|
|
Post by ladytera on Oct 23, 2008 7:48:50 GMT -5
One last thought, on the whole idea of questioning or not questioning. A person who is seeking a job in general welcomes questions about anything the person interviewing them wants to know. It is the best way of selling themselves as the most qualified for the position. Unless Mr. Obama has something to hide, he shouldn't be complaining about anything people are questioning, and neither should his campaign people or supporters. The problem is, he has a lot of things he'd rather people didn't know or talk about. You do not hear Mr. McCain telling people not to question him on any subject. Nor do you hear Mrs. Palin complaining about the intense scrutiny, misrepresentations, ridicule and outright lies she has undergone. Their response, "Go ahead, I can take it. The more important issues are what do the American people need their government to do to keep them safe, and get out of their way." The difference in response is telling, and what it tells me is that Mr. McCain and Mrs. Palin have nothing to hide, and Mr. Obama has little he can show.
|
|
|
|
Post by keyodie on Oct 23, 2008 16:53:25 GMT -5
Ah, but see, when I say "don't question..." in my post, I'm referring to what you shouldn't question. Of course I can't tell anyone what to do, but in my opinion, it is illogical. And I agree, it would be strange if the candidates asked people to not question their patriotism or motives. That would hurt their chances of becoming president. But I think people shouldn't be questioning their motive (to make this a better country) and instead they should be questioning what they will do as president.
|
|
|
|
Post by ladytera on Oct 23, 2008 19:30:36 GMT -5
Fair enough. I tend to be one who questions everything because I think it's all interrelated. But, again, I can't tell anyone else how to do it either.  If someone wants to vote for a pink elephant, or Bozo the clown (he gets write in votes every year), because the like elephants and clowns, it's their prerogative. Sorry, I'm feeling silly tonight, and that wasn't a swipe at the current candidates. Just a comment that each voter in this country can cast their vote on whatever criteria they find appropriate. ETA: I will note, for the record, that I, as do most Republicans, do look at the issues and the plans and records of the candidates. Most of the posts I've put in this thread have dealt primarily with issues, prior voting records, and the candidates proposals in various areas of government. I just happen to also throw the other things into the mix, and weight them fairly heavily, because, to me, a persons character and personal beliefs and priorities have a huge impact on whether they will keep their promises and what kind of decisions they will make on things that come up in the future. A person can pretty much say anything they want in politics, and they all usually do, so you have to look at other things to determine what they'll actually do. |
|
|
|
Post by misaki on Oct 25, 2008 9:47:08 GMT -5
You'd probably be considered more Green party, given your earlier posts. The libertarians, to a great extent, are far more conservative than the Republicans in most respects. Although, the anarchist movement has been folded into them recently, so perhaps you are right. Well, Groenlinks here is counted as a green party, yes, but in my understanding, their ways of actually handling society here are quite different from the Greens over there. The Green party in the US came across as a little too focused on matters like celebrities wearing vegan shoes. I don't really know how to explain it, and maybe I judged too easily. I feel they are a little to focused on points I don't see as very important (and no one's sake but the individual's). Anyway, I would vote for the Libertarian socialists to be precise. I do agree with most of their ideas. Everyone here gets a say in politics. Should Mr. Obama be denied the right to have a say because I don't think the government should spread the wealth around? 'Tis up to the voters to determine who will best serve, not to determine who can run, as long as they meet the basic requirements, which are very few. Sorry, didn't mean to put it that way. I was in a very annoyed mood when I wrote that post, that should be obvious. I just felt it was idiotic that someone who has ( in my view) so little common sense could make it so far, and still be taken seriously, even though she said some pretty much dumb things. That is not meant as an insult to Republicans in general. I actually agree with some Republican views. Not most of them, but a few. I don't think the republicans aren't entitled to their opinion. I just think choosing someone like Palin as a representative of a large group of people is an insult to both those people and politics in general. However, that was just my personal opinion, and I shouldn't have mentioned it. I just was annoyed. She doesn't deny global warming, although I do at the moment, because it stopped warming 8 or 9 years ago. She denies that it is man-made, and that it has been proven to be anything more than the natural climatic cycles the world has experienced for thousands of years. Whoops, I should've said she, along with many conservative politicians btw, doesn't seem to be taking the matter very seriously and doesn't actually seem enthusiastic to DO anything. After all, drilling in oil for Alaska? What do you mean, pollution? That just makes me really angry; many countries, like mine, are doing their best to use as much green energy as possible. So the whole country is basically full of windmills, etc. And then along comes America, a HUGE country, people who could actually change the pollution matter on a global scale..and they completely mess up. Sure, oil is much easier. But the US isn't small. You guys have an impact on the rest of the world, so take charge! It's just a fact that however much small countries do..that doesn't really change anything when the larger countries don't see it as a priority. Yes, I am very well aware that the Chinese are polluting heavily as well. However, do they really have a choice? China is not a democracy. Its peoples don't have a choice. You guys, however, do. The polar bears are not dying out. And drilling in Prudhoe Bay and the Alaska pipeline actually increased the size of the caribou herds people were so concerned about with that whole deal. The ice caps are thicker this year than they have been in years. We are apparently entering another cooling trend. Alaska is a vast wilderness, that looks an awful lot like the moon in a lot of places. As a resident, and then governor of the state, she's had a great deal more experience with the actual impact of drilling than either your or I, or probably your teachers. The majority of Alaska residents also favor drilling. First of, I didn't mean the polar bears were already near extinction now. But their numbers are certainly deceasing: news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081024/sc_afp/russiaenvironmentclimatewarminganimalnews.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/4249571.stmNot that that's neciralliy such a bad thing. After all, polar bears are probably the cause of the lack of penguins on the North Pole xD I'm not saying "we" are the bad evil humans. That's just stupid. But I think some extra hunting is stupid as well. Leave the natural balance alone. The only benefits are for the furr industry, and maybe people who're annoyed by the fact that there is, actually is wildlife around still. Their number are decreasing already, so why make it worse? The caps being thicker than in years doesn't really say a lot, since they have for years been smaller than in centuries  On Palin's experience; that's..well, not really relevant? Example; I live in the polder, far under sealevel. Dykes are the only thing that keeps me from having to swim to my house instead of walk I know this, theoretically. I also know my polder is atm in a danger zone since the local dykes are just a little too low and the sea is rising a little However, do I see that in daily life? Nope. If no one had told me, or if I chose not to believe it, I could very well think it was the safest place on earth, simply because it looks safe and my feet are very dry. Maybe a a stupid example, but I think relying on Palin's experiences is too. She isn't a scientist. And neither are most of the Alaska residents. Some people choose to live on volcanoes. Do we trust their opinion on safety matters? hat's really neither here nor there. So, basically what you're saying is that the Vice President of the United States should not be interested in maintaining a healthy economy (which, by the way, maintains the healthy economy of the rest of the world as well)? Again, that would be a good explanation of why you would vote for Mr. Obama. Most of the rest of the citizens of this country don't particularly agree with that point of view, and if they ever actually get the message that Mr. Obama's intent is to shrink our economy, they will not vote for him. He's pretty good at hiding that message here. I did not say that. I just realised that it's incredibly stupid to put economy before more issues with long-term effects. I'm glad if the economy here works well, of course. I'm glad for you if your economy is going well. I think it's very important in fact, because economic crisis