yet truck in lead and truck out gold.

Hence why gold is a suitable monetary metal... theres only so much of it to go round.

Silver is increasing in value faster than gold. If you expect The End Of The World As We Know It (TEOTWAWKI), you should buy pre-1964 dimes & nickels and 1-oz Silver American Eagles or whatever your country's equivalent might be. It's also a lot easier to barter if TEOTWAWKI should come along due to the smaller units. *nods*

I will confess that after all these months of campaigning, I really have no better idea of what he proposes than I did from the beginning. He keeps talking about change, but I don't think I've picked up on what changes he intends to make or how he proposes to do so.

Note: this is not a thread for asserting that his opponent is superior -- just discussing what the heck it is he's trying to sell us.

Yes, I'm trying to get some debate going -- after desticking the election thread and saying "Have at it," there's been no new political threads I can see -- and some spambitching going on in the huge thread.

Go to his website. His plans for change are simple: make the government everything to everyone. In other words Socialism. He keeps his agenda vague enough that he can appear centrist and hopes no one actually researches his stances on the various topics.

Obama is nothing new and he comes from the thoroughly corrupt political system of Chicago. Not to mention that the media has been rather lax in investigating his background and connections. Wonder why.

His plans for change are simple: make the government everything to everyone. In other words Socialism.
As Popeye would say: ug ug ug ug ug.

Could you explain how Obama is a socialist, rather than a politician with some social democratic ideals?

Not to mention that the media has been rather lax in investigating his background and connections. Wonder why.
Shapeshifting reptilians?

As Popeye would say: ug ug ug ug ug.

Could you explain how Obama is a socialist, rather than a politician with some social democratic ideals?


Shapeshifting reptilians?

He's not a Socialist. He's just saying (in vague platitudes) what people want to hear, like any other politician. He happens to be a good public speaker, and is saying popular things.

How he'll get any of it to happen for real is another story.

none of us KNOW what ANY of them WILL actually DO once the're in office. so in many ways attempting to choose someone who will most represent ourselves personally at that level, where there are litterally millions of us being 'represented' is something of a cherade at any rate.

i think most of us would, most of us out here in the real world, unlike those we much choose between, would very much like to see an end to the false 'tradition' of putting kissing the ass of major economic intrests ahead of the real affects of real policies on real people, places and things.

while being pre-vetted by those very same economic intrests, long before we are given any real opportunity to choose among them, it is to this underlying, often unthought and unstated wish they must play.

a change from a policy of outward belligerance, to one worthy of an even slightly more elevated reputation among nations and domestically likewise to one less completely indentured to those same economic intrests would be in the intrest of every living person.

by implication one would hope this is what he is suggesting.

that at least some degree of maturity and responsibility might be brought to the post. it's current seat warmer being the lowest ebb of those qualities, if not in one nation's history, almost certain of it within the current and just past century.

that he would appear to represent the best chance for that, among the realisticly available options.

whoever does get in, the incentives which motivate them, will remain, as always, up to those aspects of everyone's daily lives least considered and thought of, which, statistically combined, are the very source creating those incentives.

a true leader can inspire though, whatever his personal failings. that was the magic of j.f.k., and appearantly of obama as well. and even if only that, like a good nickle cegar, seems to be something this america sorely needs.

=^^=
.../\...

He's not a Socialist. He's just saying (in vague platitudes) what people want to hear, like any other politician. He happens to be a good public speaker, and is saying popular things.
That'd be my summation of the man also.

That'd be my summation of the man also.

that would be my summation of everyone who ever ran for public office. other then some being less charismatic then others.

that is the base, their foundation, though fails to note their otherwise distinguising features, which perversely, they seem, almost universally, opposed to in reality revealing, while of course, just as universally pretending to.

that is precisely what is so frustrating and offencive, that we never really know them, untill it is much too late, when they are already in office and stabbing us in the back.

and whoever we choose, history has sown this to be the most likely outcome of our choosing.

there is an alternative though, and that would be for popular election to be at the most local level, and also all laws governing individuals to come from that level also, and then, subsiquent levels, all the way down to a world government, only regulating and placing reasonable and responsible limitation only on each more local level adjacent to them. each of these less local councils, there member choosen, again by people who know them, from among people who know them, by the members of the more local councils there less local ones are to regulate.

and at all levels this would be by plurality voting with no political or idiological partisanship required.

=^^=
.../\...

As Popeye would say: ug ug ug ug ug.

Could you explain how Obama is a socialist, rather than a politician with some social democratic ideals?


Shapeshifting reptilians?

No, he would say "MOGIT MOGIT MOGIT".

He is interested in change. He wants a national healthcare system, PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION IS OK BY HIM (Couldn't resist), wants the government to take an even larger role in the economy...

Must I go on?

Easy answer, and can you please source it? It just seems kinda out there... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

almost as much as all the other world combined, 10 times more than china, 14 times more than russia, and more than 100 times the total amount of north korea.
it seems the margin is big enough (not that it will matter when WMD will get into the picture and all the coventional power will be useless).

What change is Barack Obama proposing?

The change in your pocket, because that's all he's fixin' to leave you with if he gets into office.

Sorry if that was already mentioned; I'm not reading 8 pages to see if it was :rolleyes:

Go to his website. His plans for change are simple: make the government everything to everyone. In other words Socialism. He keeps his agenda vague enough that he can appear centrist and hopes no one actually researches his stances on the various topics.

Actually, I'd say that, the more one researches his stances, the more centrist they seem to be. Maybe it's because I did my research ahead of time, but the whole "OBAMA IS SO LIBERAL ZOMG!!!!" idea never held much water with me.


As for the original question, if you're looking for huge change in government policy ideas, you probably aren't going to find it. In actual policy, Obama seems to generally be interested in incremental changes that eventually add up to big change. And, despite what some say, he is pretty centrist on a lot of things.

Most of the time, when he talks about change, it is in the political process. He talks about pushing for the process to be more open - so that they people can take part and have a better idea what their government is doing. He isn't taking PAC money and has now ensured that the DNC is not either. He's raised his election funds mostly through relatively small donations from individuals (he raised something like $55 million last month, with the average donation being $68). He's including anyone who wants to participate in Democratic platform decisions by encouraging meetings of regular people around the world.

While I shy away from ascribing any kind of high-minded ideals to a high-level politician and I generally assume an ulterior motive, it would appear that he is trying to put more government power where it belongs - in the hands of the individuals governed. Whatever his ultimate motives in this are, it is a good goal IMO.


And there's also the idea of PayGo. It's not new as an idea, but it's something that has rarely been a part of our government. The idea is that any new spending must be paid for. Sending in a bill that says, "We're going to spend X amount on Y program" wouldn't be enough. The bill would have to include a source of money, whether it would be cutting from another program, closing a tax loophole, or even raising taxes. I, for one, would like to see our nation making some attempt to balance the budget. It would be a nice change.

http://i37.tinypic.com/n9dsn.jpg

HAHAHAHA we're all ****ing skrewed....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

almost as much as all the other world combined, 10 times more than china, 14 times more than russia, and more than 100 times the total amount of north korea.
it seems the margin is big enough (not that it will matter when WMD will get into the picture and all the coventional power will be useless).

thank you. I wasn't trying to question his (her?) integrity, I was genuinely curious.

But my answer remains the same.

Also, I would be curious if benefits for soldiers would be under military expidenture? (such as the GI Bill)

While the changes he's saying he'll make are a nice idea, they're just not practical.

1. Universal Health Care - As someone stated earlier, we're already paying for this. Also, while there ARE people out there without health insurance, they still get the help they need at ERs. When someone presents to an ER w/o health insurance, generally they fill out forms for the state to cover the expenses. This happened to me once. I was considered part of the "working poor" where I had a job but couldn't afford health insurance.

2. Downsizing the military, lifting up the peace corps - Wow, this is so ludicrous I don't even know where to start. I mean, seriously, if members of the Peace Corps are met by Colombian militant drug runners in the jungles of, well, Colombia, what do they say to loaded AK-47s pointed at their face? "Oh, wow, guys. Hang on while I dig a well so we can all approach this peacefully." Yeah, while you're doing that, dig your graves because that's what you're looking at. Only a strong military helps to keep the peace. Reagan proved this during his tenure and it holds true today. When negotiating, you do so from a position of strength. THAT is how a successful negotiator wins. Our enemies won't respond to the Peace Corps, they'll respond to a "bunker buster" though. Read "The Art of War". It's applicable in the everyday world as well as in the world of detente.

3. Compulsory Volunteerism - To require people to "volunteer" is a utopian ideal. When another poster said it was an oxymoron it was apt.

4. "Windfall Taxes" directed at Oil Companies - I can't believe ANYONE thinks this is a good idea. Do you seriously believe the Oil Companies aren't going to pass this down to the little guy at the pump? Really? And giving them the chance to "opt out" by putting the money into research only means the oil companies will be wasting money on useless research in order to keep the money in their coffers and the little guy at the pump will STILL have to pay for that. Anything that's not profit is passed down the line in the form of higher prices. This is how it is at Wal-Mart, this is how it is at any oil company. Look for $10 a gallon gasoline under Obama should this little nugget go through.

Someone asked earlier how Obama thought he was going to make all the changes he wants to make. One word, TAXES. He plans to tax and spend like no one else ever has. Universal Health Care? Add another 2 or 3% in taxes. While that doesn't sound like much in the grand scheme of things, it equates to BILLIONS of dollars every year.

The way the government budgeting process works is this: Office A has a budget of $1,000,000 a year, say 2006. In 2006 they spent that $1 million and more. For 2007, their budget, in response to a request for a raise, is $1.2 million. For 2008 they spend only $900,000. If they don't spend the other $300,000 their budget is reduced that amount the following year. What do they do? They start spending like crazy to get rid of that other $300,000 so their budget isn't reduced. It's all about the Benjamins and nothing else. This is how the social reform programs stay afloat is by spending ridiculous amounts of money on jute for their weaving classes or handing out $20 bills on street corners so they don't lose the money in the next year.

Obama as president = higher taxes (meaning, say "goodbye" to any type of tax refund EVER). As far as changing underpants, the voting public will be changing them hourly should Obama become President because we'll be crapping our pants that much with all the money he's going to be taking from us. And you may need new curtains if you ever open your pay stub in front of a window with curtains because it'll be shooting out of you know where when you see your taxes will probably double under Obama.

1. Universal Health Care - As someone stated earlier, we're already paying for this. Also, while there ARE people out there without health insurance, they still get the help they need at ERs. When someone presents to an ER w/o health insurance, generally they fill out forms for the state to cover the expenses. This happened to me once. I was considered part of the "working poor" where I had a job but couldn't afford health insurance.

You can get emergency care at an ER. And it will get covered somehow.

But you can't get preventative care and it's difficult to get chronic care. What this means is that we are covering the much, much more expensive care that comes in when someone must go to the doctor rather than preventing much of those issues with much less expensive but more frequent trips.

