[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sherwood Forest wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]StoneColdClassicQueen wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Zebonka12 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Is Obama fake?
He's not even black.[/QUOTE]
I go for Hillary cuz she's a girl..
well thank god you're too young to vote because that's just what we need ignorant women voting for anyone who has the same sex organs.[/QUOTE]
Sagging boobs make ALL the difference ;D
hahahah seriously, I don't know who to vote for. Everyone is getting on my nerves. Either way, whoever wins, our country is still pretty much screwed.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]MasterHistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Hi Yara,
first off, don't bother trying to talk to Treasure Moment. In case you haven't noticed, he's not one to have any kind of logical conversation with.
Second, as Magical said, Obama is inexperienced. But he was trying to make a number of points in that speech. The biggest of which being that "He agonizes over decisions"; this runs contrary to the popular view of Bush, who simply makes decisions based on what he wants and damn the consequences (otherwise known as cowboy diplomacy: Shoot first, and ask questions later) The second point about him relying on his "gut instincts" is again a juxtaposition to the charges against Bush that he "should have let his gut instinct lead him, instead of formulating evidence to support the decision he'd already made". He's highlighting the differences between himself and Bush (and the Republican party by extension).
Thirdly, he is pandering. But he's a politician. That's what they do. Honestly, if they didn't pander to the public, the public would distrust them. But he's also a better speaker than either Hilary Clinton or McCain. McCain is funny enough, but he's too scripted. Hilary is just as scripted, and never says anything with feeling at all. Bill Clinton was a pretty good public speaker and portrayed a good image, but have you seen what he's said since he's been campaigning for his wife? That's the real Bill Clinton, and it's a complete power trip 180 from when he was in the oval office.
It is true that some of Obama's speeches come off as inexperienced; but that's the point. He's running on a campaign of change as a Washington outsider. If he sounded as scripted and professional as McCain and Clinton, then he wouldn't be able to show himself as a Washington outsider. [/QUOTE] MHG, Mr. Clinton supposedly agonized over radical muslim terrorism against his country but the only action he ever took against the terrorists was to destroy an aspirin plant in the Sudan and empty tents in the Afghan mountains with Tomahahk cruise missle stikes almost two weeks after the attacks against the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. Somehow killing civilian workers in the aspirin plant which was supposedly producing chemical weapons for Al-Qaeda isn't viewed as "cowboy diplomacy" by leftwing academics.
first off, don't bother trying to talk to Treasure Moment. In case you haven't noticed, he's not one to have any kind of logical conversation with.
Second, as Magical said, Obama is inexperienced. But he was trying to make a number of points in that speech. The biggest of which being that "He agonizes over decisions"; this runs contrary to the popular view of Bush, who simply makes decisions based on what he wants and damn the consequences (otherwise known as cowboy diplomacy: Shoot first, and ask questions later) The second point about him relying on his "gut instincts" is again a juxtaposition to the charges against Bush that he "should have let his gut instinct lead him, instead of formulating evidence to support the decision he'd already made". He's highlighting the differences between himself and Bush (and the Republican party by extension).
Thirdly, he is pandering. But he's a politician. That's what they do. Honestly, if they didn't pander to the public, the public would distrust them. But he's also a better speaker than either Hilary Clinton or McCain. McCain is funny enough, but he's too scripted. Hilary is just as scripted, and never says anything with feeling at all. Bill Clinton was a pretty good public speaker and portrayed a good image, but have you seen what he's said since he's been campaigning for his wife? That's the real Bill Clinton, and it's a complete power trip 180 from when he was in the oval office.
