Palin: Iraq war a "task from God"

I'm trying to be a little more politically savy from now on, but I'm really having a hard time understanding what's good about either of these campaigns. Can you watch these videos in succession (they're all under a minute) and explain what they're talking about? Are McCain/Palin just puppets, blurting out pre-determined catchphrases in an attempt to pull in female voters? What the hell's happening? If McCain wins, I seriously might leave the country. The thought of him and Palin (especially her) in control literally gives me goosebumps.

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IYOlwdhJHs

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

The whole lipstick pig thing is a perfect reason why there's no point at all in paying any attention to the media for the next 50 whatever days. Ignore it all, find a non-partisan site listing the policies for all candidates, and go vote from here. Its such a mess.
 
'all that' was simply a rehash of his previous post! would an equally long and equally redundant reply satisfy you more? his point of 'money doesnt buy happiness' is true for him, but perhaps not true for everyone. perhaps for some people money does buy happiness, thats why they pursued success and wealth in the first place, as is their right in this country. "since money doesnt buy me happiness, that must be true for everyone!" i guess he does admit to being elitist.
also, im not against raising the tax on that top 1% who have been getting over the last 30 years or so, because of the difference of income tax vs capitol gains (rich people make more money off stocks and such than their paycheck) because moneywise, they unquestionably pay more, but percentage wise they're getting over. unfortunately, with the trend of more social services has been the trend of raising taxes on the middle class and upper middle (by both dems and repubs), but not the poor and super rich. raising taxes more to pay for more social programs (free shit for bums), really hurts the middle class the most, slowly making them poorer, and widening the gap between rich and poor even more, because as you all say, "the rich can afford it!"

You make very valid points, Neal, and I don't disagree with your argument. I just feel that the majority needs a break, and if it takes stepping on some toes and doing some things that are a little left-of-center, then so be it.

For me, it's a question of ethics. We could either help our fellow man or leave them to rot in the mess we've created. At this point, fairness is moot. However, you seem to think that social systems are only for the impoverished and it's just not true. I understand your frustration with these welfare junkies and we need to overhaul the system, but the fact that you equate social programs to "free shit for bums" means that you really have no idea what you're talking about when speaking of social programs.

If you looked outside your borders and saw how REAL social programs worked, you might feel differently. The social programs in the US are laughable and don't even work, and that's partly why we're in the mess we're in now.
 
The whole lipstick pig thing is a perfect reason why there's no point at all in paying any attention to the media for the next 50 whatever days. Ignore it all, find a non-partisan site listing the policies for all candidates, and go vote from here. Its such a mess.

I agree 100%...aside from debates, I won't be watching any more coverage.

People over here are laughing at the ridiculousness of the media coverage. They ask me repeatedly, "Do you really care what kind of personal life this candidate has? Shouldn't you be more worried about his/her policies?" I then have to explain to them that we feel the same way.
 
Anything in particular that you'd recommend? I have a hard time believing anything I read anywhere these days.

Sadly, I do too.

Ontheissues.com was one I found that had an extensive list of everyone's policies in there somewhere, but even that has things hidden between the lines attacking certain candidates. Like their videos they have embedded in each page that are definitely not what I want to see on a site like that.

For up to date news, ignore everything except news sourced straight from AP, for example, because all media outlets are biased to some degree.

I agree 100%...aside from debates, I won't be watching any more coverage.

People over here are laughing at the ridiculousness of the media coverage. They ask me repeatedly, "Do you really care what kind of personal life this candidate has? Shouldn't you be more worried about his/her policies?" I then have to explain to them that we feel the same way.

Debates are interesting to a degree, but are inherently flawed. I fear this time around they will be utterly forgettable, as McCain's stance is essentially "I'm the opposite of Obama, and uh, it's time for a change" and Obama's is "That guy just wants more of the same, I'm really making change!"

Until third party candidates are in the nationally broadcasted debates even to a remotely similar degree, the only point of them is hearing the two parties spout the same rhetoric they've been saying, as the only reason they hold debates is to try to sway the minds of the undecided 20%.

And for what its worth, I doubt McCain can hold his own against Obama in a debate, he sorely lacks the public speaking skills. Bring on the Palin/Obama cage match.
 
Ignore it all, find a non-partisan site listing the policies for all candidates, and go vote from here. Its such a mess.

See, you've just described the sort of reforms that would make it worth voting again. If all candidates were allowed was a template webpage where they could fill out their policies and answer a predetermined set of questions, maybe 2 tv adverts, a few print ads, and were required to show up for each of a set of televised debates on different areas of policy, they wouldn't need to spend 2.1 jigawatts of cash. Perhaps someone who isn't a multi-millionaire and/or sucking huge amounts of corporate dick might be able to have their proposed policies judged on their own merits.
 