usually cause people to become narrow-minded and only interested in saving their own skin (which is only logical) Oh, but have you noticed your currents Republican government has so far failed to safe the economy? I think Walstreet went down with..what was it..10% again yesterday? Yes, obviously everyone should vote for the Reps if they want a healthy economy. Also, did you notice the US state debt has risen quite a lot during the last few (republican years? It's $10.5 trillion now. Not such a pretty number. I think, perhaps, you've been watching too much of the pro-Obama press. Mrs. Palin is pretty much an average American, who would like to see her government start working for its citizens again, instead of the other way around. That is why she is drawing huge crowds. You are right that she's pretty smart. I'm not really sure why you think she's narrow minded. And I really don't know about Hitler's IQ, but I'm pretty sure he's have terminated her last pregnancy. She does not advocate anything like the fascist ideas of the Nazi regime, nor any other psychotic ideas. In fact, I haven't been watching Obama press at all anymore, since it annoys the heck out of me. So does the McCain press, btw, to maybe (if possible ) an even higher level. And Palin the average American? Too bad! I know so many nice Americans, kind of dissapointed now. I guess she is the average right-wing, fanatical Christian American? Could be. If that's the average American, the global population should be fairly worried. And I didn't mean she was fascist. I used Hitler as a metaphor for a smart, but very narrow-minded person. Which was obvious btw, so I don't really see why you should go on about it. I really doubt it's jealousy. My English teacher is actually pretty young, has traveled all over the world which is probably why she's allowed to teach us English; thanks to living in England for 4 years, she doesn't exactly have her native New-mexico accent anymore ), has a family AND is very obviously feminist. However, from what I gathered she just hates Palin's narrow-minded view, and probably her dumb-sounding giggle. Hah. Don't mind me, I have these evil moods. Just don't take anything personally, I just love arguing my little heart out ;D Oh, what really bothers me about US politicians is how they're ALL lying. McCain obviously lied a few times. So did Obama. It's like a frikkin' circus! I thought McCain was okay before, you know. I fiercly disagreed with the guy, but I thought he just talked about what he believed in. Well. nl.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c&eurlOh, and aside from that; why I think the McCain/Palin duo is creepily narrowminded? I could give some personal reasons, but since I just found that youtube channel anyway, and they have some greeeat clips.. nl.youtube.com/watch?v=WXZbIGJrDkg&feature=channelHe supports a completely crazy, fundamentalist guy who teaches hate and fear. How is that not narrow-minded? You can argue this is 'liberal propeganda' or something in that direction. But the fact is, McCain DOES support this guy, and this guy DOES support very hateful views. It's not that I have anything against someone with strong christian believes having power. In fact, the current Dutch prime minister is a christian. While I don't really agree with the guy, I can't say he's scary, bad or narrowminded either. But this preacher, or whatever he's supposed to be, isn't christian. He is narrowminded, and using religion as a tool for hate and fear. Need other reasons why McCain/Palin freak me out? |
|
|
|
Post by ladytera on Oct 27, 2008 2:40:06 GMT -5
The Green party here is a little nuts as far as I'm concerned as well, but they are the only political party that actually makes environmental concerns a priority in anything other than political speaches. I don't know if we have a Libertarian Socialist group or not. If so, it's fairly small. I'm not entirely sure what a Libertarian Socialist is, but anyone calling themselves socialist here in the states probably won't get very far. That's why they call themselves liberals or progressives. I knew how you meant it, I just had to tweak you a little. I kind of like to argue a little myself.  I still can't figure out which dumb things you're referring to. And Senators Biden and Obama have made some doosies when it comes to idiotic statements. Yes, you should have mentioned it. You are entitled to your opinion as well, and I certainly didn't mean to make you feel otherwise. I am a Republican, and most of us do not take the selection of Mrs. Palin for VP as an insult. Most of us kind of like her (not like you couldn't have guessed that from my previous posts). We've been drilling for oil in Alaska for decades. Which is why her is relevant. She's been deeply involved in the environmental impact studies on that very subject, and has more direct knowledge of the actual effects of drilling on the environment than the rest of us do. I don't know the details of the pollution caused by drilling. I do know that every oil company out there has gone to great trouble and expense to make the process environmentally sound, and that the methods used a few decades ago that caused the initial outcry against it have been made illegal here. As a result of that, the capitalist system, that seems to offend so many sensibilities, worked like it's supposed to, and came up with improvements and innovations that have improved the environmental standards for drilling around the world. We do take charge. Our emmissions, even for a non-pollutant pollutant like carbon dioxide, has not increased to the degree that our energy use has. Nuclear energy is clean and safe with current technology, but the same groups who spend so much time screaming about oil have blocked use of the technology that would help alleviate so much of our non-transportation energy use. Windmills are currently under scrutiny for the damage the turbines cause to the wildlife in the areas around them, and much of our country does not have enough constant wind to make them and effective source of energy. Corn based ethanol has proven to be more expensive to produce, less efficient, and more polluting than oil based energy. Solar panels are expensive and extremely polluting to produce, and again there are issues with energy storage, and they do nothing for the transportation based energy use, which is a large portion of the energy used in this country. There is currently research into hydrogen based energy. The problem there, and no joke on this, is that it produces water vapor, which will also have a greenhouse effect if enough of it is pumped into the air. Plus, you have a problem with the energy cells. Natural gas is an up an coming area of research too, but they have to overcome the volatility issues for transportation before it becomes viable. So, no, we're not willing to arbitrarily limit our use of fossil fuels without an alternative in place, but we have been working on alternatives for a long time, and will continue to do so. More importantly, we'll eventually succeed, because of the capitalist system. Fundamental difference of opinion. We are part of the natural balance. I'm not sure what's up with the polar bears, or the penguins for that matter. As to hunting, fish and game here in the states regulates hunting in all areas to keep the impact of civilization from wiping out animals. When they allow extra licenses it is to keep the balance between predator and prey. That simple. They usually do a pretty good job of it as well. As I said earlier, the environmental groups rarely understand or accurately predict the impact drilling will have on the wildlife in an area. There is no industry that depends on wildlife, be it fur, tourism or hunting that wants to see a long term decrease in any species they depend on. It goes against their long term best interest. As to drilling, as I said, several decades ago, before Prudhoe Bay in Alaska was opened for drilling, the caribou was the animal the environmentalists were concerned over. The Alaska Pipeline was supposed to decimate the herds because it infringed on their natural environment. Instead, what we've seen is an increase in the caribou herds in that area. There is no reason to believe that would not also be the case with the polar bears. But, that's exactly my point. The earth goes through cycles. During the last warming and cooling cycles similar to what we've been experiencing over the last century there was no massive pollution, oil use, etc. And yet, the earth still warmed and cooled. The fact that the ice is thicker says quite a bit. It says we're once again in a cooling trend. Great. I personally don't think people had much to do with that, and I've seen no convincing evidence that we will ever have enough power, barring an all out nuclear holocost across the planet, to have any impact on the climatic cycles of the planet. I know what you mean. However, as I pointed out earlier, Mrs. Palin's experience is a little more involved in the particulars of this subject. She's had reason and opportunity to study the science, as well as the real world effect of drilling up close and personal. So, yeah, I'd say her experience in that area is pretty relevant. The economy is the most long lasting impact factor, only outstripped by our National Security. Don't believe me, please not the comments you made about China. If our economy completely