And, in reality, Obama's healthcare plan isn't about us footing the bill in the same way. It's really more a matter of collective bargaining. A person who works at a company that negotiates healthcare with insurance companies can often get a better plan for less money because he is a member of a large group. It is worth it for the insurance company to negotiate for a lower price because they're getting pretty likely access to a large group of new customers. Any of those customers alone wouldn't be worth negotiating the lower price.

Now scale that up to state or nationwide. You're looking at a huge prospective pool of customers, so companies will be willing to negotiate good plans. And once one does, the others will have to provide similar plans in order to compete.


The rest honestly sounds like alarmist nonsense to me.

Now scale that up to state or nationwide. You're looking at a huge prospective pool of customers, so companies will be willing to negotiate good plans. And once one does, the others will have to provide similar plans in order to compete.


So the government will negotiate on my behalf?

So the government will negotiate on my behalf?

Essentially, yes. The idea is that the government will negotiate an insurance plan that any US citizen can buy into, in much the same way that companies currently do for all of their employees. People will still have private insurance and will still be able to pick any plan they want (if they can pay for it), but those who do not have access to insurance through another outlet (ie. their job) will now have the option of the government-negotiated plan.

For those who cannot pay for even that plan, there will be supplements available, with which they can either buy into that particular plan, or similar plans that meet the same requirements.

At one point, Obama was talking about possibly having it as something that the individual states would negotiate with certain guidelines and I think that is a better idea, so I hope the final plan (if it goes through at all) does that instead. But doing at the national level could also work.

The rest sounds like alarmist nonsense.

Government preventative care is readily available if you know where to look. When I lived in Ohio, there were billboards all over the place, there were pamphlets in every doctor's office, there were mailings in my mailbox. Apparently, reading is what is required to receive government sponsored preventative medicine, not insurance. And even those who have insurance don't always get the preventative care they need. I have more health insurance than I know what to do with, and I don't get all the preventative care I need. (BTW, we pay for our health insurance. My husband is retired military and we have a supplemental policy for which we pay dearly. THIS is what we have to do to keep from going bankrupt as I have a serious illness requiring long-term care and meds)

And of course you would say it's alarmist because it smacks in the face your Utopian ideals.

While I agree we are in dire need of reform with regard to health care, it needs to start with the health care providers and insurance companies. If more tort reform were in place premiums wouldn't be so high as to price people out of their ability to GET health insurance. Why should I be required to pay for people to get health "insurance" when I'm already paying for my own? Why should my taxes go up when what is really needed is to fix the problem at it's source? Is it because PACs for the health care industry pump millions of dollars into campaigns?

Also, instead of letting people and their families lanquish on welfare, how about giving them a set limit on just how long they CAN stay, offering them college, training (and I mean REAL training, not just band-aid type stuff that will put them in a minimum wage job) and all kinds of opportunities to better their lot in life so THEY can pay for their own health insurance? Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, he eats for a lifetime. It doesn't take a village to raise a child, just one responsible person with a penchant to succeed and help their offspring do that same.

I would also appreciate no name calling. I respect the opinions of others and expect the same in return. What you call "alarmist nonsense" is my opinion regarding the reality of the situation. You might disagre with what I'm saying but I have an absolute right to say it. Instead of trying to discredit me as an "alarmist" how about listening to what I have to say and giving a cogent response. When you resort to name calling, you demean any argument you might make afterward to something resembling the adults in a Charlie Brown cartoon, "Wah, wah, wah, wah, wah..."

the truth is the only change obama is promising that he can deliver is the change from george bush and the republican policies that have been a disaster.

and that is more than enough change for me to vote for obama.

the rest of his platform--and its there and its fairly specific--depends entirely on what else george bush can do to us between now and january. if the economy is worse, he cant raise taxes. if the deficit is as bad or worse, we cant afford universal health care. if bush decides on a december war with iran, obama will be forced to deal with it.

its glaringly obvious that no matter how much mr obama wants a balanced budget, its impossible for the foreseeable future. we probably cant afford to increase the size of the peace corp and we certainly cant afford to require public service from every highschool graduate. bush has made sure that we cant do any of these things.

Essentially, yes. The idea is that the government will negotiate an insurance plan that any US citizen can buy into, in much the same way that companies currently do for all of their employees. People will still have private insurance and will still be able to pick any plan they want (if they can pay for it), but those who do not have access to insurance through another outlet (ie. their job) will now have the option of the government-negotiated plan.

For those who cannot pay for even that plan, there will be supplements available, with which they can either buy into that particular plan, or similar plans that meet the same requirements.

At one point, Obama was talking about possibly having it as something that the individual states would negotiate with certain guidelines and I think that is a better idea, so I hope the final plan (if it goes through at all) does that instead. But doing at the national level could also work.

What's the incentive for these insurance companies to negotiate in good faith? I mean, they don't seem particularly interested in offering healthcare to people who can't afford it right now, so why would the government interposing itself change anything (except make it more expensive thru increased transactional costs).

And if this is such a great thing, why doesn't the government do it for other types of insurance, like life insurance?

bush has made sure that we cant do any of these things.

While these things are happening under Bush, they weren't the sole responsibility of Bush. You need to understand the process better.

Everything you are mentioning, a balanced budget, being in a war, these are also the result of Congress approving it all and last time I checked, Congress was more than half Democrats. Wouldn't that be the reason Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat from California, is the Majority leader and Speaker of the House? Democrats are just as much to blame for the quaqmire this country's in as the Republicans, if not more since there are more of them.

Bush may try to enact Republican policy, but it has to get through the filter of a demoratic congress. Nothing he does is independent of Congress.

It's easy to blame one man for the ills of a collective. However, the collective is a majority held group of Democrats who stood behind every decision he has made, whether it's the budget or the war. The majority has voted with him, not against him, and when people cry foul, it is denied. Each congressperson's voting record can be looked up online. Bush only signs legislation, Congress presents it to him. Blame your congressman, not the man in office.

While these things are happening under Bush, they weren't the sole responsibility of Bush. You need to understand the process better.

Everything you are mentioning, a balanced budget, being in a war, these are also the result of Congress approving it all and last time I checked, Congress was more than half Democrats. Wouldn't that be the reason Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat from California, is the Majority leader and Speaker of the House? Democrats are just as much to blame for the quaqmire this country's in as the Republicans, if not more since there are more of them.

Bush may try to enact Republican policy, but it has to get through the filter of a demoratic congress. Nothing he does is independent of Congress.

It's easy to blame one man for the ills of a collective. However, the collective is a majority held group of Democrats who stood behind every decision he has made, whether it's the budget or the war. The majority has voted with him, not against him, and when people cry foul, it is denied. Each congressperson's voting record can be looked up online. Bush only signs legislation, Congress presents it to him. Blame your congressman, not the man in office.

yeah if only most of that hadnt happened when we had a republican congress you would have had SUCH a good point.

It's easy to blame one man for the ills of a collective. However, the collective is a majority held group of Democrats who stood behind every decision he has made, whether it's the budget or the war. The majority has voted with him, not against him, and when people cry foul, it is denied. Each congressperson's voting record can be looked up online. Bush only signs legislation, Congress presents it to him. Blame your congressman, not the man in office.
Actualy, the Democrats didn't hold Congress during the whole of the Bush administration. It wasn't until very recently, in fact (2006) that they got control of both houses - by which point most of the damage had already been done. If Congress and the White House are at loggerheads, the status quo remains - and that status quo was set by Republicans in Congress doing almost exactly what Bush wanted.

Government preventative care is readily available if you know where to look. When I lived in Ohio, there were billboards all over the place, there were pamphlets in every doctor's office, there were mailings in my mailbox. Apparently, reading is what is required to receive government sponsored preventative medicine, not insurance.

It really depends on where you are. There are state programs in some states, but not all.

Besides, there is a difference between government sponsored preventative care and insurance that you could pay for by yourself, if only you had access.

And even those who have insurance don't always get the preventative care they need. I have more health insurance than I know what to do with, and I don't get all the preventative care I need.

Hence the reason for negotiating a plan that would cover it.

And of course you would say it's alarmist because it smacks in the face your Utopian ideals.

No, I say it's alarmist because it's all ZOMG THE WORLD IS GOING TO END!

Cutting back on military spending and increasing more diplomatic channels isn't going to suddenly make us vulnerable. We have the most powerful military in the world several times over. We could cut back on military spending by quite a bit and still be negotiating from a position of strength with every other nation in the world. To pretend that the idea is to cut our military to the point that we wouldn't have that advantage is silly.

While oil companies will certainly pass on any taxes levied, we aren't talking about doubling the price here. And even the oil companies have to worry about backlash from raising their prices that much.

Having the richest end of the spectrum go back to the pre-Bush tax rates isn't going to suddenly mean "ZOMG NO TAX REFUNDS EVAH!!!" People received tax refunds when those rates were normal in the Clinton era. Expecting that all tax refunds are suddenly going to disappear with any candidate's tax plan is just plain silly.

Not to mention the fact that no president is going to get all the policy he plans for through Congress. Having Congress in the hands of the same party does make it easier for him to get some things through, but even then he won't get all of it.

While I agree we are in dire need of reform with regard to health care, it needs to start with the health care providers and insurance companies.

Good luck with that. If you're going to change the way they do things, you need incentive. As long as they are in control of a necessity and there is no incentive for them to cover more people, they won't.

If more tort reform were in place premiums wouldn't be so high as to price people out of their ability to GET health insurance.

Tort reform is usually more of a scapegoat issue than anything real. And the types of reform people push for usually hurt patients more than helping them.

Why should I be required to pay for people to get health "insurance" when I'm already paying for my own?

Why should you be required to pay even more for their emergency care?

Also, instead of letting people and their families lanquish on welfare, how about giving them a set limit on just how long they CAN stay, offering them college, training (and I mean REAL training, not just band-aid type stuff that will put them in a minimum wage job) and all kinds of opportunities to better their lot in life so THEY can pay for their own health insurance?

I agree!

We've spent way too much time and effort on a welfare system that is so focused on the here and now that it essentially traps people in the system. Spending money on real initiatives to get people out of the system, rather than just paying for the basic necessities, would save quite a bit in the end and would actually be a path to self-sufficiency!

Interestingly enough, from what I can tell, Obama agrees on this count. He says very similar things in The Audacity of Hope.

I would also appreciate no name calling. I respect the opinions of others and expect the same in return. What you call "alarmist nonsense" is my opinion regarding the reality of the situation. You might disagre with what I'm saying but I have an absolute right to say it. Instead of trying to discredit me as an "alarmist" how about listening to what I have to say and giving a cogent response. When you resort to name calling, you demean any argument you might make afterward to something resembling the adults in a Charlie Brown cartoon, "Wah, wah, wah, wah, wah..."

(a) I characterized your position, not you. There was no name calling.

(b) My opinion is that it is alarmist and that I thus there is no real response. It's like responding to "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!" What exactly do you say to someone yelling that?

People wonder what Barack Obama wants to change?!?!