It is true that some of Obama's speeches come off as inexperienced; but that's the point. He's running on a campaign of change as a Washington outsider. If he sounded as scripted and professional as McCain and Clinton, then he wouldn't be able to show himself as a Washington outsider. [/QUOTE] MHG, Mr. Clinton supposedly agonized over radical muslim terrorism against his country but the only action he ever took against the terrorists was to destroy an aspirin plant in the Sudan and empty tents in the Afghan mountains with Tomahahk cruise missle stikes almost two weeks after the attacks against the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. Somehow killing civilian workers in the aspirin plant which was supposedly producing chemical weapons for Al-Qaeda isn't viewed as "cowboy diplomacy" by leftwing academics.
oh snap! a West Virginia thread! well, Obama's just as trilateral as McCain or Clinton. Barack's lips are firmly planted on Jay Rockefeller's shoulders ;) compared to them, and Bush, Obama's a clean slate, and that's really his only asset. is a fake clean slate better than a real clean slate? depends on how it's used, and we all know the mindset is 'use it or lose it' ...so no, he's not THAT fake, but real close. November could even turn out like Reagan-Mondale '84.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Charlie Brown wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]MasterHistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Hi Yara,
first off, don't bother trying to talk to Treasure Moment. In case you haven't noticed, he's not one to have any kind of logical conversation with.
Second, as Magical said, Obama is inexperienced. But he was trying to make a number of points in that speech. The biggest of which being that "He agonizes over decisions"; this runs contrary to the popular view of Bush, who simply makes decisions based on what he wants and damn the consequences (otherwise known as cowboy diplomacy: Shoot first, and ask questions later) The second point about him relying on his "gut instincts" is again a juxtaposition to the charges against Bush that he "should have let his gut instinct lead him, instead of formulating evidence to support the decision he'd already made". He's highlighting the differences between himself and Bush (and the Republican party by extension).
Thirdly, he is pandering. But he's a politician. That's what they do. Honestly, if they didn't pander to the public, the public would distrust them. But he's also a better speaker than either Hilary Clinton or McCain. McCain is funny enough, but he's too scripted. Hilary is just as scripted, and never says anything with feeling at all. Bill Clinton was a pretty good public speaker and portrayed a good image, but have you seen what he's said since he's been campaigning for his wife? That's the real Bill Clinton, and it's a complete power trip 180 from when he was in the oval office.
It is true that some of Obama's speeches come off as inexperienced; but that's the point. He's running on a campaign of change as a Washington outsider. If he sounded as scripted and professional as McCain and Clinton, then he wouldn't be able to show himself as a Washington outsider. [/QUOTE] MHG, Mr. Clinton supposedly agonized over radical muslim terrorism against his country but the only action he ever took against the terrorists was to destroy an aspirin plant in the Sudan and empty tents in the Afghan mountains with Tomahahk cruise missle stikes almost two weeks after the attacks against the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. Somehow killing civilian workers in the aspirin plant which was supposedly producing chemical weapons for Al-Qaeda isn't viewed as "cowboy diplomacy" by leftwing academics.[/QUOTE]
Show me where I ever said that Clinton was perfect? I never said anything about Former President Clinton, besides the fact that he was a wonderful communicator (via speeches) who left the impression that he was a genuinely nice guy but who has since done a complete 180 since he left office and started campaigning for his wife. That is the only thing I said about the former president. Clinton is half to blame for the terrorist attacks on our country, because he saw Al-Qeada (know I can't spell that) developing but did nothing to stop it, as you indicated.
My point was that Obama was drawing a comparison between him and Bush, saying that contrary to what Bush seems to do (shoot first, as questions later and damn the consequences), Obama would take a decision like that to heart and agonize over it before ordering a strike. Clinton never even enters into that picture, as Obama has never compared himself with Bill Clinton and never will, even if he were to secure the nomination of the Democratic party.
There is also a difference between "cowboy diplomacy" and just plain making a mistake. You bomb an asprin factory you think is making weapons for the enemy once, you've just made a mistake. Bush has made a lot of mistakes; the difference between them is that Bush makes the same mistakes over and over and over again, and deliberately marginalizes people who try to point out to him that it's a mistake (foreign intelligence advisers who told him the charges against Iraq were shaky at best and false in all probability).
first off, don't bother trying to talk to Treasure Moment. In case you haven't noticed, he's not one to have any kind of logical conversation with.