tanks, and is taken over by the government, we will be no better than the third world country that is China, and the world will lose the innovation and technological advances that our system rewards. If you want to see another huge nation become as big of a menace to the environment as China and Russia, then okay, we shouldn't worry about our economy. But if you want the world to have access to the technologies that this economy produces to help alleviate and eliminate pollution, then the economy has to come before those other issues. Yes, I have noticed. In 2006, gas was $2.00 a gallon. Our economy was doing fine by all economic indicators. Then the Democrats took over Congress and the Senate. Within 2 years, gas prices had doubled, unemployment started rising, the housing market took a dive, and Wall Street followed. I'll say once again, the President does not set economic policy. Congress does. They have stalled making the tax cuts permanent, which has caused unrest in the markets and businesses to start tightening up as they anticipate the coming tax increases. They have boosted the minimum wage, which is all fine and dandy, until you realize what that actually means. Most minimum wage jobs don't stay minimum wage for long, and aren't intended to produce a "living wage". They are entry level jobs designed for people who either want a little extra part time income or new workers. Now, because the minimum wage has been raised, companies can't give raises to the folks that have been working for them for a longer time, or folks that have done a particularly good job, because the government has required them to give raise to their newest, least tested, and least productive employees. Worse than that, companies are reluctant to hire new employees that have no work history because they are forced to pay a higher rate, and therefore do not want to waste money training people that will not stick around, or paying people that will not do a good job. So, unemployment goes up, company profits go down, employee morale and motivation goes down, and people just entering the work force for the first time have a harder time finding a job. All contributing to the recession that's finally hit us. More importantly that this, and what most people fail to realize about the minimum wage, is it deprives the worker of the right to determine that they are willing to do the job for less than the other people applying, thus depriving them of the decision on what their worth is. When you then throw in the massive bailouts that the Democrat congress has been passing, you get inflation because the value of the dollar drops, couple the inflation with the increased fuel costs, and you have rising prices across the board, which contributes to the recession. When you then through in the spokesman for the Democrat party talking about increasing the capital gains and corporate taxes in his new administration, knowing that the Democrats will probably maintain majorities in both houses, you stifle investment and growth in the stock market, thus contributing to the continued fall in stock prices. Then they are also calling for increasing, unfunded government spending. This combination, historically speaking, has pushed our economy from recession to depression, and given the way the other world markets are reacting, we'll take the rest of the globe with us if we go. So, yeah, our economy is swinging wildly at the moment, mostly in a panic over what will happen if Mr. Obama wins. As I've stated before, the stock market goes nuts every election cycle. Businesses don't like change on a large scale, especially not socialist changes to the economy. It'll settle down one way or another after November 4, but the only way we'll see a recovery is if Mr. Obama does not win. Do you consider me to be an average right-wing, fanatical Christian American? Just curious. Mrs. Palin is not a fanatic. She is right wing, and most assuredly Christian, and most definitely American. You say all that as if it's an insult. But, most Americans are Christian and American, and quite a majority of them are conservative, at least in their own lives, and in their view of what their government should do. Why? She doesn't have designs for world domination. Nor does she advocate policies that would have a negative impact on the rest of the world. Perhaps, because everyone keeps trying to equate Mr. McCain with Mr. Bush, and the left of the world have been calling Mr. Bush Hilter for seven years now. We get a little tired of the analogy. What is narrow-minded in your view? Lovely for her. Again, with the narrow minded. What specifically? As to the giggle. I haven't heard her giggle. I have watched her laugh through the worst the media and the Democrats have thrown at her, and I have to say I admire that. It's rather refreshing to see someone actually enjoying themselves in politics. Most of them take themselves so seriously you just want to smack them. I would never take it personally. Arguing is too much fun to get all serious about it myself. I have not caught any Mr. McCain lies. There have been a few where he's been accused of exaggerating the facts. All I can say to that is hmmm. I don't know about the rest of them, but I can speak to the tax cut comments. He did vote against the Bush Tax cuts originally. He very vocally, at the time, stated the reason was that they did not include corresponding sending cuts. He also very clearly explained that the reason he voted to extend them and make them permanent was because it would be a tax increase to allow them to expire, and he has, historically always been for tax cuts, not increases. He has consistently pressed for spending cuts to deal with the rising deficit. My guess would be that much of the rest of that video is a similar twisting of his positions through the use of short sound bites. I don't trust those when they are done to Mr. Obama either. I always go back to listen to the full context of what was said. The other point there, both this clip and the next are done by vehement Obama supporters, so they're bound to be unflattering, and possibly not entirely truthful. While I gotta say I don't particularly agree with the guys view of the history of this county, one of the first foreign wars we got into was against the Barbary Pirates, and we kicked the Muslims' butts back to Tripoli. As to the rest of what he had to say, Islam does have as its purpose to conquer the world through violence, and it is an avowed enemy of Christianity and Judaism. That is part of the message of the Koran. Islam is the greatest current threat to western civilization of our time. Nowhere in that video did he advocate the destruction of the people of the Middle East. He said that Christians needed to stand strong in the face of a false religion. Now, agree or not with the premise that Islam is a false religion, that is not an un-Christian belief. Nor is it one that advocates hatred or is a hateful view. I've no idea what Mr. McCain's relationship is to the guy. But, how can that "freak you out", when this doesn't? www.youtube.com/watch?v=36T1fnIafC0www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNTGRL0OJWQ&feature=relatedwww.youtube.com/watch?v=Prhnc2fxAzg&feature=relatedwww.youtube.com/watch?v=4pO1dIKgfPw&feature=relatedwww.youtube.com/watch?v=5BnLozS-TnM&feature=relatedwww.youtube.com/watch?v=LCkvvFJtLJE&feature=relatedwww.youtube.com/watch?v=lI77cU3jsFs&feature=relatedwww.youtube.com/watch?v=vrw_W0ekBIM&feature=relatedwww.youtube.com/watch?v=P6_VoHfqQMc&feature=related Need other reasons why Mr. Obama freaks me out? |
|
|
|
Post by Bubba's Dad on Oct 27, 2008 16:58:00 GMT -5
Aerlinn,
Not that I would take your comments personally, just because I am Christian, I have been known to hunt, and fish. I also vote Conservative, I am proud to be an American, and my view on the world mirrors that of Sarah Palin (narrow minded Hitler like) and I like oil products, and I like them at a reasonable price. It is in my blood I guess. My dad spent 22 proud years in the US Navy. He owns stock in oil companies in his 401K. My grandfather was also in the Navy back when the US was fighting Hitler, the Real Hitler, and he hunted almost every fall, even during his last cancer stricken years. All of my uncles hunt, two are Vietnam vets, and a third spent a career in the Cold War era Air force, keeping our nation, and yours, safe from Russia. My sister works for the South Dakota game fish and parks department, and she catches record size walleye (a type of fish). Her soon to be husband works as a hunting and fishing guide, and also wins big prize money catching fish. And I have two cousins in the military, one an Iraq War vet. Hmm, OK, maybe I do take it personally. When you attack common folks, that's my family you are attacking.
None of the people I mentioned are voting for Obama. Not because they are racists or greedy or yada yada yada, but because Obama,s view of the US more closely reflects your view, then ours. And when you insult or attack my family and friends with your condescending opinions on America, it can be forgiven. When Obama dose it, it can not be forgiven. He claims to be an American, yet he wants to take the country in an un-American direction. That is unforgivable. And by the way, my dad is a die-hard Democrat, and no McCain fan, but he is no socialist either, so McCain gets his vote by default.