Then why don't they look at his website?

www.barackobama.com

there are a list of his opinions on each issue. making assumptions is just dumb.
do a little research and find out.

What's the incentive for these insurance companies to negotiate in good faith? I mean, they don't seem particularly interested in offering healthcare to people who can't afford it right now, so why would the government interposing itself change anything (except make it more expensive thru increased transactional costs).

It's the value of collective bargaining. As I said, one person trying to get an insurance policy doesn't give much incentive for the company to provide an affordable plan.

But when a negotiation will give them access to lots of prospective customers, now the gamble looks profitable and there is much more incentive to provide an affordable plan.

And if this is such a great thing, why doesn't the government do it for other types of insurance, like life insurance?

Probably because life insurance isn't as much of a necessity. People need healthcare, whether they have coverage or not. A life insurance policy is just a little extra to leave behind when you die.

http://i37.tinypic.com/n9dsn.jpg

HAHAHAHA we're all ****ing skrewed....



do you make less than $300,000 a year? chances are you do- it's about a 90% chance, in fact.

if so, both major candidates plan to lower your taxes.

if you make less than $100,000 a year, obama's plan would lower them MORE.

2. Downsizing the military, lifting up the peace corps - Wow, this is so ludicrous I don't even know where to start. I mean, seriously, if members of the Peace Corps are met by Colombian militant drug runners in the jungles of, well, Colombia, what do they say to loaded AK-47s pointed at their face? "Oh, wow, guys. Hang on while I dig a well so we can all approach this peacefully." Yeah, while you're doing that, dig your graves because that's what you're looking at. Only a strong military helps to keep the peace. Reagan proved this during his tenure and it holds true today. When negotiating, you do so from a position of strength. THAT is how a successful negotiator wins. Our enemies won't respond to the Peace Corps, they'll respond to a "bunker buster" though. Read "The Art of War". It's applicable in the everyday world as well as in the world of detente.

3. Compulsory Volunteerism - To require people to "volunteer" is a utopian ideal. When another poster said it was an oxymoron it was apt.


what, pray tell, would EITHER the us military or the peace corps be DOING in the jungles of colombia with those militant drug runners? maybe we should keep our big, stupid, heavily armed nose out of places it doesn't belong.

as far as the volunteer thing, obama proposes making a free college education dependent on the student performing community service, either domestically or through a group like the peace corps. how is this not a great idea (ignoring the fact that you probably oppose the federal government shelling out for education anyway)? you get volunteers working in places that need it, whether they're inner cities or famine stricken countries, and you get a better educated citizenry. no one is forced to participate.

I have to admit, I'm not as HTML savvy as the rest of you to cut and paste the portions I want to quote...

At least we can agree on some points, which to me is a good start.

As far as me not getting all the preventative care I need, I didn't complete the thought... I have the coverage for it, I just don't do it, which is a "shame on Nancy", not my insurance provider. Providing the opportunity to get necessary preventative care doesn't make it happen, it just makes it available. Free will still dictates what people do. There will still be people who don't get preventative care.

With regard to the government working on behalf of the uninsured, that scares the bejesus outta me. Since when has the government EVER represented the true good of the people? I think anyone can agree that when the government is involved, whether it's a Democratic or Republican government, bad things happen. And this is coming from someone whose entire life has been part of the "government machine" both as a military dependant and as a member of the military. I hold true to the adage, "I love my country, it's my government I fear." The government is responsible for my familys' health care coverage and it's an HMO. I think we all know just how bad an HMO is... but this is what the government felt was best for THEM, not the people using it.

As far as tort reform being the scapegoat, it is lawsuits that lend a hand to the high cost of care in hospitals and it's the reason premiums are so high. The insurance companies are out for themselves just like any other capitalist venture and they are in it for profit. After Katrinia, when so many people filed claims, rates went up. Eventually, the insurance companies had to be sued in order to force them to pay the claims. Insurance companies are so corrupt it's almost funny they still stay in business, but they are a necessary evil. And we live in such a litigious society insurance companies have to pay for much more than is necessary when juries rule against them. People will sue for anything and everything if they think there's a fast buck in it for them. Were there not so many frivilous lawsuits, were people to come to realize they coulsn't just sue whenever a doctor looked at them wrong, there would be less lawsuits and the insurance companies could get back to the business of screwing the little guy again. Perhaps our premiums would go down (Not really since there's no reason to lower them, corporate greed would take over).

I know it sounds like I'm ranting and I probably am. I also realize I'm beginning to sound like a conspiracy theorist, which I'm really not. I don't think the government sets out to screw the little guy intentionally, it's simply not that sophisticated, but once the government is involved, it's scary as hell. Having been somewhat on the inside, knowing what our government is capable of, I think we need to scrap the people we have and start over with a whole new group to corrupt. I don't even care if their Democrat or Republican. In the beginning, they all have good intentions.

It's the value of collective bargaining. As I said, one person trying to get an insurance policy doesn't give much incentive for the company to provide an affordable plan.

But when a negotiation will give them access to lots of prospective customers, now the gamble looks profitable and there is much more incentive to provide an affordable plan.

They already have access to those customers. There is no law preventing insurance companies from lowering their prices right now (assuming all else is equal) to capture some of the 40 million odd uninsured. The fact that they haven't done so just means that those people can't or won't meet the insurance companies reserve price. If indeed, huge savings were possible while still operating at a profit, somebody would already have done it. Inviting them to washington for a chin wag with bureaucrats won't change a thing. To make this work the government will have to do more than just negotiate, it will have to offer something in return, for example mandating people carry healthcare. Or transferring the already insured into the same negotiation pool as the uninsured.

They already have access to those customers.

Not in the same way that they would in a collective bargaining situation.

An insurance company "has access" to everyone who works for a given company as well, but they won't offer the same type of plan to those people individually as they do with a company-negotiated plan that will likely rope in a lot more of them.

It's important to remember that insurance is essentially a gamble. They're betting that you won't get sick and they'll just get to keep most of your money. If it's just one person getting a good plan, they aren't going to make much off of that, especially if that one person happens to be in the percentage that gets really sick and needs lots of money. But if they're likely to get 500 customers signed onto the plan, it looks more profitable. And so on....

There is no law preventing insurance companies from lowering their prices right now (assuming all else is equal) to capture some of the 40 million odd uninsured.

No, there isn't. But if it doesn't look profitable, they aren't going to do it.

And, right now, those who do offer low cost plans are going to continue doing so with plans that don't cover much of anything - because there is no incentive to offer those people anything better.

The fact that they haven't done so just means that those people can't or won't meet the insurance companies reserve price.

Or, that the incentive isn't there. Think about it. The company that gets the government contract won't have guaranteed customers (just as those who contract with businesses don't). But they'll be far, far more likely to get those customers.

If indeed, huge savings were possible while still operating at a profit, somebody would already have done it. Inviting them to washington for a chin wag with bureaucrats won't change a thing. To make this work the government will have to do more than just negotiate, it will have to offer something in return, for example mandating people carry healthcare. Or transferring the already insured into the same negotiation pool as the uninsured.

One thing the government is offering is to cover those who can't afford it.

And those who are already insured would be in the negotiation pool, just as people who already carry other insurance are when a company negotiates. The "pool", as it were, isn't a matter of guaranteed customers, it is a pool of likely customers. Since the government-negotiated plan would be one available to any citizen, the "pool" would be all citizens.

Asfar as I know, Barrack's plan is basically to thow as much money as possible at every problem we have. Except millitary spending, he wants to decrease that.

Asfar as I know, Barrack's plan is basically to thow as much money as possible at every problem we have. Except millitary spending, he wants to decrease that.
/threadwin.

Asfar as I know, Barrack's plan is basically to thow as much money as possible at every problem we have. Except millitary spending, he wants to decrease that.

I wonder where he's going to get the money from.

And if the current slide of the dollar isn't an argument against Keynesian economics (the idea that deficit spending and massive government debt is good), I don't know what is.

With regard to the government working on behalf of the uninsured, that scares the bejesus outta me.

*snip for length*

This is precisely why I don't want a single-payer healthcare system. I don't want the government completely calling the shots.

In the proposed system, just as your employer (if you have employer-provided health insurance) doesn't fully call the shots, the government wouldn't. They would provide the outlet for collective bargaining into which any citizen could choose to join. If they do negotiate a crappy plan, nobody has to buy in, and the time would be wasted. So I think they're less likely to do so.

As far as tort reform being the scapegoat, it is lawsuits that lend a hand to the high cost of care in hospitals and it's the reason premiums are so high.

*snip for length again*

Again, I think this is largely a scapegoat. Insurance companies will use any excuse to raise rates, and this is one they currently use.

I would like to see reform to stop frivolous lawsuits, but the types of reform that have been put forth don't do that. All they do is keep people who really have been injured from receiving the money they need for long-term care by placing arbitrary caps on the amount received.

What I'd like to see is doctors who get licenses in a state put into a pool like a jury pool. When a malpractice lawsuit is brought up, 3 (or more) independent doctors should be sent the case for review. They can then make recommendations to the judge about whether or not the case has any merit. The judge wouldn't necessarily have to follow these recommendations, but it would likely lead to many more frivolous suits being dropped outright.

On top of that, there should be a mechanism by which, instead of placing a dollar amount on something, the judgment could be something like "Pays all related medical cost for the rest of the patient's natural life." But, in truth, that's a much more difficult thing to do than it sounds.

I know it sounds like I'm ranting and I probably am. I also realize I'm beginning to sound like a conspiracy theorist, which I'm really not. I don't think the government sets out to screw the little guy intentionally, it's simply not that sophisticated, but once the government is involved, it's scary as hell. Having been somewhat on the inside, knowing what our government is capable of, I think we need to scrap the people we have and start over with a whole new group to corrupt. I don't even care if their Democrat or Republican. In the beginning, they all have good intentions.

This I do agree with. It's why I laugh at people who go on and on about Obama's lack of experience. In many ways, fewer years in the political system is more of a plus to me than it is a minus. It means those good intentions might not yet have been corroded away...

Change, Hope and terms of that genre tend to make people invision what they want to see happen---rather than what will happen.....

Substance is shown over time---Obama has shown no substance.

Mind you I like the guy.......He just isn't Presidential material.

He is a user of language and ideals with no show of accomplishment.

I wish it were otherwise as I would support him.

I am a republican BTW.

With the way congress and the political machine now work, more experience is a good thing, IMHO.

For example...

Jimmy Carter is touted to have been an ineffectual president. I wish I could say it was because he was a Democrat but it had nothing to do with his politics and everything to do with his inexperience.

Jimmy Carter was a nice guy with good intentions. Like Obama, he thought he could change the world in one fell swoop, and that simply wasn't the case. He was truly out of his element. However, as a humanitarian, I don't know anyone could be held up as a near perfect example of that as is Jimmy Carter. To make it inside the beltway requires a huge amount of wheeling and dealing. Also, there's a trust issue. An honorable man in a dishonorable world simply becomes chum. Making a promise and keeping one are two different animals.