Second, as Magical said, Obama is inexperienced. But he was trying to make a number of points in that speech. The biggest of which being that "He agonizes over decisions"; this runs contrary to the popular view of Bush, who simply makes decisions based on what he wants and damn the consequences (otherwise known as cowboy diplomacy: Shoot first, and ask questions later) The second point about him relying on his "gut instincts" is again a juxtaposition to the charges against Bush that he "should have let his gut instinct lead him, instead of formulating evidence to support the decision he'd already made". He's highlighting the differences between himself and Bush (and the Republican party by extension).
Thirdly, he is pandering. But he's a politician. That's what they do. Honestly, if they didn't pander to the public, the public would distrust them. But he's also a better speaker than either Hilary Clinton or McCain. McCain is funny enough, but he's too scripted. Hilary is just as scripted, and never says anything with feeling at all. Bill Clinton was a pretty good public speaker and portrayed a good image, but have you seen what he's said since he's been campaigning for his wife? That's the real Bill Clinton, and it's a complete power trip 180 from when he was in the oval office.
It is true that some of Obama's speeches come off as inexperienced; but that's the point. He's running on a campaign of change as a Washington outsider. If he sounded as scripted and professional as McCain and Clinton, then he wouldn't be able to show himself as a Washington outsider. [/QUOTE] MHG, Mr. Clinton supposedly agonized over radical muslim terrorism against his country but the only action he ever took against the terrorists was to destroy an aspirin plant in the Sudan and empty tents in the Afghan mountains with Tomahahk cruise missle stikes almost two weeks after the attacks against the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. Somehow killing civilian workers in the aspirin plant which was supposedly producing chemical weapons for Al-Qaeda isn't viewed as "cowboy diplomacy" by leftwing academics.[/QUOTE]
Show me where I ever said that Clinton was perfect? I never said anything about Former President Clinton, besides the fact that he was a wonderful communicator (via speeches) who left the impression that he was a genuinely nice guy but who has since done a complete 180 since he left office and started campaigning for his wife. That is the only thing I said about the former president. Clinton is half to blame for the terrorist attacks on our country, because he saw Al-Qeada (know I can't spell that) developing but did nothing to stop it, as you indicated.
My point was that Obama was drawing a comparison between him and Bush, saying that contrary to what Bush seems to do (shoot first, as questions later and damn the consequences), Obama would take a decision like that to heart and agonize over it before ordering a strike. Clinton never even enters into that picture, as Obama has never compared himself with Bill Clinton and never will, even if he were to secure the nomination of the Democratic party.
There is also a difference between "cowboy diplomacy" and just plain making a mistake. You bomb an asprin factory you think is making weapons for the enemy once, you've just made a mistake. Bush has made a lot of mistakes; the difference between them is that Bush makes the same mistakes over and over and over again, and deliberately marginalizes people who try to point out to him that it's a mistake (foreign intelligence advisers who told him the charges against Iraq were shaky at best and false in all probability).
All the candidates are puppets.
Vote Treasure Moment for president '08!
Vote Treasure Moment for president '08!
I like you both, Charlie Brown and MasterHistoryGirl, I don't want to generate bitterness because of my silly post. Charlie, I must say I agree with MasterHistoryGirl because she addressed my doubt! :-)
MasterHistoryGirl, I think, was trying to point out the way Obama's speeches have been construed to be the exact opposite of pretty much everything that Bush symbolizes as far as foreign policy is concerned - she really addressed what I wanted to know, Charlie Brown, I don't think it's fair labeling her like that, she's far too smart and intelligent and beyond these labels.
I like you all guys, so, I hope, if the thread goes on, we can have a nice helpful discussion without these labeling and so on. I know it's hard when it comes to politics (lol), which generates a lot of passion, but I just wanted to know the strategy behind the speech-making, so to speak - how the speeches and the candidates are presented, and why they are presented the way they are presented to the voters, and to what extent there's any reality behind that person or whether it is pure speech, fake, opportunism, theatrics, you name it.