And my grandfather did much for the conservation of wild life. Like Teddy Roosevelt, he loved to hunt but realized that conservation is necessary to ensure future hunting. Hunters are the best conservationist. Also, a tax paid on each shot-shell, every shotgun and the revenue from the hunting tags, all are ways hunters fund the conservation movement. Fishing licenses and taxes on supplies also help fund wild life preserves, so fishermen, like hunters, fund the conservation movement.
In short, these common folks know what is best for this country. They also do much for the environment, even if some people consider their actions (hunting) stupid. We may not like everything McCain has to offer, but we like nothing that Obama has to offer.
|
|
|
|
Post by misaki on Oct 29, 2008 13:08:33 GMT -5
Bubba's dad, I don't really have the time to write long replies ( sorry ladytera, I'm in my exam-week, so I've been a little busy ) but well, I wanted to reply to this. First of, I don't really see the point of your post. I didn't 'attack' any common folks, we were talking politics, and I just attacked Sarah Palin, who isn't 'common folk' but a quite narrow-minded (in my view), not-the best-qualified ( not my view, but a fact ) politician. I made it quite clear that I have nothing against Republicans or Christians, so please don't go on the victim tour. That's just weird. My mum is a very fundamentalist Christian, and while I think her worldview is more than slightly warped, I respect her as a person. That I don't agree with someone's worldview doesn't mean I'm attacking them as a person. Obviously. I'm very sorry to hear about your granddad dying of cancer, but once again, that doesn't really have anything to do with this discussion. My granddad is actually right now dying of cancer- he's in his last months. Does that mean I'm going to put things in the debate about how he's in his last atheist, social-democratic years, how good of a taxi driver he used to be, that he did well on busses as well, and how much of a common folk he was? Nope. Because, quite frankly, no matter how much I love him, it doesn't have to do anything with this debate. Also, I think it's rather strange to say any liberal or non-Republican is un-American. I'm not American, no, but I have many American friends who are, in fact, liberals. That doesn't mean they don't love their country, it just means they disagree with you. Is that so hard to handle? I never said I thought hunting was wrong as such. Yes, I think it's cruel and I could never do it. Killing an animal when you don't actually need to do it and there are obviously more painless ways is a little twisted in my view. However, that's just my personal feelings on it. It doesn't mean I'm against hunting. Heck, animals kill each other all the time, so I see no moral problems in killing a few, too. However, I am against the furr-industry, animal-exploiting, and killing way too many animals, which is why I'm against killing polar bears from heli's. That's all. I'm not against eating meat, though I was a vegetarian until recently; but that was because I am opposed to animal mistreatment and most animals that end up on your plate, are, in fact, badly mistreated. Since my allergies worsened and I became very severely allergic to fruits as well, I was forced to add fish to my diet ( less of a problem since fish aren't really mistreated in the first place) so I'm not even a veggie anymore myself. Please try not to judge that easily in the future. Whether these common folks as you call them, really know what's good for their country is debatable. There are lots of democratic common folks as well, and they probably think the same. And like I said before, I don't really support any of them, not Obama, and not McCain. |
|
|
|
Post by Bubba's Dad on Oct 29, 2008 17:51:12 GMT -5
Bubba's dad, I don't really have the time to write long replies ( sorry ladytera, I'm in my exam-week, so I've been a little busy ) but well, I wanted to reply to this. First of, I don't really see the point of your post. I didn't 'attack' any common folks, we were talking politics, and I just attacked Sarah Palin, who isn't 'common folk' but a quite narrow-minded (in my view), See, that's just it. Sarah Palin is just common folk, and you basically said that, if that's true, then the common folk are narrow minded, and the world should be afraid of them. Which is why I take issue, justifiably so. The generalization you make here is very much targeted as an insult to the traditions and beliefs myself and my family hold dear. And very much an insult to what makes America what it is. As LT stated, we tend to be a little touchy about being compared, even metaphorically, to Hitler for a couple reasons. First, it's been being done, and considered acceptable for 7 years now. Second, for those of us who actually know our history, we know what Hitler was, and we know 10s of thousands of our countrymen fought and died to save the world from the evil that was Hitler and Nazism. We get a little pissed when folks here or overseas turn around and accuse us of being Hitler-like when America and Americans have never had designs for world domination, have never condoned mass murder as a means of population control and oppression. We get a little irritated because if you actually look at our history, every time Europe has called on us to save it from the fanatical evil mad men that socialism and communism tend to produce, we have come to your call, laid down our lives, and invested in the reconstruction of your countries. We don't seek your gratitude for this, nor your submission, but it's a little much for you to expect us to stand by philosophically while you compare us to the worst your continent has had to offer in recent history. Why is Sarah Palin common folk? She grew up with school teachers for parents, in fairly rural areas. She worked hard for everything she has, and enjoyed her life to the fullest in the process. She has built a good life with her husband and her family. She worked her way through college. She has strong faith in her God. She saw something in the schools her children were attending that wasn't as good as it should have been, so she got involved. She saw something in her town that needed work, so she got involved. She saw something in her state that needed fixing, so she got involved. And now, she sees something in her country that needs some work, so when she was called, she got involved. That, in a nut shell, is the essence of America and the American Dream, and what every person here longs and strives for. So, yeah, she's common folk. Here, I will pose a question. Mrs. Palin is a candidate for Vice President of the United States of America. The requirements for this office are as follows: Natural Born citizen of the United States, and 35 years of age. In this, as there is some question of Mr. Obama's legal status with regard to citizenship, she's as qualified, if not more qualified than the Presidential candidate on the other side. As to any other qualifications, Mr. Biden has never run anything in his life. He's been in the government for 30 years, and has been distinctly un-American in his views. Please don't get in a tizzy over that terms just yet. I will clarify that term in a minute. Mr. Obama has moved from one job to the next, with little actual accomplishment, for the last twenty years, always with a view to the next step up the ladder. His entire purpose has been to gain political power, and eventually the Presidency. Ambition does not a good President make. So, as I've said before, I'll stack Mrs. Palin's experience and more importantly, Mr. McCain's experience against the Obama/Biden ticket any day. What experience do you think she lacks? That wasn't my intent. I am not a victim of anyone, least of all someone else's opinion. My point was simply that your broad brush analysis of common folk is not just some existential philosophical commentary. It applies to real people, and, is totally unjustified. When those types of comments are made here by conservatives, they are challenged as being unfair or offensive. While I think unfair is a silly term, and offensive applies to football, I get a little tired of being told my point of view must be tempered by those thoughts while others do not. So, I am not offended, I am not a victim, you are entitled to your opinion. However, you are being hypocritical if you are going to call me out for calling democrats un-American and yet call the vast majority of the people in this country fanatical and Hitleresque. Correct. It was merely anecdotal evidence to illustrate the point of a broad rejection of the ideals of many Americans can then translate into a personal attack. As well as a point that there are many in my own family, as well as numerous other common folk here, who have fought and died for our right, and yours to have this conversation. Their love of freedom should not be belittled as narrow minded, even though the sacrifices they made give you an absolute right to do so at your pleasure. But, it also protected my right to object. This is a little harder to define. Most liberals haven't the slightest idea what makes the country they claim to love what it is. They subscribe to the idea of social justice, equal outcomes, "fairness", and government provided everything. That is so un-American it isn't even funny. The thing that makes America what it is, that has allowed it to thrive for more than 200 years, that has allowed us to help around the world, and still continue to prosper here at home, is the fact that the ability of our government to provide "fairness", equal outcomes, and everything else the liberals want it to provide is limited by the documents that founded us. Americans are protected from the government providing for their needs because if you allow the government to provide for your needs, you give up your right to make your own decisions, to keep the fruits of your labor, and to pursue your own happiness. The ideas of liberalism, actually socialism, will destroy the country these people say that they love because they will remove the motivation and ability of the common folks to excel. If allowed to continue unchecked, they will remove all the freedoms that make our country what it is. So, yes, I call them un-American. Not as an insult, but as a statement of fact. They do not promote or protect the American ideals, which is what makes us Americans. I've not idea where you thought I was judging. I was simply stating that the hunting you object to is practiced by many here (and most of those who hunt use the meat and other products from that practice), and that I didn't find it stupid. That was a direct response to your comments on added hunting being stupid. I may be wrong, but I think it's wolves hunted by helicopter. I don't think polar bears are usually allowed to be hunted, except under special circumstances. As to the fur industries and such, I'll leave that difference of opinion for another thread. This is the fundamental difference between socialism and the democrat party (not necessarily the democrat voters) here in this country, and the republicans and a Representative Republic. Our government is a government of the people, by the people, for the people. What that means is the elected officials in the country come from the citizenry of this country, they are chosen by the people of this country to represent the wishes of the citizens of this country, and they are paid to carry out the wishes of the citizenry. Therefore, there is no one but the common folks to determine what is best for this country, and if anyone tells you differently, they are not proponents of the American Republic, they are socialist who believe that there should be an elite class that tells the rest of the masses what is best for them. Historically speaking, especially in large nations, that tends to lead to despotism and disaster. |
|
|
|
Post by ladytera on Oct 30, 2008 0:22:22 GMT -5
I will post the source of this later. I wanted thoughts first.