This is what worries me most about Obama, well, that and he's a Democrat, but I think I might feel the same way were he another political party. He has loftier ideas than can be implemented in the real world. He is probably a man of honor and he'll sink so fast you'd think he had weights in his shoes.

Just to show I'm not a complete party line idiot, I also have qualms about John McCain. Being from Arizona, I have been particularly miffed that he took the stance on Amnesty that he did. Roughly 80% of his constituents feel the borders should be closed but McCain took the opposite stance. He doesn't represent the will of the people. I have other misgivings but this is my biggest one. To be frank, I don't trust the man as far as I can spit.

with The Way Congress And The Political Machine Now Work, More Experience Is A Good Thing, Imho.

For Example...

Jimmy Carter Is Touted To Have Been An Ineffectual President. I Wish I Could Say It Was Because He Was A Democrat But It Had Nothing To Do With His Politics And Everything To Do With His Inexperience.

Jimmy Carter Was A Nice Guy With Good Intentions. Like Obama, He Thought He Could Change The World In One Fell Swoop, And That Simply Wasn't The Case. He Was Truly Out Of His Element. However, As A Humanitarian, I Don't Know Anyone Could Be Held Up As A Near Perfect Example Of That As Is Jimmy Carter. To Make It Inside The Beltway Requires A Huge Amount Of Wheeling And Dealing. Also, There's A Trust Issue. An Honorable Man In A Dishonorable World Simply Becomes Chum. Making A Promise And Keeping One Are Two Different Animals.

This Is What Worries Me Most About Obama, Well, That And He's A Democrat, But I Think I Might Feel The Same Way Were He Another Political Party. He Has Loftier Ideas Than Can Be Implemented In The Real World. He Is Probably A Man Of Honor And He'll Sink So Fast You'd Think He Had Weights In His Shoes.

Just To Show I'm Not A Complete Party Line Idiot, I Also Have Qualms About John Mccain. Being From Arizona, I Have Been Particularly Miffed That He Took The Stance On Amnesty That He Did. Roughly 80% Of His Constituents Feel The Borders Should Be Closed But Mccain Took The Opposite Stance. He Doesn't Represent The Will Of The People. I Have Other Misgivings But This Is My Biggest One. To Be Frank, I Don't Trust The Man As Far As I Can Spit.

Stop Being Such A Sensible Conservative! :D

With the way congress and the political machine now work, more experience is a good thing, IMHO.

The beginning of that sentence is the main point there. If you want things to go on as they currently are, vote for someone with lots of experience within that system.

If not, vote for someone who is doing things differently.

Jimmy Carter is touted to have been an ineffectual president. I wish I could say it was because he was a Democrat but it had nothing to do with his politics and everything to do with his inexperience.

More to do with his handlers, really. He was pushed into running for president by bad advisers who continued to advise him during his presidency.

Jimmy Carter was a nice guy with good intentions. Like Obama, he thought he could change the world in one fell swoop, and that simply wasn't the case.

Perhaps he did. But if he did, I don't think the comparison to Obama is very apt. Obama has seen the intertia of the system and how it stands in the way of getting even the smallest thing done. I don't believe he expects to change the world in one fell swoop, as you say - although that is an accusation lobbed at him quite often. It's more that he wants to set things in motion in a new direction. The end results will take quite a while to materialize.

Just to show I'm not a complete party line idiot, I also have qualms about John McCain. Being from Arizona, I have been particularly miffed that he took the stance on Amnesty that he did. Roughly 80% of his constituents feel the borders should be closed but McCain took the opposite stance. He doesn't represent the will of the people. I have other misgivings but this is my biggest one. To be frank, I don't trust the man as far as I can spit.

On that last sentence, I'd have to agree with you - mostly because of the complete about-face he did on many issues between 2000 and now, apparently because his old positions lost him the nomination then. But which McCain is the real one?

Stop Being Such A Sensible Conservative! :D

ROFLMAO! Okay, wow, won't make that mistake again! :$

On that last sentence, I'd have to agree with you - mostly because of the complete about-face he did on many issues between 2000 and now, apparently because his old positions lost him the nomination then. But which McCain is the real one?

Who knows WHO is the real McCain? Spending time in the Hanoi Hilton teaches one a great deal about survival. Also, being a military officer teaches a more about that as well. My experience with all but two officers I can name is that they are all weasels and can't be trusted.

Too bad Ron Paul dropped out of the race. I was leaning heavily towards him.

Stop Being Such A Sensible Conservative! :D

Did you capitalize all the words when you quoted him?

Who knows WHO is the real McCain? Spending time in the Hanoi Hilton teaches one a great deal about survival. Also, being a military officer teaches a more about that as well. My experience with all but two officers I can name is that they are all weasels and can't be trusted.

Hmmm. I would think it had more to do with being a politician. But maybe there's something in that.

Of course, the military guys I've known have been great. But they weren't officers, either, at least not CO's.

Too bad Ron Paul dropped out of the race. I was leaning heavily towards him.

I wanted to like him. I really did. Didn't work though. He didn't seem any more committed to his stated ideals than most politicians. He'd throw them by the wayside for personal ideology just as quickly.

Did you capitalize all the words when you quoted him?

The forum service does that sometimes. It's random, I think.

Not in the same way that they would in a collective bargaining situation.

An insurance company "has access" to everyone who works for a given company as well, but they won't offer the same type of plan to those people individually as they do with a company-negotiated plan that will likely rope in a lot more of them.

Collective bargaining has nothing to do with the better rates that companies get. The reason GM or the UAW can get a lower rate than an individual in the private market is because the profile of the insured pool is different (Well, credit risk somewhat too). Because the company takes up 80-90% of the cost few, if any, single 20-30 year olds opt out of the policy. Conversely, in the private market, this group overwhelmingly elects not to carry insurance if it is not provided. As single employed 20-30 year olds tend to have negligible health costs compared to everyone else their inclusion brings the cost of insurance down. Unless the government is prepared to mandate that everyone currently uninsured if forced to buy the healthcare insurance they are negotiating, then virtually nothing will change in respect to policy premiums.

Insurance rates are set by actuarial science, not by negotiation. It is what it is.

It's important to remember that insurance is essentially a gamble. They're betting that you won't get sick and they'll just get to keep most of your money. If it's just one person getting a good plan, they aren't going to make much off of that, especially if that one person happens to be in the percentage that gets really sick and needs lots of money. But if they're likely to get 500 customers signed onto the plan, it looks more profitable. And so on....

That mischaracterizes how it works. Insurance companies are well aware that people get sick. What they are doing is providing a way for individuals to hedge their personal risk across a group of similar individuals as well as facilitating a transfer of wealth (a subsidy) from the young to the old and the childless to those with families. Naturally a fee is involved.

Moreover, they are not even bearing all of the risk. Individual and aggregate stoploss coverage is purchased from reinsurers. The cost of this reinsurance depends simply upon the aggregate composition of the policies for which reinsurance is sought. At no stage anywhere are reinsurers negotiated with by the primary policy holder, yet it is a major cost input, and directly effects the cost for the policy holder. There is no way to reduce this just by bargaining.


Or, that the incentive isn't there. Think about it. The company that gets the government contract won't have guaranteed customers (just as those who contract with businesses don't). But they'll be far, far more likely to get those customers.

If it's voluntary, I remain highly skeptical that it will change people's behavior at all. What I can see happening is that more families who are currently not covered would take up insurance, but that would just make it more expensive in the second year. Unless you can get the 20-30 year old employed singles to take insurance - which is highly doubtful since some of them elect to not take highly subsidized insurance anyway - then the net effect will be zero.

And those who are already insured would be in the negotiation pool, just as people who already carry other insurance are when a company negotiates. The "pool", as it were, isn't a matter of guaranteed customers, it is a pool of likely customers. Since the government-negotiated plan would be one available to any citizen, the "pool" would be all citizens.

I'll grant that the vanishingly few people who carry individual insurance privately will be in the pool, as they will naturally be subsumed by the uninsured group. But those who have insurance provided by their employer are wholly separate from any government negotiation because the uptake rate across all demographics (which is how the rates are really set), are completely different.

And the reality is that large companies don't really negotiate their plans. Not in the sense of sitting round and chiseling over price. They actually act much like private citizens in that they tender quotes and take the policy that is best suited most cost effective. Insurance is a competitive market and it is driven by a numbers game. There is no cartel or anything.

Don't get me wrong, I am no supporter of the current status quo. In fact I think a proper national health service should be adopted (with all that it entails). This plan, however, is doomed to failure from the beginning.

He's going to rewrite history, too.

Apparently, he went to the same history class that Bush did.

Throughout our history, America’s confronted constantly evolving danger, from the oppression of an empire, to the lawlessness of the frontier, from the bomb that fell on Pearl Harbor, to the threat of nuclear annihilation. Americans have adapted to the threats posed by an ever-changing world.

Just to clarify: a whole lot of bombs fell on Pearl Harbor. And the threat wasn’t the bomb, it was the empire that sent massive waves of planes to drop them on our Pacific Fleet. Those bombs fell because we didn’t adapt to the threat, and in fact we kept telling ourselves that we could talk the Japanese out of their policy of aggression and empire. We came within a few aircraft carriers of losing the Pacific out of our willful blindness to the nature of the Japanese.

The same can be said for the “nuclear annihilation” Obama also mentions. The threat wasn’t nuclear annihilation as such; that was part of the threat, not the entire threat itself. The real threat came from another kind of empire, one that wanted to conquer from within as well as without — and the American Left after 1969 spent most of its time arguing that the threat didn’t really exist, that Soviet Communism wanted peaceful coexistence, and that socialism and Communism were the achievement of Utopia. After Jimmy Carter’s disastrous cheek-kissing with Leonid Brezhnev and the invasion of Afghanistan that followed, America woke up and put adults in charge - and within a decade, the Soviet Union collapsed of its own contradictions and rot.

This gaffe goes beyond placing Auschwitz and Treblinka in western Germany or putting American troops in Poland during World War II. It speaks to a fundamental superficiality of Obama, a man who seizes tropes and themes with little understanding of their significance or their details. Obama reveals himself as a man who doesn’t understand threats at all, and whose instinctive responses would make them far worse.

He's going to rewrite history, too.

Apparently, he went to the same history class that Bush did.

Your criticisms are false and contrived. I'll bet you anything he said "bombs" not bomb, in which case his statement about Pearl Harbor would be utterly accurate.

And nuclear anhialation was a very real threat during the Cold War. That the Soviet Empire was a separate, related threat does not make stating that nuclear anhialation was a threat false. Well technically it is arguably false, because there were not enough nuclear weapons to anhiallate everyone, but its such a common misconception that even if Obama was aware of it, few would believe him if he said it. Its also, in this context, a non-essential technical clarification that would presumably detract from the point he was trying to make.

The worst you can argue from those examples was that Obama was talking in the casual way that people on the street talk about these things. So Obama talks like a regular person, and you call him "superficial". I suppose if he didn't talk like a regular person, you'd call him an elietist?