MasterHistoryGirl elevated the discussion, a lot, and I want to thank you very much again.
And, well, if you feel like doing it, and when time allows, I'd love you to comment on those doubts of mine, which are silly but I'd like to know that about all countries!
Thank you, Charlie Brown, Thank you, MasterHistoryGirl and thank you all.
Ya'ra
MasterHistoryGirl, I think, was trying to point out the way Obama's speeches have been construed to be the exact opposite of pretty much everything that Bush symbolizes as far as foreign policy is concerned - she really addressed what I wanted to know, Charlie Brown, I don't think it's fair labeling her like that, she's far too smart and intelligent and beyond these labels.
I like you all guys, so, I hope, if the thread goes on, we can have a nice helpful discussion without these labeling and so on. I know it's hard when it comes to politics (lol), which generates a lot of passion, but I just wanted to know the strategy behind the speech-making, so to speak - how the speeches and the candidates are presented, and why they are presented the way they are presented to the voters, and to what extent there's any reality behind that person or whether it is pure speech, fake, opportunism, theatrics, you name it.
MasterHistoryGirl elevated the discussion, a lot, and I want to thank you very much again.
And, well, if you feel like doing it, and when time allows, I'd love you to comment on those doubts of mine, which are silly but I'd like to know that about all countries!
Thank you, Charlie Brown, Thank you, MasterHistoryGirl and thank you all.
Ya'ra
Yara, I appreciate what you are trying to do. But there is no need to come to my defense. The "left wing academic" is more of a stereotype in America, and while I do know many academics in the field who are left-wing, I personally would not characterize myself in that manner and definitely not to the degree that the stereotype takes it. Those who use the term in a negative sense to others assume that all academics are raving socialists at best and communists at worst. I would only classify myself as a political observer; like a Watcher from the Highlander series of movies and TV shows. My own personal beliefs are far more muted and no party or area on the political spectrum matches to my beliefs, which is why I resent being labeled as something because of something silly like my academic background. I do the same thing when people automatically assume that I would support Hilary Clinton simply because I'm female, because I don't support her. I don't support Obama or McCain either because I believe that the flaws in the system are bigger than one person or one party, and fundamental change is needed to the structure of the system. There are no bad feelings on my part, and I'm sure Charlie Brown feels the same way. Though it looks like an argument from words on a screen, it is not. So no need to quash discussion for keeping the peace; the peace is still present.
As far as your questions about politicians vs. the public, that's a good question and a complicated issue. The candidates are worried about the same things the public is (at least that's what they say) because the public elects them; albeit indirectly. Right now, the big issues in the election this year are the war in Iraq, Health Care, The Economy and Social Security. Some issues of less importance right now include immigration, the environment, privatization of government services, stem cell research, etc. You'll notice if you've been watching the candidates that they always seem to say something about the major issues, which is how they get elected. So the politicians share the views of the public in a general way, though some members of the public may feel more or less strongly on some issues than the candidates do.
The difference is that the politicians cannot solve all of the problems that they promise to. The public elects them to keep their promises, but some promises are too big to be kept. I suppose under a dictatorship or something the problems with Health Care and what not could be fixed, but this is not possible in a democracy where there are two parties who stand at opposite sides on an issue. Take Health Care for example: The biggest problem is that there are 47 million Americans who are uninsured right now, and because of that they cannot afford to go to the doctor when they are ill. Not only is it bad for them, but it's a strain on the public system as well because if something major happens and they go to the hospital (where by law they have to be treated) and cannot pay the resulting bill, the hospital has to raise prices on services to re-coup the losses. The Republicans (John McCain being the representative of this group as the presumptive nominee) are fiscal conservatives; they want the government to be as small as possible and spend very little money on anything except the bare necessities. So his perception of the problem is that the reason there are 47 million uninsured Americans is because they cannot afford health insurance. So he wants to provide insurance to everyone at a rate they can afford and fix problems of inflation within the health and health insurance industry, thereby dropping prices for everyone. This would, of course, cost the government money, but since in the end the people who are uninsured would still have to pay something for health insurance the costs would be minimized. This fixes a number of problems within the health care issue, but not everyone who is uninsured is that way because
As far as your questions about politicians vs. the public, that's a good question and a complicated issue. The candidates are worried about the same things the public is (at least that's what they say) because the public elects them; albeit indirectly. Right now, the big issues in the election this year are the war in Iraq, Health Care, The Economy and Social Security. Some issues of less importance right now include immigration, the environment, privatization of government services, stem cell research, etc. You'll notice if you've been watching the candidates that they always seem to say something about the major issues, which is how they get elected. So the politicians share the views of the public in a general way, though some members of the public may feel more or less strongly on some issues than the candidates do.