"My fellow Americans, I come to you tonight a few days before an election only six days from now. These are monumental times. We face the worst economy since the Great Depression. People are losing their homes, their jobs, their businesses. Students cannot afford their college loans. Single mothers cannot afford day care; our schools are underfunded; families are growing broke paying for health care. And nobody seems to care,
ladies and gentlemen. Nobody seems to represent the middle class. The question is whether we want another eight years of failed policies. I have traveled this nation. From the big cities to our small towns, I have talked to the assembly line worker in Detroit. I have talked to the farmer in Missouri, and working people of this country have had to bear the brunt of eight years of neglect, of policies that have favored the well off and the wealthy. It is time to change the course of the nation, to work together to bring an end to the division that exists in our nation. That's what this election is about: hope, change, the future.
And so it is, my fellow Americans, that I urge you to reject Barack Obama and his cynical campaign for president. I urge you to reject the policies and the wording of the charismatic demagogue. Barack Obama condemns the United States Constitution, our highest law, because it does not empower him to redistribute the income of the middle class and give it to people who do not work. Obama condemns our judicial system not because it's too liberal and too activist, but because it will not impose his left-wing policies by judicial fiat. Obama believes that the tax code should be used not to fund the legitimate purposes of government, but to massively expand the size and power of the federal government. It's time for change. It is time for the kind of change that has made this country great and the change we seek, the change that matters is change that expands our liberty, expands opportunities, expands wealth creation, and expands our horizons. It is time to celebrate capitalism, not demonize it. It's time to celebrate success, not punish it. It is time to ignite our economy, not smother it.
Barack Obama speaks the language of the socialist. Barack Obama peddles class warfare. He peddles human envy. This is not what American leaders do. This is not what would-be American presidents should do. This is the tactic of the authoritarian, to create animosity, to create anger, to create fear, all for the purpose of undermining the strength and the unity of our society. Barack Obama comes from a long line of ideologues who puts the interests of Big Government above the interests of the individual and the interests of the family. He seeks to replace the American entrepreneurial spirit with government regulations and mandates. James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Ronald Reagan, all embraced the principle that America was a different place because of its respect for the individual. They did not talk about the government redistributing wealth. They did not talk about the government punishing success. They did not talk about the government reregulating the economy. They did not say that paying more taxes was patriotic.
They believed, as our leaders have always believed, that government had limits, so that the American dream would have no limits. They believe that each human being is unique, that he or she has the ability to do great things if left alone to pursue their own interests. They believed that ordinary people could accomplish extraordinary things. They rejected outright the authoritarianism that Barack Obama represents. They each swore to uphold the Constitution because they loved it, not because they saw it as a way to take power and subvert it. Throughout our history, our leaders have understood that private property rights are key to the survival of the individual. If you take his property, you take his livelihood. If you take his property, you attack his spirit. From the day our nation was born, the preservation of private property has been considered a priority of law. Barack Obama wants to use the law to destroy private property. This is what he means, when he attacks businesses large and small, when he insists that there must be limits on what you can earn and keep and pass on to your family when you pass away. He wants the government to control your private property, your income, your assets.
In other words, my fellow Americans, Barack Obama believes that when you go to work each day, when you save some of your money, when you write your will, the federal government can and must be involved in all of those decisions. What would Jefferson, Madison, Lincoln, and Reagan say about that? Jefferson and Madison would call it the abuses of monarchy. Lincoln would call it the abuses of despotism. Ronald Reagan would call it the tyranny of socialism. Our nation is built on the premise that the federal government has specific limited powers. It has important powers, yes, but they are restricted to certain activities. And the purpose of those powers is not to expand the authority of politicians and bureaucrats in Washington, but to organize society around the concept of individual liberty. The individual is not to be a slave to government, he is not to be an employee of the politician or the bureaucrat. He is to be respected and protected from government. That is why we have a Bill of Rights. It is why we have separation of powers. It is why we have states' rights.
For several decades, the left has attempted to destroy these protections. The left does not want to be hemmed in by the Constitution. They have sought ways to avert the legal limits the Founders placed on them and their ambitions, and, sadly, they have made much progress in this regard and they have placed all hope that Barack Obama will finally deliver them the victory over the American people they have craved. And make no mistake, my fellow Americans, a Barack Obama victory is a victory over the American people. And that is, in the end, what this election is really about. Will the American people remain free, or will they once and for all become servants of government? Will the politicians and bureaucrats in Washington be empowered to confiscate the hopes, the dreams, the finances, the property of the people as they see fit, any time they see fit, or will the people still be in charge of their own government and their own destiny? That is what this election is all about.
When Barack Obama says that he will make sure you do not lose your home, that you will go to college, that you will receive free health care, that you will have child care, that you will be free from want, free from desire, free from need, he repeats the lies of past authoritarians who have made the same claims and the same promises and who have delivered nothing but poverty, misery, and hopelessness. Obama represents an ideology for which there are no limits on power. He wants to lead a different kind of government, one in which there are no limits to how much it can confiscate from the people, he wants to lead a movement in which the individual is crushed under the weight of the many. And Obama, like others in the past, speaks of democracy as he pursues anti-democratic goals. As his mentor Saul Alinsky taught, you must use the language of the middle class in order to destroy it.