And don't think I didn't catch your implication that the entire left during the 60's were Communist sympathizers.:upyours:

Your criticisms are rediculous. Its just semantics designed to attack Obama for not understanding history while hiding the fact that apparently you don't understand logic, integrity, or casual speech.


(I apologise for not quoting all of your statement. The quote button seems to be malfunctioning).

Your criticisms are false and contrived. I'll bet you anything he said "bombs" not bomb, in which case his statement about Pearl Harbor would be utterly accurate.

And nuclear anhialation was a very real threat during the Cold War. That the Soviet Empire was a separate, related threat does not make stating that nuclear anhialation was a threat false. Well technically it is arguably false, because there were not enough nuclear weapons to anhiallate everyone, but its such a common misconception that even if Obama was aware of it, few would believe him if he said it. Its also, in this context, a non-essential technical clarification that would presumably detract from the point he was trying to make.

The worst you can argue from those examples was that Obama was talking in the casual way that people on the street talk about these things. So Obama talks like a regular person, and you call him "superficial". I suppose if he didn't talk like a regular person, you'd call him an elietist?

And don't think I didn't catch your implication that the entire left during the 60's were Communist sympathizers.:upyours:

Your criticisms are rediculous. Its just semantics designed to attack Obama for not understanding history while hiding the fact that apparently you don't understand logic, integrity, or casual speech.


(I apologise for not quoting all of your statement. The quote button seems to be malfunctioning).


if you look at this clip http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=de3_1216399524 you can hear that he did say "bombs", the ssss sound just got quashed.

Asfar as I know, Barrack's plan is basically to thow as much money as possible at every problem we have. Except millitary spending, he wants to decrease that.

Ahahahaha!

...

Oh, wait, you're serious. Here, let me laugh harder.

AHAHAHAHAHA!

Okay, okay, seriously though, that's not exactly true. He's looking at cutting NASA spending, for example, and undoubtably other spending as well, not to mention it's not just throwing money at problems. If that was all he wanted to do, I wouldn't be supporting him at all. Good news is, he wants to change how that money's spent too./

Ahahahaha!

...

Oh, wait, you're serious. Here, let me laugh harder.

AHAHAHAHAHA!

Okay, okay, seriously though, that's not exactly true. He's looking at cutting NASA spending, for example, and undoubtably other spending as well, not to mention it's not just throwing money at problems. If that was all he wanted to do, I wouldn't be supporting him at all. Good news is, he wants to change how that money's spent too./

These are direct quotes from Barrack's website:

Disabilities:

buildings and organizations must be designed to ensure that everyone has a chance to get the education they need and live independently as full citizens in their communities.

Economy:

(Barrack) will increase investments in infrastructure, energy independence, education, and research and development; modernize and simplify our tax code so it provides greater opportunity and relief to more Americans.

Education:

Obama believes that we must equip poor and struggling districts, both rural and urban, with the support and resources they need to provide disadvantaged students with an opportunity to reach their full potential.

Environment:

"I went to Detroit, I stood in front of a group of automakers, and I told them that when I am president, there will be no more excuses — we will help them retool their factories, but they will have to make cars that use less oil."

Family:

he does believe we can eliminate roadblocks that parents face and provide tools to help them succeed.


...and it goes on like this.

So basically, everything that Barrack wants to do involves having either the taxpayers pay a lot of money, or it involves some businesses that will have to pay a lot of money. Though I remind you that businesses pass their expenses on to their customers, so I guess America as a whole will pay for what Barrack wants to do. Personally, I find the concept almost dystopian.

Okay, okay, seriously though, that's not exactly true. He's looking at cutting NASA spending, for example, and undoubtably other spending as well, not to mention it's not just throwing money at problems. If that was all he wanted to do, I wouldn't be supporting him at all. Good news is, he wants to change how that money's spent too./

I remember Clinton was going to change the way money was spent too. Managed to do bugger all in that department, and I doubt it will be any different with Obama.

And cutting NASA spending at a time like this is just uber retard. No doubt there will be bailouts aplenty for his lackwit wall street buddies however.

Of course what the US needs is a mandatory 30 hr workweek and ten week vacation period for everyone below the executive level (people appointed by the board, or on the GS salary scale).

That would actually be very good for the economy.

Well, we need to make sure our children need to speak spanish because the immigrants WILL learn to speak english:rolleyes:.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZprtPat1Vk

And then you have us nuts in PA that need to quit clinging to our guns and religion.

The only change that's going to take place is there's going to be a black man in office messing everything up and increasing taxes.

I can see, though, you do, since you're posting on the Internet. In all seriousness, I there is abundant information available online. Try reading Obama's Blueprint for Change, which can be found here:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

It's 64 pages long, so no quick answers there, but if you want to know, read. Try reading the New York Times or the Washington Post.

IMHO, it would be a welcome change to have someone intelligent in the White House, which Obama would certainly be.

MODEDIT: If you click "edit" on this post, you'll see the formats I used to make Kat's post a separate quote and your link clickable.

People wonder what Barack Obama wants to change?!?!

Then why don't they look at his website?

www.barackobama.com

there are a list of his opinions on each issue. making assumptions is just dumb.
do a little research and find out.



Yes, I'm trying to get some debate going -- after desticking the election thread and saying "Have at it," there's been no new political threads I can see -- and some spambitching going on in the huge thread.

Reading the entire post, and not just the title, FTW.

Your criticisms are false and contrived. I'll bet you anything he said "bombs" not bomb, in which case his statement about Pearl Harbor would be utterly accurate.

He said "bomb". It's in the video on YouTube. Singular.

The transcript handed out by his campaign says, "bomb", singular.

I still find it more likely that some sort of typo occured than that Obama does not know the facts about Pearl Harbour. The guy went to University, you know. Just because you don't like someone's policies does not mean you must portray them (falsely) as a moron.

I still find it more likely that some sort of typo occured than that Obama does not know the facts about Pearl Harbour. The guy went to University, you know. Just because you don't like someone's policies does not mean you must portray them (falsely) as a moron.

*calls Dubya a moron, laughs at his ineptitude at public speaking, shuns him like a leper*

Well, we need to make sure our children need to speak spanish because the immigrants WILL learn to speak english:rolleyes:.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZprtPat1Vk

Is there some problem with thinking that our kids should learn to be bilingual?

Is there some problem with thinking that our kids should learn to be bilingual?
I think it's the "should" part. I think "could" - meaning the opportunity exists - is a better way to put it.

I think it's the "should" part. I think "could" - meaning the opportunity exists - is a better way to put it.

*shrug*

I don't see a problem with it either way. Our kids should learn math, science, literature, etc. And I think learning another language should be in that mix.

*shrug*

I don't see a problem with it either way. Our kids should learn math, science, literature, etc. And I think learning another language should be in that mix.
So maybe this has already been covered, but why? I learned Latin in school, in the hopes that my English usage would improve. What would learning French or German do for me?

I have no qualms about learning a second language, but if he's suggesting that schools will implement learning spanish because of our lack of border security, well that's just crap.

So maybe this has already been covered, but why? I learned Latin in school, in the hopes that my English usage would improve. What would learning French or German do for me?

For a number of reasons. Learning a different language (if done early) broadens your way of thinking. There are entire concepts in different languages that either don't exist or incredibly hard to explain in others.

Learning at least one extra language makes it much easier to learn others, as you're already used to thinking in different contexts.

And it's just damn useful. Companies often prefer people who are bilingual, both for domestic customers who don't speak the majority language and for international customers. And, while it's all well and good to say that immigrants should already speak the language, they often don't speak it well yet. Even if they do, they may not think well in it - and may understand instructions, etc. better in their primary language. If you can also speak that language, your interaction with them - whatever it is - will likely be more fruitful.

For a number of reasons. Learning a different language (if done early) broadens your way of thinking. There are entire concepts in different languages that either don't exist or incredibly hard to explain in others.

Learning at least one extra language makes it much easier to learn others, as you're already used to thinking in different contexts.

And it's just damn useful. Companies often prefer people who are bilingual, both for domestic customers who don't speak the majority language and for international customers. And, while it's all well and good to say that immigrants should already speak the language, they often don't speak it well yet. Even if they do, they may not think well in it - and may understand instructions, etc. better in their primary language. If you can also speak that language, your interaction with them - whatever it is - will likely be more fruitful.

But why, as Myrm said, French or German?

Why not Mandarin Chinese? America's primary business will be with the Chinese into the foreseeable future, and French and German are a waste of time in that regard.

So maybe this has already been covered, but why? I learned Latin in school, in the hopes that my English usage would improve. What would learning French or German do for me?

Oh, the same as learning English did for me. I now get to understand what's written in forums by English speakers who don't care about learning other languages. :rolleyes:

But why, as Myrm said, French or German?

Why not Mandarin Chinese? America's primary business will be with the Chinese into the foreseeable future, and French and German are a waste of time in that regard.

You seem to be confusing "primary" with "only". The US are our primary business partners, but there are still requests for translations to just about every other language.

But why, as Myrm said, French or German?

As far as the idea of broadening your thinking, any other language would probably do. And doing so would make it easier for you to learn a language for a specific utility (ie. if you don't know German but your company deals with many German customers) later on.

Why not Mandarin Chinese? America's primary business will be with the Chinese into the foreseeable future, and French and German are a waste of time in that regard.

Mandarin Chinese would actually be a very useful language to learn.

Personally, if I had the time/resources, I'd like to learn at least one romantic language and at least one Asian language. In my field, Japanese would probably be the best for the latter.

For a number of reasons. Learning a different language (if done early) broadens your way of thinking. There are entire concepts in different languages that either don't exist or incredibly hard to explain in others.

How so?
Why wouldn't a solid knowledge of math do the same thing? You certainly learn logic and I would think that's a better foundation than just knowing a few French folk songs in French.

Learning at least one extra language makes it much easier to learn others, as you're already used to thinking in different contexts.

And it's just damn useful. Companies often prefer people who are bilingual, both for domestic customers who don't speak the majority language and for international customers. And, while it's all well and good to say that immigrants should already speak the language, they often don't speak it well yet. Even if they do, they may not think well in it - and may understand instructions, etc. better in their primary language. If you can also speak that language, your interaction with them - whatever it is - will likely be more fruitful.

We just recently bought a small Swiss company. They all speak English. We all speak English. We get along fine. We have salesmen in Europe that only speak English. Where we need native language speakers, we hire them. They speak English.

Aside from the specific desire to get a job that requires knowledge of a particular language, I still don't see the general advantage, or how your claims about fruitful-ness are valid. All I see is that dealing with foreigners requires a different point of view from time to time. There's no evidence that mandatory language education will provide that sort of thinking. Experiences with different people, however, will do just exactly what you are suggesting.

Oh, the same as learning English did for me. I now get to understand what's written in forums by English speakers who don't care about learning other languages. :rolleyes:
So, English IS the only important language. I've never had trouble communicating in Brazil, nor in any other country that I've visited.