The difference is that the politicians cannot solve all of the problems that they promise to. The public elects them to keep their promises, but some promises are too big to be kept. I suppose under a dictatorship or something the problems with Health Care and what not could be fixed, but this is not possible in a democracy where there are two parties who stand at opposite sides on an issue. Take Health Care for example: The biggest problem is that there are 47 million Americans who are uninsured right now, and because of that they cannot afford to go to the doctor when they are ill. Not only is it bad for them, but it's a strain on the public system as well because if something major happens and they go to the hospital (where by law they have to be treated) and cannot pay the resulting bill, the hospital has to raise prices on services to re-coup the losses. The Republicans (John McCain being the representative of this group as the presumptive nominee) are fiscal conservatives; they want the government to be as small as possible and spend very little money on anything except the bare necessities. So his perception of the problem is that the reason there are 47 million uninsured Americans is because they cannot afford health insurance. So he wants to provide insurance to everyone at a rate they can afford and fix problems of inflation within the health and health insurance industry, thereby dropping prices for everyone. This would, of course, cost the government money, but since in the end the people who are uninsured would still have to pay something for health insurance the costs would be minimized. This fixes a number of problems within the health care issue, but not everyone who is uninsured is that way because
I'm apolitical.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Zebonka12 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Is Obama fake?
He's not even black.[/QUOTE]
Yes, and there's proof in his quote from the first post:
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Obama said: [/QUOTENAME]among my Jewish friends in Chicago.
[/QUOTE]
Try using "my black friends" when selling your politics in the inner city. Many have tried, none have succeeded.
The only thing I've heard different from Obamama from the other candidates is he's "committed" to getting our troops out of Iraq quickly. This clearly shows his inexperience in foreign diplomacy. Sad to say, what the Bush campaign is "trying" to do is what needs to be done. Try to rectify your relations with European nations.
Now the Afgan affair is being handled by the book, according to NATO. Yet, many countries refuse to lift a finger of support. Obviously, this is in part due to the handling of the Iraq war. I don't see how his "Jewish friends" are going to help there. Go ahead, Baraka, go over there (the middle east) and tell them about your "Jewish friends" and your "Jewish thought". That will go over real well.
He's not even black.[/QUOTE]
Yes, and there's proof in his quote from the first post:
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Obama said: [/QUOTENAME]among my Jewish friends in Chicago.
[/QUOTE]
Try using "my black friends" when selling your politics in the inner city. Many have tried, none have succeeded.
The only thing I've heard different from Obamama from the other candidates is he's "committed" to getting our troops out of Iraq quickly. This clearly shows his inexperience in foreign diplomacy. Sad to say, what the Bush campaign is "trying" to do is what needs to be done. Try to rectify your relations with European nations.
Now the Afgan affair is being handled by the book, according to NATO. Yet, many countries refuse to lift a finger of support. Obviously, this is in part due to the handling of the Iraq war. I don't see how his "Jewish friends" are going to help there. Go ahead, Baraka, go over there (the middle east) and tell them about your "Jewish friends" and your "Jewish thought". That will go over real well.
I did have to attend the classes. I couldn't escape them. lol
Well...I love it when it's my break, really. Then I can come here! :op
Hm.