So I come to you, my fellow Americans, with a simple message. If you believe in the principles and the institutions that have made this nation great, that have given more liberty and prosperity to more people than any other system on the face of the earth, that have created the most tolerant and giving and successful society in human history, then I urge you to reject the candidate who rejects these and our principles. If you want to leave your children and grandchildren and generations yet to come a country that is as free and hopeful and magnificent as the country you live in today and that your parents and grandparents left you, you will reject the candidate who rejects individual liberty, private property rights, and the Constitution. Do not allow a charismatic demagogue to change our great nation in ways that will diminish it. You have your destiny and America's destiny in your own hands, you, not the media, not the pollsters, not the pundits, you will decide this election. You will decide if you want to live in America or someplace that you won't recognize in a few years. You will decide if the principles that have served this nation so well will remain our governing principles.
This election, only six days away, is the most important election in our lifetime. Everything is at stake. We know this because Obama has said so. He has thrown down the gauntlet. He is running against our history. He is running against the system. He is running against our liberty, and so it is that I ask you on November 4th, next Tuesday, vote for liberty, your own and the nations. Vote for opportunity, your own and your children's. Vote for America. Vote for McCain-Palin. You will hear Obama tonight say that we have been talking about the same problems for decades and nothing has ever been done to solve them. This may be the most accurate statement Barack Obama has made, or will make, in the campaign. We have been talking about the same problems for decades. The problem is that for most of these decades, the people who have been fixing them have made them worse. It's not that we have done nothing to solve these problems.
We have done everything the left promised would solve these problems, and not one of the problems is solved, unless Republicans achieve a majority and govern as such, and then we get welfare reform. And then we get balanced budgets, and then we get tax cuts, and then we get prosperity, and we get good national security, and we get safety. But at those times where Democrats are strong enough in Congress to blunt a Republican president, or run the whole show themselves, they look back over 50 years and they see the same problems, and we have addressed those problems and we have fixed those problems per se, and yet the beneficiaries of the solutions are still as angry and unhappy and miserable as they were 50 years ago when the liberal Democrats began the fix. It makes no sense to let them keep fixing things when all they do is break them."
|
|
|
|
Post by ladytera on Oct 30, 2008 0:26:53 GMT -5
This fits both here, and why is America a Superpower. But it's more important here. Again, I will post my source here, but first I'd like you to read the content, and give your thoughts.
"I'd like to ask this question again since I have your attention. There have been populations of people organized as countries since the founding of the planet, since it was created, and since humanity first appeared. People have organized themselves in various ways: groups, families, nations. Now, the earth and humanity, depending on who you talk to, is millions of years old, billions of years old, and throughout the history of human beings, no group of human beings has ever produced the wealth, the freedom, the opportunity, the prosperity, the security, as Americans. The United States of America, throughout human history, is the greatest nation however you wish to define it, in history. Now, how did this happen? We, the United States of America, are just human beings. There are countries that exist at the same time we have, there are countries that existed long before we came into being, of course in Europe and Asia, Africa, Australia, the subcontinents.
How is it that in less than 250 years, this group of human beings called Americans has revolutionized everything about life? We've produced the greatest standard of living and shared how to do it with others. We have produced a standard of living unheard of and undreamed of even by people who were alive 100 years ago. We have produced a country where the occupants, the residents have the highest expectations of opportunity, security, wealth, all of these things, education, than any group of human beings has ever had. I really would like for you to take a moment and, when you have a moment, ask yourselves how this can be. And do it honestly. How can it be? And not to besmirch some of these other countries, but just to give you an example. China, Japan, Russia, the satellite countries, Rome, Italy, take your pick, France, all these countries have been around much, much longer than we have. And admittedly, people that founded this country came from Europe. Why were they not able to do where they lived what they did here? You realize our Founding Fathers were Brits. Why were they not able to turn Great Britain or England into the United States when they lived there?
Why did they have to leave these places to come here, the new world, in order to create this? Why couldn't they do it where they lived? As human beings we're no better than any other human beings on the face of the earth. We're not any different whatsoever, in terms of the way we're born. Human beings are human beings. How is it, then, that the United States has become the most powerful, and for good, the richest, the most technologically advanced, the most industrious, the most productive country in history, in human history? A nation that has liberated hundreds of millions of people from oppression, a nation that has -- talking about sharing the wealth -- a nation that has rebuilt Europe after World War II, a nation that turned imperial Japan into a thriving, burgeoning economic power of a democracy. We're a nation that rebuilt Germany after World War II. All the while, continuing our own growth. We are a nation that invented so many of the things that have improved the quality of life for human beings around the world. We are the one nation that can and offers substantive relief efforts to other nations devastated by natural disasters.
How does this happen? When we're no better than anybody else, when we're no different than anybody else, how does this happen? The answer is very simple. Without being too esoteric about it, freedom is the answer. Most of the people around the world have not lived with the great degree of freedom that our country was founded with. And you can read it in the Founding Fathers' ruminations at the days of the founding, talking about the industriousness of individuals and how to promote it for the common good. You can look at the original true story of Thanksgiving and find out how they tried socialism. The whole community produced whatever it produced and everybody got to go take what they want from the production, and some people figured out after awhile they didn't have to produce anything in order to get something. It didn't work, they changed it. Everybody was assigned a plot of land, grow what you want, grow as much as you want, and you keep it, sell your excess. Plymouth colony expanded like crazy.
The answer is freedom. The answer is also that our Founding Fathers recognized that freedom is part of our creation, and so our founding documents recognize that we are all endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, and these are human rights, life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. We all have these. Every human is born this way, with that yearning spirit. However, depending on where the human being is born, they never get to exercise it. We and our ancestors had the chance to exercise it, and they did, and they built, and they created, and they invented. And as a result, the greatest country in the history of humanity became the United States of America. And it is that freedom allowing each of us to use our own ambitions, our own desires, our own ingenuity, our own creativity, unshackled, to pursue our passions, to do what we love with as few obstacles in our way as possible, certainly fewer obstacles than any other nation's people have faced in their lives. And we see the result. We see the greatest country in the history of civilization.
Why does this matter? Now we have in this presidential campaign not just Mr. Obama, but an entire political party which resents deeply all that I just described to you. They resent the way this country was founded and built because the way they view things is they see that those who worked hard and invented and were industrious and indulged their ambitions did whatever it was necessary to do. They worked hard, they got up before sunup, they went to bed at sundown, they went to school, whatever it was they had to do to become what they wanted, they did it. And, of course, some didn't. Some didn't have as many ambitions as others. Some didn't have that drive. We're all different. And so, the resulting capitalism here that I've just described produced some people that -- in this country, almost everybody does better than anywhere else around the world. However, when just this country is taken as a subset of humanity, yeah, we have some people that don't do well. And we also have some people who in our past were discriminated against for one reason or another. They were denied, at first, the same opportunities that other citizens had. But this country's dealt with that, and those opportunities, however you want to argue, good or bad, the way we've gone about it, those opportunities are now far more available to far more people than even at the founding, than even 60 years ago.
Great, great progress has been made. However, Barack Obama, the Democrat Party still see this nation not as I've just described it to you. They see it as the greatest failure in the experiment of social justice and economic justice and equality that the human race has ever produced. It's got to change. We have got to stop this. We've got to fix it so that everybody ends up the same. We can't have people doing all that well while some people don't, even though that has resulted not because people have been oppressed, not because they've been stunted, not because they've been squashed, because they didn't have the ambition, they didn't have the desire, but they're living their lives, and they're happy, for the most part. So we have the Democrat Party and Barack Obama who want to take every ingredient that made this the greatest country in the world and even you who are gonna vote for Obama and even you who are buying into this notion that some people have too much and that we need to take from them and give to you, you still expect what? You still expect a grand life. You expect a life of prosperity. You expect greater income; you expect a bigger house; you expect a second car. It's just that you think it's going to come from some politician taking it away from somebody else.