I will confess that after all these months of campaigning, I really have no better idea of what he proposes than I did from the beginning. He keeps talking about change, but I don't think I've picked up on what changes he intends to make or how he proposes to do so.

Note: this is not a thread for asserting that his opponent is superior -- just discussing what the heck it is he's trying to sell us.

Yes, I'm trying to get some debate going -- after desticking the election thread and saying "Have at it," there's been no new political threads I can see -- and some spambitching going on in the huge thread.
It's called projection, to most of the far-right and libertarian-nuts he is Communism incarnate, trying to impose the 'evils' of universal health care and progressive taxation upon the American people. To many who follow him he's the end of the old Washington-style politics of interest peddling and lobbying and also a centrist who wants to bring America out of it's bitter ideological polarization and bring it foward.

He's a blank slate which various groups of voters impose what he represents in their ideological tinted glasses, none of them are really accurate.

I learned english all the way through High School and in the University, I can't why the american kids shouldn't be the same. Actually, I reject they didn't teach me portuguese back then.

Any country should give in the public education at least one language spoken by its neighbours. If you don't, you are just forcing everyone else to learn to speak yours. Not exactly "equalitarian", right?

So, English IS the only important language.

Nope. If you learned French, for instance, you'd get to read French forums with people who don't care to learn other languages. But, wrong and self-centered as your view may be, keep it up; You do translators like me a great favor: We thrive on people's ignorance of other tongues. By the way, your notion of what's "important" is very, VERY short-sighted. Take for instance the fact that English and lots of other languages have a lot of roots on Latin. You know, that DEAD language. Empires fall.

I've never had trouble communicating in Brazil, nor in any other country that I've visited.

Which means that, while us Brazilians can speak at least some English, you can't speak Portuguese or - for one instance - Spanish. So, I guess I should ask: Which of the two of us knows more? Which of the two of us should be proud, then?

If you managed to communicate in English with some Brazilian people, that reflects well upon THEM, not YOU, nor your language. In fact it doesn't reflect well upon you to nearly gloat about the fact that you didn't (bother to) learn some Portuguese before coming here.

Nope. If you learned French, for instance, you'd get to read French forums with people who don't care to learn other languages. But, wrong and self-centered as your view may be, keep it up; You do translators like me a great favor: We thrive on people's ignorance of other tongues. By the way, your notion of what's "important" is very, VERY short-sighted. Take for instance the fact that English and lots of other languages have a lot of roots on Latin. You know, that DEAD language. Empires fall.



Which means that, while us Brazilians can speak at least some English, you can't speak Portuguese or - for one instance - Spanish. So, I guess I should ask: Which of the two of us knows more? Which of the two of us should be proud, then?

If you managed to communicate in English with some Brazilian people, that reflects well upon THEM, not YOU, nor your language. In fact it doesn't reflect well upon you to nearly gloat about the fact that you didn't (bother to) learn some Portuguese before coming here.
Spin it any way you want to, the fact remains that the rest of the world accommodates me by learning my language and is likely to continue to do so throughout my lifetime. English may go the way of Latin (of which I took four years in school) but not in the near future.

Compulsory language education is silly. Learning a second language is unnecessary unless you have a specific purpose in mind.

Spin it any way you want to, the fact remains that the rest of the world accommodates me by learning my language and is likely to continue to do so throughout my lifetime. English may go the way of Latin (of which I took four years in school) but not in the near future.

Compulsory language education is silly. Learning a second language is unnecessary unless you have a specific purpose in mind.

1- Again, that the rest of the world has to accomodate you because you don't bother to learn other languages tells more about YOU than it does about the world.

2- That same argument can be made for physics, chemistry, algebra, and just about all others. And the same argument fails for the same reason: It enriches the person to KNOW those things. That you don't try to make that same argument for such other subjects, however, tells me that your "point" is to stay safe in the idiotic notion that Americans are somehow "better" than other peoples. Furthermore, feel free to inform me how the hell would you ever plan to analyze YOUR language without anything to contrast it with. Do you know how you know that your language is S-V-O, Subject-verb-object? Because you have, for instance, Japanese, S-O-V, to contrast it with. If you didn't, you'd see S-V-O as the only possibility, and it wouldn't even be mentioned because of that. Do you think you are able to describe well the nuances of your language without knowing any other ones or basing your description on other people's such knowledge? If so, go ahead and do it. You'd be the reincarnation of Saussure. Oh, sorry, did I offend you by comparing you to a Frenchman?

1- Again, that the rest of the world has to accomodate you because you don't bother to learn other languages tells more about YOU than it does about the world.

2- That same argument can be made for physics, chemistry, algebra, and just about all others. And the same argument fails for the same reason: It enriches the person to KNOW those things. That you don't try to make that same argument for such other subjects, however, tells me that your "point" is to stay safe in the idiotic notion that Americans are somehow "better" than other peoples.
Hell yes we are! And it's good of you to propose the idea.

You know, I go to twenty countries a year. I can't learn all those languages. The people I visit rarely leave their home country. When they do -- and especially the Brazilians -- it's to come to America to SHOP. Apparently, we have things you can buy. Not unless you come here and speak English to the store attendants.

Hell yes we are! And it's good of you to propose the idea.

Sabe, o bom de você não saber língua nenhuma é que eu posso te chamar de babaca sem que você me entenda.

Sabe, o bom de você não saber língua nenhuma é que eu posso te chamar de babaca sem que você me entenda.
And you know what? Sticks and stones, pal. I don't know what a babaca is, but the rest of the sentence is crystal clear. You forgot about the Latin...

and before you *** jump on that *** also remember it was a language I elected to take for my own purposes of understanding English better.

And you know what? Sticks and stones, pal. I don't know what a babaca is, but the rest of the sentence is crystal clear. You forgot about the Latin...

and before you *** jump on that *** also remember it was a language I elected to take for my own purposes of understanding English better.

Cute.

And yet you somehow see fit to:

1- Disparage knowledge of other languages, when you, ta-da, know one and CHOSE TO.

2- Acknowledge the fact that, as I said, knowing other languages improves your knowledge of YOURS, considering I said that very same thing before you, with the data to back it up.

Also, it's one of those niceties about deeper knowledge of a given language, you see. If you babelfish it it won't work, either.

I can't agree more with Heikoku. Actually Myrmidonisia's position is quite repulsing and disgusting to me, someone who takes effort in learn other languages to understand foreigners better and try to grasp the sense of other ways of thinking and living.

Cute.

And yet you somehow see fit to:

1- Disparage knowledge of other languages, when you, ta-da, know one and CHOSE TO.

2- Acknowledge the fact that, as I said, knowing other languages improves your knowledge of YOURS, considering I said that very same thing before you, with the data to back it up.

Also, it's one of those niceties about deeper knowledge of a given language, you see. If you babelfish it it won't work, either.
As usual you misunderstand. It must be the language thing... I only disparage the idea of mandatory language education. Thus we mostly agree --- it must be most distasteful for you.

I can't agree more with Heikoku. Actually Myrmidonisia's position is quite repulsing and disgusting to me, someone who takes effort in learn other languages to understand foreigners better and try to grasp the sense of other ways of thinking and living.

The fact that you claim not to know how learning a language can change the way you think tells me that your claim about knowing Latin is complete bullshit. Or at least partial bullshit - you learned a few phrases handy enough to impress the easily-impressed.

Anyone I know who has learned any language other than their native one has gained significantly from it. Not least, in their ability to communicate without coming across as an egotistical blowhard. You should look into it.



Yeah, see, people (obviously not you) actually learn a language, not just "know a few folk songs" in it.

To such people - whom we might for the sake of convenience call "educated" - they gain quite a bit more.

You only betray your own ignorance here with this line of arguments.
You act as though I care. It's most likely that I have vastly more experience with foreign people at home in their countries than you will ever have and I deal with them successfully. It's about personality and character -- not how well you can say a few phrases -- or even speak fluently.

Not that either of you would know anything about character...

Hell yes we are! And it's good of you to propose the idea.

You know, I go to twenty countries a year. I can't learn all those languages. The people I visit rarely leave their home country. When they do -- and especially the Brazilians -- it's to come to America to SHOP. Apparently, we have things you can buy. Not unless you come here and speak English to the store attendants.

Uh, actually, you could. People who are talented in language acquisition can reach a conversational level in a few weeks. There's actually a test for the ability in the military.

As for the rest of this tripe, you continue to prove that it's a good thing that the internet exists. Otherwise, many of the people you visit would think you represent the average American. Fortunately, most Americans are not so ego-centric.

As usual you misunderstand. It must be the language thing... I only disparage the idea of mandatory language education. Thus we mostly agree --- it must be most distasteful for you.

By your logic, you would also disprove the idea of mandatory Maths education, Biology education, Chemistry education...

By your logic, you would also disprove the idea of mandatory Maths education, Biology education, Chemistry education...
Those give us a universal understanding of the world around us. Which one language would do that?

Hint: English is spoken more places than anywhere else.

Cant be worst than bush even if he enters war with the vatican and loses to nuns with aka47 and cardinals with 9mm he is still better but if th pope gets the pope mobil the vatican will win for sure

It's about personality and character -- not how well you can say a few phrases -- or even speak fluently.

Not that either of you would know anything about character...

Not to mention the senseless, baseless, idiotic flame, let me ask you something: How much Linguistics have you studied? How does language acquisition work? What do you know about discourse analysis? You're really trying to convince either us or yourself that it's about "personality"? It's about conveying a meaning, through spoken language, written language or otherwise.

That you managed to use signs and other means to convey meanings to people that mostly know at least some of your spoken language doesn't say anything about your personality or your character.

That you try to make this a character issue does.

Not to mention the senseless, baseless, idiotic flame, let me ask you something: How much Linguistics have you studied? How does language acquisition work? What do you know about discourse analysis? You're really trying to convince either us or yourself that it's about "personality"? It's about conveying a meaning, through spoken language, written language or otherwise.

That you managed to use signs and other means to convey meanings to people that mostly know at least some of your spoken language doesn't say anything about your personality or your character.

That you try to make this a character issue does.
Dealing with people in real life is far different than typing at a keyboard. Even personal emails are different than this. Again, I don't expect much from you.

Those give us a universal understanding of the world around us. Which one language would do that?

Hint: English is spoken more places than anywhere else.

Nope. Those give us an understanding of a PART of the world around us. As does any subject, any at all. Why do you need algebra, chemistry or physics beyond an elemental level, a level that's not taught at schools?

As for your opinion about where English is spoken, it would behoove you to actually make a grammatically correct statement about the language you claim to have so much importance it should be the only "foreign" language forcibly taught anywhere.

Dealing with people in real life is far different than typing at a keyboard. Even personal emails are different than this. Again, I don't expect much from you.

I like how this doesnt address anything Heik said in his post and is just another flame.


But, shouldnt expect much from you.