Let me just see if I understood MasterHistoryGirl right because it was too much info for me and too complicated, so I'll say what I understood and I'd love to know if you guys think I got the point, or the gist (I learned the word with her!) of it all:
1) There are 47 million Americans uninssured. Reasons: they either can't afford, or because of some health condition and so on are not eligible to, private insurance - there are those who can't afford, period, and those whose treatment is denied by the companies on the ground of pre-existing illnesses and so on.
Problem is, they, these 47 million Americans, aren't qualified, don't meet the requirements to benefit from the public health system.
So, they end up getting treated anyway if there's emergency, companies take some lost and then elevate the prices.
2) There are two sides in the mainstream political arena discussing how to resolve it. One side argues that it's necessary to foster economic growth by cutting or reducing taxes in some sectors, for example, so that in the long-run all people can afford private insurance.
The other side says it's wrong, and that there must be public investment in health care to cover all these people who are uninssured.
It sounds cute, but then the other side says that costs would grow for the government, the national debt would increase, there'd be inflationary pressures and the whole program would turn out to be unsustainable.
3) Nothing really matters, as Freddie says, because even if one candidate succeeds in having a majority in Congress and passing the laws, it's very likely that the next one, with opposite views on the whole thing, will undo what had been done, therefore making hard any kind stable, long-term systematic meaningful change which wouldn't be a bi-partisan compromise unable to address the problem properly.
Did I get the point? I'd like the thread to go on, I'm learning so much, and it's so nice to talk to you people. Did I get the points, more or less?
I know I didn't and that it's more complicated, but the gist (lol), did I get it!?
Well...feel free everyone to comment on this, and MasteryHistoryGirl of course, whenever you want and time allows, because I love it, and it's not that I want to abuse of your patience and so on, it's just that, well, I like learning and maybe there are people who have the same doubts as me!
Now, THANK YOU ALL, ESPECIALLY CHARLIE BROWN AND MASTERHISTORYGIRL. YOU GUYS DO KNOW HOW TO HAVE A DEBATE. I'm too weak and full of boring things that if people start talking louder I begin to cry. lol
I have to go to a psychiatrist really. There must be one specializing in this and in stage fright.
Hahaha.
THANK YOU ALL. LOVE YOU!
Well...I love it when it's my break, really. Then I can come here! :op
Hm.
Let me just see if I understood MasterHistoryGirl right because it was too much info for me and too complicated, so I'll say what I understood and I'd love to know if you guys think I got the point, or the gist (I learned the word with her!) of it all:
1) There are 47 million Americans uninssured. Reasons: they either can't afford, or because of some health condition and so on are not eligible to, private insurance - there are those who can't afford, period, and those whose treatment is denied by the companies on the ground of pre-existing illnesses and so on.
Problem is, they, these 47 million Americans, aren't qualified, don't meet the requirements to benefit from the public health system.
So, they end up getting treated anyway if there's emergency, companies take some lost and then elevate the prices.
2) There are two sides in the mainstream political arena discussing how to resolve it. One side argues that it's necessary to foster economic growth by cutting or reducing taxes in some sectors, for example, so that in the long-run all people can afford private insurance.
The other side says it's wrong, and that there must be public investment in health care to cover all these people who are uninssured.
It sounds cute, but then the other side says that costs would grow for the government, the national debt would increase, there'd be inflationary pressures and the whole program would turn out to be unsustainable.
3) Nothing really matters, as Freddie says, because even if one candidate succeeds in having a majority in Congress and passing the laws, it's very likely that the next one, with opposite views on the whole thing, will undo what had been done, therefore making hard any kind stable, long-term systematic meaningful change which wouldn't be a bi-partisan compromise unable to address the problem properly.
Did I get the point? I'd like the thread to go on, I'm learning so much, and it's so nice to talk to you people. Did I get the points, more or less?
I know I didn't and that it's more complicated, but the gist (lol), did I get it!?