If Obama wins and if the Democrats implement this redistribution, what they are going to do is destroy the engine that creates all of this opportunity, and that engine of opportunity will be replaced by a massive federal government to whom more and more citizens will become dependent on their wants and their needs. When the idea that you achieve gets punished, and when you earn too much -- could be a hundred grand, 150, whatever it is, whatever Obama decides -- when you earn more than that, then your American dream's over. The American dream will stop for you at whatever Obama's magic tax increase number is. And when the American dream ends at $150,000, the American dream is over. Obama wants this. Obama wants a large government passing things out according to what he thinks is fair, and the end result of this is creating as many people dependent on a state government, federal government as possible so you'll continue to have to vote for these people. And what it was that created the greatest collection of human beings in the history of humanity will be altered for who knows how long it will take to reorganize this and roll it back, because it'll fail.
Americans who demand and have all these high expectations will keep demanding them and having them, and when they find out that the Obama game and the Democrat plan doesn't produce it, there will be hell to pay down the road, but the damage done in the meantime will be severe. That's why all this matters. You are still the best resource you have to acquiring what you want in life. Obama is not your best resource. The government's not your best resource. Joe Biden is not your best resource. Oprah is not your best resource. You and your family, you are the best resource that you have. Don't give up the free use of yourself to be the best you can be, just for the sake of some change that is actually going to be far worse than you can imagine."
|
|
|
|
Post by ladytera on Oct 30, 2008 18:21:44 GMT -5
Okay, I'm overloading on politics, but the election is only 5 days away, so please forgive me. I'm not sure any of you are reading anymore anyway, so it may not matter. I took the time to watch Mr. Obama's infomercial last night, and made sure I wasn't doing anything else so I could take notes. Some thoughts on what I managed to get down (I don't know short hand, and while I write fast, I don't write as fast as he talks). General Impression - there were a bunch of sob stories from people, interspersed with the same message we've been getting from Mr. Obama for more than a year now. The overall message was a revamp of Mr. Clinton's "I feel your pain" message during his election. While Mr. Obama stated he would get into the specifics of what he intended to do, he was still extraordinarily vague on how he wants to do it. The overall impression I got was that it was the governments job to make sure that noone had to work second jobs, and everyone had enough snacks in the fridge. I know that sounds dismissive, but I don't know precisely how else to describe it, and there was so little substance mixed with so much emotional manipulation it was difficult to put logic based thoughts together. Here's the thing, do I feel compassion for the people in the show that have lost their jobs, gotten old, are having financial troubles? Of course. Do I care enough to commit my well being to the federal government? Hell no. And they shouldn't want to either. What I saw were people who are dissatisfied with their lot in life, at this moment in time, and rather than do something to improve it, they are asking the rest of us to give the government the right to take that responsibility from their shoulders. Do I know the feeling? Yes, absolutely. I've lived my life in a range of income levels, from literally below the poverty line, to over 70,000 a year. The simple fact is that how much I had was never the issue, how I spent it, how I viewed life, and how I took responsibility determined the stability of my life, not my income. So, while I can relate to the folks whose misery was placed on display last night, I don't feel the overwhelming urge to do something for them. They are going to have to do it themselves. As to Mr. Obama's role in that, he seemed to be saying how he's just one of us, he's just like these folks, so he knows what they need. Please let me remind you, Mr. Obama lives in a house worth a great deal of money, he got special assistance with his mortgage for that home. In the last, miserable, 8 years, he has become a very rich man through the sales of his books, at least one of which promotes racism. He has rocketed through the ranks of power. He had an ivy league education. He grew up in Hawaii for god's sake, and none of the information put out so far says that his grandparents were poverty stricken waifs. Has he had hardships in his life? Undoubtedly, most people do. Does that mean that he has not been given opportunities the rest of us have not? No it doesn't. I don't resent that he had helping hands along the way. But I do resent him trying to portray himself as your average joe (the plumber), who got where he is by just the sweat of his brow, and against all odds. This wasn't and has never been the case for Mr. Obama. More specifics: Financial Rescue: He talks about how the financial rescue was a start, but it did nothing for the middle class, and later about how upset we'd be if our Social Security was in the stock market right now. First of all, many of the investors that have been set back by the financial uncertainty lately have been precisely the middle class. The folks who have investments in 401K plans, investment property, and other stocks. So, in essence, while the money may be going through banks, it IS a financial rescue plan for the middle class. The idea of freezing foreclosures, allowing courts to reset principles on mortgage loans (not mentioned in this add, but part of the package), and adding additional low cost loans to people who already can't make their payments does not seem like the smartest set of fixes for an ailing economy. He talks about tax cuts for people earning less than $250,000. Okay, every household in America will get a tax increase come 2010 when the current tax cuts expire. You can argue semantics all you want about that not being a tax increase, only an expiration, but the simple fact is the % rate in all brackets will go up. More of your money will be taken by the government in taxes than is being taken right now. That is a tax increase from the current tax rate, no matter how you slice it. As to the rest, why the heck should we consider it any less abhorrent to take the money of people making less than $250,000 than to take the money of those making 5,000,000. The simple fact is, it is that person or companies money, not the government. They are not, as Mr. Obama states, giving you more money, they are simply taking less of what doesn't belong to them in the first place. Your income is yours, earned by you. Are taxes necessary? Yes, they are. But the idea that your income is the governments to determine what they will give back to you is ludicrous and must be stopped. Do not fall into this idea that it is okay to target the rich because they've succeeded. That is not "fair" as it is portrayed, that is simple class warfare, and this country was founded on the idea that a class system was a bad idea because it limited the freedom of people. As to privatization of Social Security. They take 15% of your earnings for a forced retirement plan. Even with the current losses in the market, if you had that money invested for the last 20 years, instead of being confiscated by the government, I guarantee that if you ran the numbers, you'd still have a better dividend check coming from private stocks than you're getting as a social security check from the government. Now, they are proposing to allow the Social Security administration to take over your 401K (which was originally promoted to supplement the failing Social Security system). In return for giving the government the retirement money you've built up, they'll guarantee a 3% return, and $600 for inflation. Isn't that peachy? I'm not an economist, but I can add. Most 401K plans run an average of 10% return per year, some higher and some lower. While they may have lost some value over the last few months, if you aren't retiring tomorrow, that really doesn't matter. The stock market, like the weather, goes through phases. It will rebound, and your stocks will once again be worth a great deal of money. Even without that incentive, depending on when you bought into the market, your stocks are probably still worth more than they were when you bought them, they just aren't worth as much as they were 6 months ago. So, don't listen to the rhetoric, of either side, on this. Take some time to check it out. Education - On the one hand, he said he'd cut spending, line by line, and that it would bring the cost down, even with his new programs. But the only thing he's talked about cutting is Iraq. On the other hand, he said he'd spend more on early childhood education (can you say mandatory day care), hire more teachers and pay them more money. Give tax credits for tuition (which, btw, I'm pretty sure there already are). Here's the thing. The NEA labor union has been around for decades. They have historically supported the Democrats across the nation. So, we should, theoretically, already have enough teachers, with high enough pay, and schools that excel. We don't. Money here is not the answer. How do I know this? Mr. Obama himself. He later states that the government can't educate your children by themselves, you have to