Dealing with people in real life is far different than typing at a keyboard. Even personal emails are different than this. Again, I don't expect much from you.

Yes, Myrmi, my poor victim, I'm well aware of how discourse, registers, rules of discourse, self-censorship, and just about every other aspect of language changes according to the context, media, place, people, and other factors involved. I've graduated in English and Linguistics. I fucking KNOW how discourse works, I KNOW how information is conveyed, and I KNOW it has squat to do with "character" or "personality". It has to do with skill. Even, yes, sign language, mime skill. The skills both of the speaker and of the listener, as well as their knowledge of the subject. That's not me saying, that's Saussure, Chomsky, and just about every other Linguistics expert saying it.

I studied how people interact in real life, in writing, online, in just about any register, media or under just about any circumstance you can imagine. And you're trying to pose as someone that "knows" and make it into a character issue?

Is this a joke or are you one?

Let's compare two English speaking countries. India and the U.S. We have little or nothing in common. We don't even speak the same English. It's not possible to understand cultural differences based on language. And that's not a second language for either of us. So I fail to see how learning a second language will lead to any great cultural understanding.

Wait wait wait...India is an English speaking country? English is not a second languange in India?


http://wwp.greenwichmeantime.com/time-zone/asia/india/travel.htm


Wrong again. You know nothing of other countries. This is constitantly proven. You are a walking arguement FOR learning another language.

So I fail to see how learning a second language will lead to any great cultural understanding.
By the simple fact that with knowledge of a language one can immerse oneself into the culture associated with that language a great deal better.

I'm off to Japan in a week or so and, although I'm going to get along fine with only knowing a spattering of Japanese, there'll be a barrier to my understanding because of the gap in my language.

Wait wait wait...India is an English speaking country? English is not a second languange in India?


http://wwp.greenwichmeantime.com/time-zone/asia/india/travel.htm


Wrong again. You know nothing of other countries. This is constitantly proven. You are a walking arguement FOR learning another language.

Neither do you. You have to link, whereas I've been literally all over the world.

So has Myrmi. The Marines tend to do that.

Yes, Myrmi, my poor victim, I'm well aware of how discourse, registers, rules of discourse, self-censorship, and just about every other aspect of language changes according to the context, media, place, people, and other factors involved. I've graduated in English and Linguistics. I fucking KNOW how discourse works, I KNOW how information is conveyed, and I KNOW it has squat to do with "character" or "personality". It has to do with skill. Even, yes, sign language, mime skill. The skills both of the speaker and of the listener, as well as their knowledge of the subject. That's not me saying, that's Saussure, Chomsky, and just about every other Linguistics expert saying it.

I studied how people interact in real life, in writing, online, in just about any register, media or under just about any circumstance you can imagine. And you're trying to pose as someone that "knows" and make it into a character issue?

Is this a joke or are you one?
I'll just say this. It's a whole lot easier to sell iceboxes to Eskimos when they like you and when they trust you. You get there with knowledge, but also with personality and character. If you're likable, you have a good start. Solid knowledge of the subject is just icing on the cake.

If you know your material, but no one likes you, then just give it up. Same with trust and respect. It doesn't just come with subject knowledge or presentation skill. It's the way you treat people that matters first.

But you do it your way. What I'm doing works pretty well for me.

Neither do you. You have to link, whereas I've been literally all over the world.

So has Myrmi. The Marines tend to do that.



Wait wait wait....I point out Myrmi is blatantly wrong about his comments regarding India, and show that there is this general pattern of him being blatantly wrong about other countries, AND point out his US-centric and nationalistic tendencies....and your counter arguement is "Well Ive been in the marines!"


Im...baffled.

Lot of good that marine knowledge did you guys, considering you both are....often misinformed.

Most people don't have the time. You know of course that a significant number of people don't go to college. They have to go to work and that leaves little time or money for learning a language they are unlikely to use.

Between your admission and that last fact, most (that's the majority) people aren't going to learn another language unless they absolutely have to (say, if they live in an area bordering another country that is economically better off).

Learning it because you say it's a good idea is stupid.

Hmm. Work at a job, and pay the rent, or be unemployed and learn a language because Heikoku says that in three years, I might be able to speak Urdu?

I find my ability to learn spoken language quickly a rare gift. Most people don't have it.

So... Most children have to work at a job, and pay the rent, or be unemployed? Because, y'know... Most people subject to such a "mandatory learning" would be children.

Your point?

Wait wait wait...India is an English speaking country? English is not a second languange in India?


http://wwp.greenwichmeantime.com/time-zone/asia/india/travel.htm


Wrong again. You know nothing of other countries. This is constitantly proven. You are a walking arguement FOR learning another language.
It is the official state language in most states. It has equal status with Hindi in government use. Look it up.

It is the official state language in most states. It has equal status with Hindi in government use. Look it up.

But it would still be a second language....which you said it wasnt.

Wait wait wait...India is an English speaking country? English is not a second languange in India?


http://wwp.greenwichmeantime.com/time-zone/asia/india/travel.htm


Wrong again. You know nothing of other countries. This is constitantly proven. You are a walking arguement FOR learning another language.
This is what your own link says...

English enjoys associate status but is the most important language for national, political, and commercial communication;


Tell me how many times you've been to India. But first tell me how that negates India's status as an English speaking country. They would certainly claim to be one.

By the simple fact that with knowledge of a language one can immerse oneself into the culture associated with that language a great deal better.

I'm off to Japan in a week or so and, although I'm going to get along fine with only knowing a spattering of Japanese, there'll be a barrier to my understanding because of the gap in my language.
My contention is that the biggest barrier to your understanding is that you aren't Japanese. That you haven't spent enough time in Japan. Not that you aren't fluent in the language.

I'll just say this. It's a whole lot easier to sell iceboxes to Eskimos when they like you and when they trust you. You get there with knowledge, but also with personality and character. If you're likable, you have a good start. Solid knowledge of the subject is just icing on the cake.

If you know your material, but no one likes you, then just give it up. Same with trust and respect. It doesn't just come with subject knowledge or presentation skill. It's the way you treat people that matters first.

But you do it your way. What I'm doing works pretty well for me.

Gee. You're actually trying to argue that likability equals inner personality and character. And you proceed to try to argue that ability to communicate equals likability.

You then argue that actual solid knowledge on the matter is just the "icing on the cake"? Well, looks like your cake has no icing. And considering the fact that you have so far acted in the way you have, well, your cake lacks eggs, milk, flour...

This is what your own link says...

English enjoys associate status but is the most important language for national, political, and commercial communication;


Tell me how many times you've been to India.

excellent!

After a certain age, as I told you, it's largely a useless endeavor, except for those who can still learn one.

If you start them after puberty (say, at age 14 like they do in most US high schools) most of them won't absorb shit.

Then you're arguing that:

1- Foreign Language Teaching should be done at an earlier age. (I concur).

2- You DON'T acquire ANY knowledge by studying a language after you're 14 (REALITY disagrees).

Incidentally, if you really were in the military, you probably took the test I mentioned that tested your ability to acquire languages by teaching you a fake language.

Probably not. The DLAB is quite far from mandatory and really only taken by linguists. I've taken the DLPT in French numerous times and my most recent score was a 3/3, but since I'm not a military linguist I didn't have to take it. In fact, the last time I took it was for fun because the National Guard doesn't pay language pay unless you're in a country where that language is the primary language.

My contention is that the biggest barrier to your understanding is that you aren't Japanese. That you haven't spent enough time in Japan. Not that you aren't fluent in the language.
But if I had unlimited time in Japan, yet remained ignorant of the Japanese language, it'd be hard to engage in the culture past a certain level.

EDIT: And WTF! Are these sponsored ads in the middle of threads new, or has Adblock kept me away from them for a while now? Any which way, they''re fucking shit.

Gee. You're actually trying to argue that likability equals inner personality and character. And you proceed to try to argue that ability to communicate equals likability.

You then argue that actual solid knowledge on the matter is just the "icing on the cake"? Well, looks like your cake has no icing. And considering the fact that you have so far acted in the way you have, well, your cake lacks eggs, milk, flour...
Clever but naive. You do need to get out more. Join INPE so you can come visit and so that I can come visit you.

Clever but naive. You do need to get out more. Join INPE so you can come visit and so that I can come visit you.

I certainly need to get out more, for, should I do so, I'd not be having the pleasure of talking to such enlightened souls as yourself.

And I'm not talking about the ability to convince someone, I'm talking about the ability of conveying information. Language has more purposes than insurance salesmanship.

Regardless, do feel free to point out HOW I'm being naive.

But if I had unlimited time in Japan, yet remained ignorant of the Japanese language, it'd be hard to engage in the culture past a certain level.

Unlimited means you're a permanent resident or citizen, in which case learning the language makes sense.

If I stay six months somewhere, it's worth at least learning how to speak the language.

But a vacation? Anything past the basic Berlitz stuff is a waste of time. I would have to spend a LOT of time learning enough (including current idiom) to have in depth conversations.

BTW, saying "Hello!" and "Can you give me directions to the Louvre?" is not "learning a language" or getting closer culturally. It's called being a fucking tourist with a tourist accent.

But if I had unlimited time in Japan, yet remained ignorant of the Japanese language, it'd be hard to engage in the culture past a certain level.
I don't think that you could remain ignorant of Japanese. I lived there for a year and by the end of that time, I was reading katakana well enough to pick out some stuff in printed material, as well as read the train schedules. I could make small talk with store clerks. I don't think a year was enough time to develop any understanding of Japanese culture.

My friend had his wife with him and she taught English to the Japanese officer's wives. They learned far more about the Japanese because of the close personal relationships. Language had little to do with it.

Unlimited means you're a permanent resident or citizen, in which case learning the language makes sense.

If I stay six months somewhere, it's worth at least learning how to speak the language.
Exactly what I'm saying.

Exactly what I'm saying.

The problem is, I'm unusual. In six months, in most of the countries I've been to, I end up sounding exactly like a native, complete with current local idiomatic expressions.

Most adults CANNOT do this in six months. Most not even in a year.

I may end up with a strange accent - most Poles thought I was Russian, and not American.

I don't think that you could remain ignorant of Japanese.
No, you'd almost be forced not to, by circumstance.

It just confuses me when you say "I fail to see how learning a second language will lead to any great cultural understanding". Of course, relationships with people are incredibly important, and these can be made without speaking the same language.

But it helps a fucking lot. Without knowing the language, you'll always, in some respects, be 'looking in' to the culture.

Probably not. The DLAB is quite far from mandatory and really only taken by linguists. I've taken the DLPT in French numerous times and my most recent score was a 3/3, but since I'm not a military linguist I didn't have to take it. In fact, the last time I took it was for fun because the National Guard doesn't pay language pay unless you're in a country where that language is the primary language.

I've taken the DLAP, and it is never mandatory.

You have to score above a certain amount on your asvab just to be allowed the privilege of taking the DLAP.

And by far, the hardest test ever administered to me is not the DLAP.

It was the EDPT.

Electronics Data Processing. Holy shit that test was hard.