Well...feel free everyone to comment on this, and MasteryHistoryGirl of course, whenever you want and time allows, because I love it, and it's not that I want to abuse of your patience and so on, it's just that, well, I like learning and maybe there are people who have the same doubts as me!
Now, THANK YOU ALL, ESPECIALLY CHARLIE BROWN AND MASTERHISTORYGIRL. YOU GUYS DO KNOW HOW TO HAVE A DEBATE. I'm too weak and full of boring things that if people start talking louder I begin to cry. lol
I have to go to a psychiatrist really. There must be one specializing in this and in stage fright.
Hahaha.
THANK YOU ALL. LOVE YOU!
I would like to tip my hat to MHG, Microwave and Yara for making excellent points in this thread. And for raising the level of discourse on the site.
Thanks, Charlie Brown. We have our (treasured) moments.
It's also good that have a sense of humor, a lot of the new people don't "get it" here, but you obviously do. Cheers.
It's also good that have a sense of humor, a lot of the new people don't "get it" here, but you obviously do. Cheers.
irrelevant
------------
Hi, people! I had been studying a lot, had to perform last night and it was a vert demanding performance, and I'm shattered, very tired, had little amount of sleep, still worked a lot today, and tried to help here in the website, so even though I'm non-stop, you know that, I can't stop, it's in my nature, I do get tired and sleepy and so on...so maybe because the thread starter didn't show up interest in its following, we declared the thread dead! But no,
I'd love it to go on, even if it is piecemeal, or whenever you feel like writing, and so on, because I'm learning a lot from you, and, most importantly, other people who I know share the same doubts and are unwilling to voice them benefit from these discussions.
I went to the library and picked up a book there which seemed interesting, I read pretty much anything, from Harry Potter to Flaubert.
relevant (lol)
--------------------------
Then I came across the following passage, and I'd love you guys to comment on that cause we were talking recently about Health Care, and that's an important issue here too, and so, everybody can relate to this kind of question.
Here it is:
He's talking about U.S military spenditures:
"Six hundred and forty-five billion dollars is a lot of money - and $845 billion is even more. Of this amount, three quarters, or some $634 billion, is for Iraq, ten times the Bush Administration's early estimates for the Iraq War, AND MORE THAN THE AMOUNT WE SPEND ON MEDICARE AND MEDICAID COMBINED EACH YEAR". (Stiglitz, Joseph E., The Three Trillion Dollar War, Chap.2, p.32-33, WW NORTON & COMPANY, New York, 2008).
His source: there's a footnote in the end of the phrase: "in 2007, the federal budget included $394 billion for Medicare and $276 billion for Medicaid and related payments - Budgest of the U.S Government, 2007". (footnote 5, chap.2, p. 247, ibid).
So...I think the quotes are interesting. I didn't know the DATA.
I'd like you guys, I'd love if you guys - Microwave, MasterHistoryGirl, Charlie Brown and everyone! - could comment on that:
1) Whether the data is accurate or is being well interpreted or represented;
2) I know Medicare and Medicaid are public health programs, but I don't know very well how they work;
3) The relationship between the costs of the war and the Health Care crisis;
4) The difference between Medicare and Medicaid;
5) Who qualifies for what!
I'd love you to comment on that!
Because...I love you! Period! Hahaha.
I need to sleep more, but I don't feel like doing it, I have a last performance tonight, a short recital, and then I'll sleep, I hope, but sleeping is good once and a while, but sleeping everyday kinda sucks, I don't like it.
Well, that's it.
LOVE YOU! BYE!
------------
Hi, people! I had been studying a lot, had to perform last night and it was a vert demanding performance, and I'm shattered, very tired, had little amount of sleep, still worked a lot today, and tried to help here in the website, so even though I'm non-stop, you know that, I can't stop, it's in my nature, I do get tired and sleepy and so on...so maybe because the thread starter didn't show up interest in its following, we declared the thread dead! But no,
I'd love it to go on, even if it is piecemeal, or whenever you feel like writing, and so on, because I'm learning a lot from you, and, most importantly, other people who I know share the same doubts and are unwilling to voice them benefit from these discussions.
