| Yara 25.05.2008 20:20 |
I don't have anything to do with Barak Obama. In fact, I hate meddling with my uneducated guees in other countries' politics. I didn't have anything to do with him until he spoke about Jews...and it sounded all so fake, phony, sentimental and childish that I really asked myself whether he sounds like that when he's talking about other issues! It's more of a question, really. I know Jewish votes are important. But, I mean, I wouldn't vote for a guy who has no shame of sounding disgunstingly fake and opportunist!!!! The rest of the interview makes some sense, it's ok, it's interesting, but did he have to say THIS: "Sometimes I’m attacked in the press for maybe being too deliberative. My staff teases me sometimes about anguishing over moral questions. I think I learned that partly from Jewish thought, that your actions have consequences and that they matter and that we have moral imperatives. The point is, if you look at my writings and my history, my commitment to Israel and the Jewish people is more than skin-deep and it’s more than political expediency. When it comes to the gut issue, I have such ardent defenders among my Jewish friends in Chicago. I don’t think people have noticed how fiercely they defend me, and how central they are to my success, because they’ve interacted with me long enough to know that I've got it in my gut. During the Wright episode, they didn’t flinch for a minute, because they know me and trust me, and they’ve seen me operate in difficult political situations." The gut issue? I've got it in my gut? My staff teases me sometimes about anguishing over moral questions? I mean, come on. The rest of the interview is quite ok, but man, this sounds so pathetic in its opportunism and exaggeration. So, I'm not qualified to - neither have the right of - talking about him as a candidate. But this declaration, why? I mean, as far as I'm concerned, it just makes for ruining his image. It's really like it's a living stereothype who's out there, a persona you can't really get into. Ok, maybe all the politicians are like this, but, I mean, Bill Clinton, at least he sounded like a real person. So much that, you know...there was the scandal and stuff. lol But this guy, it's as if it's pure persona and theatrics, it's how he sounds to me, at least. Well, again, not talking about the merits of each candidate, just about this celebrity thing, even the presidential candidate became one, it seems! |
| Treasure Moment 25.05.2008 21:08 |
you are wasting your time on this election since all the candidates are just puppets of people behind the scene, the election is a JOKE! |
| Yara 25.05.2008 21:27 |
This guy lied about almost all his own life history! I mean, lying here and there, that's usual, but this guy, it's as if the guy didn't exist, really, it's pure theatrics and persona, there's nothing there, I mean. Again, I'm IGNORANT REGARDING POLITICS IN GENERAL, ESPECIALLY THOSE OF OTHER COUNTRIES SO I'M NOT JUDGING THE MERITS OF EACH CANDIDATE, but this guy, I mean, after the interview about the Jews, I tried to get some info on him, nothing radical, went to the mainstream sources, man...it's just that the guy doesn't exist! Is it my impression or is he a total fake? Maybe he turns out to be a great president, I'm not arguing about that. It's more the theatrics I'm interested in. Because Clinton seemed like a real person, there was the usual lying and stuff, but you know pretty much where the guy came from, he was quite straightforward about that, had his own ideas...there was theatrics, I guess, but, I don't know, as I little kid, when I used to watch the tv, I remember his image and he didn't sound so fake, but, again, I was a kid, it's childhood impressions, not very reliable anyway. Now, this guy! Not that I'm much older now (lol) but he sounds totally fake regarding Jews. My question is more or less like this: Does he sound so fake and opportunist in all issues? Or the Jewish Question, so to say, is different? It's more a question and an expression of how baffled I got by reading the interview! |
| Poo, again 26.05.2008 07:26 |
Still, I think he'd make a better president than Clinton or that old dude. And who cares, all politicians lie! |
| magicalfreddiemercury 26.05.2008 09:28 |
The thing about Obama is inexperience. A more experienced politician would know how to balance enthusiasm for what s/he wants to say with what s/he must say, so the peaks and valleys of passion and disdain are not so easily identified... so that lies and truth become indiscernable... to us AND to him or her. THAT is the mark of a true professional, an experienced and worthy politician. Obama is a mere babe still learning the ropes - a man not well respected by Europe because of his newbie status, a man who will not reforge our alliances as quickly as Clinton nor widen the rift as adeptly as McCain. But he's also a man who has yet to master the art of political deception. In time, he will indeed learn to master this, but for now he's flying on the high of that refreshing-for-some 'innocence' of character. |
| Marcus Gratianus 26.05.2008 09:49 |