help. Gee, I thought that was what we paid them for. By that logic, he should be promoting homeschool education as the way to go, because children who have parents who are more involved than the average do 30% better on test scores. Ergo, children who have parents concerned enough with their education to homeschool should have even higher test score (which btw, statistically they do, sometimes as high as 85% higher). The point is, he proposes nothing that has not been being implemented by the Department of Education since its founding, and those programs have not fixed the problems he decries. Health Care - he says he wants to provide affordable health care. What he doesn't say is that he's not going to lower premiums, he hopes that by enforcing online health records, and other technological restructuring, it will reduce operating costs and those reductions will be passed on to the consumer. In addition, he will require, under penalty of fine, that every person who does not currently have health care insurance aquire it. This means that if you prefer to pay for your health care as you go, you will pay an additional fine for the right to do so. It means that if your budget does not allow for the premiums of the government run program he wants to institute, you will pay a fine. What he also fails to address, especially with his lovely heart wrenching video of the old woman with rheumatoid arthritis, is that the 12 medications she takes every day are probably the reason she is still alive and still able to take care of herself. If it weren't for the pharmaceutical companies and the health care industry, that she is now complaining she has to pay for their services, she would in all likelihood be dead or crippled. If it weren't for the fees that they charge, these industries would no longer be in business, let alone be making breakthroughs in medical technology and pharmaceuticals that allow for the longer life that is causing such financial hardship for those folks. Oh, and btw, apparently being a salesman at Walmart is a thing to be resented, instead of being please that there is a company out there that will hire a 72 year old man when his retirement plans get messed up. It's all about world view, is the cup half empty or half full. According to Mr. Obama, it's half empty, but that's okay, because if you let him, he'll empty someone else's cup to help the old gent out. What he doesn't tell you is that eventually the cup he empties will be yours. Manufacturing - I'll be brief here. The legal hassles that the environmentalists have raised as a means of limiting business, and the ridiculous regulation that has resulted from these legal tussles, are a large part of the reason that manufacturing plants are closing down. Add to that the unions demanding higher pay, more benefits, earlier retirement options all for less work, and it's not really a surprise that these companies are becoming financially unstable. When you kick in the local taxes levied by local democrat governments, such as Detroit Michigan, it's amazing those companies lasted as long as they did. If you want your manufacturing jobs to stay here, then quit demonizing and impeding the companies that provide those jobs. In the meantime, those who've lost your manufacturing jobs, instead of crying that it's all you know, go out and learn something else. The pay will probably be better anyway. Military - Mr. Obama's one promised spending cut was to the war in Iraq. He said he would use that money here at home to fund schools, hospitals and scholarships. He later states that he'll rebuild our military. Combined with his promise to cut spending, and to use the military funds saved in Iraq for social domestic projects, and Barny Franks promise to cut the military budget by 25%, I have to ask exactly how he intends to ready our military for the 21st century as he says he will. Random thoughts - He once again stated, "I am my brother's keeper." His brother lives in a hut in Kenya on $12 per year. His aunt lives in a slum in Boston, MA. (Vanity Fair and Times UK, I think). If that is how he looks after his own relatives, what makes you believe he will do better looking after yours? He talks about the government investing. The government has no money. The people have money that they allot to the government. It is not the government's job to invest your money. He talks about how he will think about the single mother without healthcare or child care, the guy in Detroit who just lost his job, the farmer in where ever, etc., every day he is in office. Just a thought, do you really want the guy who runs the FBI thinking about you individually? Or would you prefer that the President of the United States focuses on keeping us safe, promoting trade, and defending the Constitution, and leave us to worry about ourselves? Dick Durbin once again told us how great Mr. Obama is, someone else once again told us he's special, he can bring people together, heal the country, and bring bi-partisanship. I ask you to look at the predictions of riots resulting from his campaign. I ask you to look at the record of both candidates, as see who has brought bi-partisanship. I ask you who has talked about bring opportunity and security to all, and who has talked about only helping some. Lastly, Mr. Obama says it's time for change. I don't disagree that it's time to wash clean the cesspool that Washington has become. But, the fundamental freedoms and responsibilities we were founded on are timeless, and cannot be changed without putting us all in slavery to the government. Mr. Obama asks us to once again, "choose our better history." I tell you this election isn't to choose our better history, but to make a better, more prosperous, a freer future for our children and generations to come. I can't tell you who to vote for in this election. I've told you who I'm voting for and why. I will tell you that it is your responsibility, as a citizen who has been given the gift of liberty and the right to vote by being born into this country, to evaluate the facts, evaluate the values you deem necessary to a good leader, and then evaluate the candidates with your head and not your heart. Happy voting next Tuesday if there's no more conversation here before then. |
|
|
|
Post by keyodie on Nov 6, 2008 0:16:09 GMT -5
I find that the speech you posted above is a bit exaggerated and biased and hard to take seriously. The arrogance, I'm going to have to say, is nauseating.
And are you saying that all low-income families don't work hard? Everyone has different circumstances and situations they must deal with. I doubt that all families similar to those you think should just "do it themselves" aren't already trying their best. A lot of what you said about these families only sound like assumptions of people you don't even know. Though some that live in poverty may be "lazy", a lot of them are really trying their best for themselves and their loved ones.
|
|
|
|
Post by ladytera on Nov 6, 2008 0:26:47 GMT -5
Keyodie, before I respond, which speech? There are three of them. Aside from that, I happen to be a low income family that works hard, so no I didn't say that all low-income people are lazy.
|
|
|
|
Post by keyodie on Nov 6, 2008 0:28:39 GMT -5
That one. |
|
|
|
Post by ladytera on Nov 6, 2008 1:46:39 GMT -5
Perhaps the sarcasm in that first part was lost in the transition from audio to transcript. Did you read through the entire thing, or just that first part? The points made are accurate. If you don't think so, what particularly do you disagree with. Not the specific "go vote for this person" or "go vote against this person" phrases, but the substance of what was given as reasons.
It's been a week since I posted this stuff, so I had to go back and reread what I had written before I could get back on the second part of what you were saying. This seemed to be the part you took issue with, and please correct me if I'm wrong:
Perhaps I did not elaborate enough on that concept. I don't believe they should just "do it themselves" because I think they're lazy, or because I'm opposed to helping my fellow man, or because I have passed judgment upon them for being in difficult times. I don't say they'll have to do it themselves because I think they aren't trying now. I say that because it is a simple fact. Each of us, ultimately, must do for ourselves and our families what must be done. No one else can do it for us. If they want their circumstances to improve, or they want to be happier, they must take the responsibility to make the choices necessary to get that done. No politician, no government, no social worker, no other person can do that for you, no matter how much they promise to. Nor should any of us, as individuals, want them to. If you give your well being into another persons hands, you will never succeed. That is just the way it is, not an impression on my part, nor a criticism of anyone.
As to making assumptions of people I don't even know, here's the thing. The folks in that video were portrayed, purposely, as every man, woman or child who isn't rich in this country. Their stories were used to give an impression on misery and hardship, to illustrate a partisan demand for change in the form of more government. Do I know these people individually? No, nor was I making a judgment on them individually. I was making a judgment on the concepts they were used to illustrate. That is why their stories were put forth, to make illustrate that socialist concepts being put forth to "rectify" their situation.
Any thoughts on the rest of the ideas presented? Kind of moot as far as the original topic goes, but informatively still valid.
|
|