I went to the library and picked up a book there which seemed interesting, I read pretty much anything, from Harry Potter to Flaubert.
relevant (lol)
--------------------------
Then I came across the following passage, and I'd love you guys to comment on that cause we were talking recently about Health Care, and that's an important issue here too, and so, everybody can relate to this kind of question.
Here it is:
He's talking about U.S military spenditures:
"Six hundred and forty-five billion dollars is a lot of money - and $845 billion is even more. Of this amount, three quarters, or some $634 billion, is for Iraq, ten times the Bush Administration's early estimates for the Iraq War, AND MORE THAN THE AMOUNT WE SPEND ON MEDICARE AND MEDICAID COMBINED EACH YEAR". (Stiglitz, Joseph E., The Three Trillion Dollar War, Chap.2, p.32-33, WW NORTON & COMPANY, New York, 2008).
His source: there's a footnote in the end of the phrase: "in 2007, the federal budget included $394 billion for Medicare and $276 billion for Medicaid and related payments - Budgest of the U.S Government, 2007". (footnote 5, chap.2, p. 247, ibid).
So...I think the quotes are interesting. I didn't know the DATA.
I'd like you guys, I'd love if you guys - Microwave, MasterHistoryGirl, Charlie Brown and everyone! - could comment on that:
1) Whether the data is accurate or is being well interpreted or represented;
2) I know Medicare and Medicaid are public health programs, but I don't know very well how they work;
3) The relationship between the costs of the war and the Health Care crisis;
4) The difference between Medicare and Medicaid;
5) Who qualifies for what!
I'd love you to comment on that!
Because...I love you! Period! Hahaha.
I need to sleep more, but I don't feel like doing it, I have a last performance tonight, a short recital, and then I'll sleep, I hope, but sleeping is good once and a while, but sleeping everyday kinda sucks, I don't like it.
Well, that's it.
LOVE YOU! BYE!
*makes sign of the cross*
we in the UK are keeping our eye on this election as it will go a long way deciding what our government does with its foreign agenda's.
the UK [people] is very anti-US goverment at the moment for its handling of things from Afghanistan/Iraq and especially Guantanamo Bay.what the hell are the US doing at that place?
Obama has shown his in-experience politically of late and ruffled a lot of feathers both at 'home' and abroad [some of the comments he and his pastor have made a clearly racist] but because he is black seems to of been overlooked.
Bush is trying to get his party to lose without even realising it.the comments he made in Israel were just deplorable,i dont think Mcann needs him opening his gob when the elections start for real.
Hillary is clinging on by her coat tails with her campaign and the longer she does the worse it will be for the Democrats.they need to be showing unity not showing their flaws if they want to win the election.
if Mccann does get in,expect the UK to start withdrawing support for any future involvements in foreign affairs.the backlash in Iraq is a major political firework here and Gordon Brown and the Labour party are trying to keep the public popularity and will do anything at the moment and that includes severing some ties with the US.
the UK [people] is very anti-US goverment at the moment for its handling of things from Afghanistan/Iraq and especially Guantanamo Bay.what the hell are the US doing at that place?
Obama has shown his in-experience politically of late and ruffled a lot of feathers both at 'home' and abroad [some of the comments he and his pastor have made a clearly racist] but because he is black seems to of been overlooked.
Bush is trying to get his party to lose without even realising it.the comments he made in Israel were just deplorable,i dont think Mcann needs him opening his gob when the elections start for real.
Hillary is clinging on by her coat tails with her campaign and the longer she does the worse it will be for the Democrats.they need to be showing unity not showing their flaws if they want to win the election.
if Mccann does get in,expect the UK to start withdrawing support for any future involvements in foreign affairs.the backlash in Iraq is a major political firework here and Gordon Brown and the Labour party are trying to keep the public popularity and will do anything at the moment and that includes severing some ties with the US.