Sadly, I do too.

Ontheissues.com was one I found that had an extensive list of everyone's policies in there somewhere, but even that has things hidden between the lines attacking certain candidates. Like their videos they have embedded in each page that are definitely not what I want to see on a site like that.

For up to date news, ignore everything except news sourced straight from AP, for example, because all media outlets are biased to some degree.
Oh hey I found one!

 
Last edited by a moderator:
oh I edited my post with more instead of double posting and fell on my ass, that's why I shouldn't be bothered with internet etiquette*shakes fist*
 
Holy shit, we agree on something?!

Well, on a personal level I agree with a lot of what you and Chris were proposing earlier in the thread, but my point was that you were both proposing the world you want to live in is the right one for everyone else in this country. I too value a society of educated citizens with critical thinking skills. I too value a government that is socially liberal while being conservative in its spending and foreign policy. However, this is clearly not the world most Americans choose. We have built the lowest common denominator society and government because it is the only one 300 million people can seem to agree on, even when not one of them is entirely happy with the result.
 
See, you've just described the sort of reforms that would make it worth voting again. If all candidates were allowed was a template webpage where they could fill out their policies and answer a predetermined set of questions, maybe 2 tv adverts, a few print ads, and were required to show up for each of a set of televised debates on different areas of policy, they wouldn't need to spend 2.1 jigawatts of cash. Perhaps someone who isn't a multi-millionaire and/or sucking huge amounts of corporate dick might be able to have their proposed policies judged on their own merits.

The site I listed has something like this, and it is an fantastic idea if it were really done in such a way. Of course who knows who really filled that one list out for each candidate, there's no way to honestly trust it as its based on quotes and there's the potential for quote mining for the lesser known candidates and none of us would be the wiser.

And then there the problem of gray areas when you're trying to talk on a single issue, as would be proposed in a check list. The candidates wouldn't agree to this as taking a solid stance on anything sways potential undecided voters.
 
I'm not clear on the difference between right and privilege as you are using them. Perhaps you could explain this point, as it seems to be one of the fundamental differences in the opposing positions expressed here. Many debates fail to find common ground until such a misunderstanding is cleared up.

First, you need to understand where I'm coming from, and truth be told, there's a little idealism in it, although it's a good thing.

Americans (myself included, until the last few years) have always looked upon higher education and good health care as a privilege of people who have earned it. I now disagree. I'm for the death penalty, which gives the government the right to end a life; conversely, I'm also for basic rights of the people as well, and I'm not talking about legal rights. I'm talking basic HUMAN rights. Why can the government take away lives for those law-breaking citizens who deserve to die and not give basic humane care to its own law-abiding citizens who deserve to live a healthy life?

Many Americans think that everyone in Europe has the exact same health care, regardless of income, which couldn't be further from the truth, at least here in Italy. There is a basic government-funded health care program for those who cannot afford or do not wish to purchase privatized health care. Yes, Americans, WE HAVE PRIVATIZED HEALTH CARE HERE, TOO!!! The only difference is that the waiting period is just a bit shorter and you pay more with privatized health care. If you have a heart attack, break your leg, or have to have surgery, you can either have your own private doctor that you wish to pay for or you can have the socialized medical care, for which you still pay, but its a very small fee. There's no difference in health care coverage, just things like smaller waiting periods. The quality of care is no different than the US, and in some instances it's even BETTER here.

It's not like you're going to some shaman out in the woods to scare away the evil spirits if you have the socialized health care. I'm not saying that the US should do away with privatized health care, but that Americans should be given a choice whether to pay $500 a month for insurance for a family of four under privatized or pay a much smaller fee under the socialized system, which, by the way, you only pay when you need to go to the doctor.

Education. I'd like to know who decided that only the middle-class to upper-class get to go to college. Sure, we have scholarships in the US, but what if you were a C student in high school and you want to further your education, yet aren't good enough to get a scholarship? Just because you don't have enough money or you didn't have a great four years in high school shouldn't prevent you from at least trying to further your education. Don't even bring up grants and stuff...we're not talking charity...we're talking human rights.

I never thought it was shocking until a friend put it in perspective here. He asked me if it was really true that Americans join the military just so they can get an education and go to college. PEOPLE ARE GOING TO WAR JUST SO THEY CAN HAVE SOME MONEY FROM THE GOVERNMENT TO LEARN SOMETHING. That is utterly despicable that a nation as "great" as the US doesn't have some sort of system to send those who want to go to university to university, ESPECIALLY with the money universities make. Of course there must be checks and balances, and we're not talking Harvard or Cambridge educated people. We're just talking average joes who want to go to an average university and get an education. If they want to become world-reknown physicists, then there are programs for that as well, aside from a socialized education system. But to REFUSE entry to someone who wants to further themselves simply because they didn't do that great in high school or because they don't have the money is irresponsible.