Probably not. The DLAB is quite far from mandatory and really only taken by linguists. I've taken the DLPT in French numerous times and my most recent score was a 3/3, but since I'm not a military linguist I didn't have to take it. In fact, the last time I took it was for fun because the National Guard doesn't pay language pay unless you're in a country where that language is the primary language.

I wasn't a linguist. I took it because I aced the ASVAB. They also tested me on Morse code and two other tests that I fail to remember right now.

Neither do you. You have to link, whereas I've been literally all over the world.

So has Myrmi. The Marines tend to do that.

No, they don't, actually. SOME of the Marines do that. Many Marines go very few places. When we don't serve under warmongers we're only required to go ONE.

Then type slowly and explain with facts why you are right. All I've seen so far is the unsupported argument that learning a second language will open up a whole new horizon of cultural understanding. You say with certainty that the act of learning a second language is beneficial. Show me why that is so.

You say with certainty that the act of learning trigonometry is beneficial. Show me why that is so.

So... You're trying to argue that you can use any given language better than people that studied it by trying to claim that convincing people is the only (or main) use of language and that you are "nice", thus better-equipped, followed by a "money makes the world go round" argument? Even accepting the "money makes the world go round" premise, you'd have to prove that convincing is the only or main use of language, rather than conveying information. You can do so by disproving just about every Linguistics expert in existence.

Good luck.
I don't need to. I'm satisfied with what I can do. I don't need the approval of a linguist or a dozen of them.

'Night.

Wow! A political thread became a language rant!

I must ask one question here: How is an education stance part of the President's legitimate platform? The federal government has no constitutional jurisdiction in the area of education. You can't even use the utilitarian argument that "the government is doing a good job education the children" - State and federal spending per student is twice the expense of a typical private education on average, yet the private schools consistently outscore public schools. I submit that federal education policy is expensive and utterly ineffective.

On the subject of languages, it is definitely beneficial to be multilingual. However, English is the new lingua franca due to the dominance of Great Britain and the US of A in trade and in the various fields of technology going back to the steam era and the Industrial revolution. Furthermore, a student who attends college is far more likely to enter a field requiring knowledge of a foreign language than a student who enters a career straight out of high school. Almost every postsecondary institution offers foreign language courses, and the voluntary nature of college education promotes greater diligence in study than a class one is forced to attend.

No, they don't, actually. SOME of the Marines do that. Many Marines go very few places. When we don't serve under warmongers we're only required to go ONE.
Clearly you've missed one of the big draws of military service. All through the late '70s and '80s we had a lot of deployments. In fact, we had quite a few PCS moves, too, after Al Gray became Commandant. Maybe Admin clerks don't do that, but the Marines in combat arms were always moving.

Clearly you've missed one of the big draws of military service. All through the late '70s and '80s we had a lot of deployments. In fact, we had quite a few PCS moves, too, after Al Gray became Commandant. Maybe Admin clerks don't do that, but the Marines in combat arms were always moving.

SOME did. The only thing required is that you deploy overseas ONCE.

Speaking in universals makes one look ignorant or dishonest. So which is it? Do you know that it's not a given for USMC service or is that you prefer to prove that you're not concerned with the accuracy of your claims?

And, yes, I must have missed that being a Marines means you'll travel all over the world. When I was serving and people weren't traveling, it must not have happened. When my brother was serving, my father, my grandfather, my uncles, etc. We must have all missed that being a Marine automatically means you've been all over the world.

I don't need to. I'm satisfied with what I can do. I don't need the approval of a linguist or a dozen of them.

'Night.

Okay, gentlemen, here we have a man that answered "What do you get when you multiply nine by five" with "The atomic number of Barium is 56."

I have texts to read.

Some SERIOUS BUSINESS going on here.

You're taking what I say as an attack on your points, it's not, it's a supplementary commentary.

He does that a lot, don't get too upset about it.

Well, no change from Obama on the Iran front.
Sounds just like Bush's policy, down to the words "no options off the table".

"A nuclear Iran would pose a grave threat and the world must prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon," said Mr Obama.

He added that the global community should offer "big sticks and big carrots" to persuade Iran to halt its nuclear programme.

If elected, the Democratic Party candidate said he would take "no options off the table" in dealing with the Islamic republic.

I guess he learned something on his visit.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7520759.stm

Well, no change from Obama on the Iran front.
Sounds just like Bush's policy, down to the words "no options off the table".



I guess he learned something on his visit.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7520759.stm

Nice turnabout from "Iran, Cuba, Venezuela? These countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose any serious threat to us."

If he could have only learned a few lessons from the experts in Iraq...

State and federal spending per student is twice the expense of a typical private education on average,

This statement is often made, but it ignores a number of things. First of all, it ignores the fact that public schooling pays for a whole lot more than private schooling. Private schools generally require students to pay for their own books, meals, transportation, sports equipment, etc. Public schools, on the other hand, cover all or most of the cost for these things in order to provide schooling to everyone regardless of inability to pay. The cost per student in public schooling also factors in special needs children, while very few private schools cater to such children.

On the subject of languages, it is definitely beneficial to be multilingual. However, English is the new lingua franca due to the dominance of Great Britain and the US of A in trade and in the various fields of technology going back to the steam era and the Industrial revolution. Furthermore, a student who attends college is far more likely to enter a field requiring knowledge of a foreign language than a student who enters a career straight out of high school. Almost every postsecondary institution offers foreign language courses, and the voluntary nature of college education promotes greater diligence in study than a class one is forced to attend.

Of course, a person who is college aged is also less likely to be able to easily pick up a second language if they are not already bi- or multilingual.

Well, no change from Obama on the Iran front.
Sounds just like Bush's policy, down to the words "no options off the table".



I guess he learned something on his visit.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7520759.stm

You're correct no change. In fact, he's consistently pointed out exactly what you're quoting him saying.

I find it interesting that originally he didn't know what was going on, on the ground according to McCain. And then the Iraqi government, whom we can assume do, agreed with his timetable and suddenly the Republicans are acting like they've been in that place all along. You have to love when Republicans flip-flop.

It would be interesting to see them not do so just once, though.

Nice turnabout from "Iran, Cuba, Venezuela? These countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose any serious threat to us."

If he could have only learned a few lessons from the experts in Iraq...

Reading always helps. He said it isn't a threat now and he said IF it became nuclear it would be, which he's said consistently.

It's easier to understand what people say when you actually, you know, listen to what they say.

SOME did. The only thing required is that you deploy overseas ONCE.

Speaking in universals makes one look ignorant or dishonest. So which is it? Do you know that it's not a given for USMC service or is that you prefer to prove that you're not concerned with the accuracy of your claims?

And, yes, I must have missed that being a Marines means you'll travel all over the world. When I was serving and people weren't traveling, it must not have happened. When my brother was serving, my father, my grandfather, my uncles, etc. We must have all missed that being a Marine automatically means you've been all over the world.
That is where the phrase "Tell it to the Marines" originated, after all.
So what you're telling me is that your exceptions make the generality of deployment false? I'll remind my wife about the holidays and such that I really didn't miss.

He's trying to get the homeless vote.

That is where the phrase "Tell it to the Marines" originated, after all.
So what you're telling me is that your exceptions make the generality of deployment false? I'll remind my wife about the holidays and such that I really didn't miss.

I'm telling you that saying "I've seen the world I'm a Marine" doesn't mean a damn thing. One doesn't beget the other with any necessity. It's not the exception. I told you what the rule is. The only RULE in the USMC is that you are deployed overseas for one year and it's generally in ONE place. That's not all over the world. That's ONE place.

Are you claiming there is some other rule? Can you actually backup the assertion that the vast majority of Marines see the world? How many countries would you say is the mean? I can say with all confidence that it's damn close to 2.

As far as the phrase, that's just another thing where we've caught you pulling things out of your behind. Tell it to the Marines originated in reference to the ROYAL MARINES. Worse, it was a reference to how sailors didn't fall for the things that Marines would since sailors had seen so much more. It means the absolute opposite of what you're acting as if it means. So unless you were in the UK Marines and are talking about something other than what DK referred to, then you're full of it.

He's trying to get the homeless vote.

Of course!

It's totally failing, though. The homeless guy I pass on my way to the bus is voting for McCain. *nodnod*

That...was a terrible example. Especially given that I did not say we should cut back on our military. Nor has Obama, coincidentally. He said we should have a larger National Security force, which I interpret to mean he wants to have the Peace Corps create, you know, goodwill...good feelings...a good outlook...to the U.S.? Something we haven't have since we started being strong and assertive.


on the second security force thing, maybe he's talking about the National Guard?

BO is a typical bourgeois-socialist, or social-capitalist, his rhetoric is always the same:

Free trade: for the benefit of the working class. Protective duties: for the benefit of the working class. Prison Reform: for the benefit of the working class. This is the last word and the only seriously meant word of bourgeois socialism.

It is summed up in the phrase: the bourgeois is a bourgeois — for the benefit of the working class.

I'm telling you that saying "I've seen the world I'm a Marine" doesn't mean a damn thing. One doesn't beget the other with any necessity. It's not the exception. I told you what the rule is. The only RULE in the USMC is that you are deployed overseas for one year and it's generally in ONE place. That's not all over the world. That's ONE place.

Added to this, it's not as if Marine's see the world just because they're stationed in another country. Often they're on guard duty and rarely leave the compound unless it's to go to the red-light district, such as Itaewon in Seoul.

It's hardly as if they're melding with the local culture.

Even in the UK, US bases had US police cars, US stores and more, most people essentially never left the US.

BO is a typical bourgeois-socialist, or social-capitalist, his rhetoric is always the same:

And you suggest people vote for that great Socialist warrior, McCain, then?

And you suggest people vote for that great Socialist warrior, McCain, then?
No, I suggest people not participate in any form of bourgeois politics, as the system will never change anything.

No, I suggest people not participate in any form of bourgeois politics, as the system will never change anything.

So, let me get this straight: You want people not to vote and thus to concede the elections to what you certainly see as the worse of two evils, letting millions die and starve in the process, on the misguided off-chance that it might "change" something via... nothing.

Well, there's the Way of the Tiger, the Way of the Dragon, and, now, the Way of the Moron.

So, let me get this straight: You want people not to vote and thus to concede the elections to what you certainly see as the worse of two evils, letting millions die and starve in the process, on the misguided off-chance that it might "change" something via... nothing.

Well, there's the Way of the Tiger, the Way of the Dragon, and, now, the Way of the Moron.
No, I did not see that. Surely I think that having a government in which the environment for working class organization will be better, but what I mean by 'participation' is a literal belief that the actual basis of ALL inequality and injustice; private property, can be changed through bourgeois parliamentary systems.

No, I did not see that. Surely I think that having a government in which the environment for working class organization will be better, but what I mean by 'participation' is a literal belief that the actual basis of ALL inequality and injustice; private property, can be changed through bourgeois parliamentary systems.

You really don't know what you're talking about...