Here, the middle class and above must pay something like 1000 euros per year in taxes to go to college. If your family's salary is less than a certain amount annually, it's free. But what's more, it's not just here...in fact, the education system in Italy is behind a few others in Europe, yet still light years ahead of the US, even in high school. Have you ever seen a European foreign exchange student flunk out of high school in the US? I'd wager no.
 
If I understand correctly, by your definition, rights are some set of liberties that all people are entitled to in all circumstances, whereas privileges are liberties for those who have met some criteria other than merely being alive.

I believe that concepts like fairness, equality, rights, and entitlement have no objective basis in the natural universe. How can anyone have the right to life when the universe guarantees death, and makes no guarantee of when or how? Nevertheless there is something in Hominid nature (and perhaps other higher-order animals) that makes us feel rage and frustration at the inequalities inherent in life. We create value systems to make sense of the universe, and one omnipresent aspect of those value systems (perhaps the only point of commonality between all value systems) is some attempt to rectify the inequalities. This becomes problematic when you consider that:

A) We don't actually have the ability to make life fair, and

B) What is fair really depends on who you ask
 
If I understand correctly, by your definition, rights are some set of liberties that all people are entitled to in all circumstances, whereas privileges are liberties for those who have met some criteria other than merely being alive.

I believe that concepts like fairness, equality, rights, and entitlement have no objective basis in the natural universe. How can anyone have the right to life when the universe guarantees death, and makes no guarantee of when or how? Nevertheless there is something in Hominid nature (and perhaps other higher-order animals) that makes us feel rage and frustration at the inequalities inherent in life. We create value systems to make sense of the universe, and one omnipresent aspect of those value systems (perhaps the only point of commonality between all value systems) is some attempt to rectify the inequalities. This becomes problematic when you consider that:

A) We don't actually have the ability to make life fair, and

B) What is fair really depends on who you ask

Fair enough, and yes, the universe does guarantee death when we can do nothing about that. Things like freak accidents, old age, etc. are going to happen. However, when a government has the power to improve the lives of millions and it chooses not to based on what they deem "fair" to people who will never endure such problems, then the universe is no longer the only entity that shortens the life span. The governing body is then at fault, at least as I see it.

In the most powerful and self-proclaimed greatest nation on earth, higher education should not be a privilege, but a right of all her people, in my opinion. Affordable and good health care should also be a right and not a privilege.

It's not like this is some hypothesis, you see it every day. The average person's quality of life in western Europe is much better than the average person's in the US. They are healthier and more educated on average than their counterparts. That doesn't mean they have bigger houses in Europe and fancy cars...don't confuse quality of life with luxuries. Let's look at who's emigrating to the US as well...

The greatest nation on earth is no longer the greatest nation on earth, and if they want to again become the greatest nation on earth, they're going to have to start living up to the standards of the rest of the civilized world.

Bottom line: in the US, you can only live well if you have the money to live well, whereas here, you don't need a lot of money to have a good life. Maybe you won't be rich, but then again, we're not talking about the rich. If I were rich, I'd move back to the US in a heartbeat. There is no better place on earth to live if you've got the money. It may be culturally empty, but your quality of life is pretty good if you make over 6 figures per year. But then again, those aren't the people who need help, are they?
 
And yes, I believe in the 21st century in the industrialized world, education and health care should be the rights of a country's citizens and not just privileges. Also, they have met certain criteria: they're citizens of said country. Isn't that why you're supposed to be happy to be born in the US? For years we were told we should be thankful to be Americans because we have all these rights that most of the rest of the world doesn't have, and it's just not true anymore. Not only do other modern countries have quality of life as good as the US, in most cases it's BETTER.

What rights exist in the US that don't exist in other, equally modern countries?

But that's not even the argument here; the argument is why can't the US do it as well? Why are people averse to changing the status quo, when it can only be an obvious step forward?
 
I'd like to posit the theory that the greatest nation on earth never was, and the whole idea behind that notion is quite rotten.

This is all getting rather Michael Moore like. :(
 
I'd like to posit the theory that the greatest nation on earth never was, and the whole idea behind that notion is quite rotten.

This is all getting rather Michael Moore like. :(

Get ready for a barrage of sarcastic, thinly-veiled insults if you do.

But that's not even the point here. My point in all of this is that if people really and truly believe it's the greatest nation on earth, shouldn't there be some litmus test to determine the validity of such a claim? It must be completely objective and devoid of any favoritism or nationalism with a well-rounded understanding of the rest of the world. Lots of luck finding those qualities in the average American.

I think there should be billboards listing US vs X country and showing the social statistical differences between the two.