Yara wrote: I know Jewish votes are important. But, I mean, I wouldn't vote for a guy who has no shame of sounding disgunstingly fake and opportunist!!!! The rest of the interview makes some sense, it's ok, it's interesting, but did he have to say THIS: "Sometimes I’m attacked in the press for maybe being too deliberative. My staff teases me sometimes about anguishing over moral questions. I think I learned that partly from Jewish thought, that your actions have consequences and that they matter and that we have moral imperatives. The point is, if you look at my writings and my history, my commitment to Israel and the Jewish people is more than skin-deep and it’s more than political expediency. When it comes to the gut issue, I have such ardent defenders among my Jewish friends in Chicago. I don’t think people have noticed how fiercely they defend me, and how central they are to my success, because they’ve interacted with me long enough to know that I've got it in my gut. During the Wright episode, they didn’t flinch for a minute, because they know me and trust me, and they’ve seen me operate in difficult political situations." The gut issue? I've got it in my gut? My staff teases me sometimes about anguishing over moral questions?Oi, minha linda. Como você está? Refiz meu cadastro para acompanhá-la aqui, sempre que possível. Vi a gravação do recital e adorei, você já está muito longe, querida, não precisa ir muito mais longe. Estou orgulhoso. Quanto ao Obama, bem, achei bem pior, para ser sincero, essa partezinha aqui, veja: "The point is, if you look at my writings and my history, my commitment to Israel and the Jewish people is more than skin-deep and it’s more than political expediency." E é mentira. O passado dele é islâmico, suas ligações são com pastores fanáticos e o único pensamento judeu que ele deve conhecer, de tanto assistir desenho animado ou filme de ficção científica, é E=MC2. Ele é inteiro mentiroso, inteirinho. Sou mais velho e posso te assegurar que suas impressões sobre o Clinton não são equivocadas, o cara ainda é alguém, tem algo ali de verdadeiro. Este Obama é uma mentira, um ficção do começo ao fim. Assisti recentemente a um dos seus discursos, é pavoroso. Beijos, minha linda e talentosa Yara, Tô com muito orgulho, mocinha! Marcus |
| Yara 26.05.2008 11:03 |
Marcus Gratianus wrote: Oi, minha linda. Como você está? Refiz meu cadastro para acompanhá-la aqui, sempre que possível. Vi a gravação do recital e adorei, você já está muito longe, querida, não precisa ir muito mais longe. Estou orgulhoso. Quanto ao Obama, bem, achei bem pior, para ser sincero, essa partezinha aqui, veja: "The point is, if you look at my writings and my history, my commitment to Israel and the Jewish people is more than skin-deep and it’s more than political expediency." E é mentira. O passado dele é islâmico, suas ligações são com pastores fanáticos e o único pensamento judeu que ele deve conhecer, de tanto assistir desenho animado ou filme de ficção científica, é E=MC2. Ele é inteiro mentiroso, inteirinho. Sou mais velho e posso te assegurar que suas impressões sobre o Clinton não são equivocadas, o cara ainda é alguém, tem algo ali de verdadeiro. Este Obama é uma mentira, um ficção do começo ao fim. Assisti recentemente a um dos seus discursos, é pavoroso. Beijos, minha linda e talentosa Yara, Tô com muito orgulho, mocinha! Marcus"e o único pensamento judeu que ele deve conhecer, de tanto assistir desenho animado ou filme de ficção científica, é E=MC2." Hahahaha. Obrigada por vir, tá? :-)))) Estou esquisita no vídeo. :/ Risos. Agora tem um PM aqui (canto esquerdo) e você pode mandar mensagens privadas para mim. ;-))) PM user, canto esquerdo. :-)))) Abraço. |
| john bodega 26.05.2008 11:43 |
Is Obama fake? He's not even black. |
| Mr.Jingles 26.05.2008 12:14 |
I hate it when a Presidential candidate or politician is suppossed to kiss ass to a social, ethnic, religious, or racial group in particular. |
| StoneColdClassicQueen 26.05.2008 14:20 |
Zebonka12 wrote: Is Obama fake? He's not even black.XDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD hahahhaha that was great.. I go for Hillary cuz she's a girl.. i remember seeing a debate on tv involving those 2 it was weird and strangely exciting o.O |
| Charlie Brown 27.05.2008 16:32 |
Hello Yara. I noted Mr. Obamas 'fakeness' sometime ago. He claims to represent the difficult black experience in the USA, yet he was raised by his white mother and grandparents in a reasonably affluent setting as opposed to the conditions that many black people face living in the inner city ghettos. He claims to represent the politics of inclusion and tolerance yet associates himself with radical leftists who are anything but, including the pastor of his own church who is a racist and antisemite. He has also stated his willingness to negociate with the antisemtic regimes that control Iran and Syria without preconditions. That is why he has to make the patronizing 'Jewish friendly' statements such as the one you quoted in your original post. |
| Sherwood Forest 27.05.2008 17:43 |
link i didn't hate him before this but it seems obama's life is just an unraveling sweater to the public. That and he finds it difficult to put his hand over heart during the pledge of the united states because this country's pledge isn't the pledge closest to his heart. |
| Sherwood Forest 27.05.2008 17:46 |
StoneColdClassicQueen wrote:Zebonka12 wrote: Is Obama fake? He's not even black.I go for Hillary cuz she's a girl.. |
| AspiringPhilosophe 27.05.2008 19:02 |
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. |
| Yara 27.05.2008 20:02 |
MasterHistoryGirl, thank you so much. I simply didn't have any context whatsoever, and was kind of naive in my approach too. I love this board! Thank you so much, dear! I have to admit that I'm ashamed of writing here because people are so knowledgeable...at the same time, I love it, because I learn a lot, like, today, Thunderbolt replied to a thread I had created and really gave me a lecture for free about Queen. It's really a joy to be here, a priviledge. Thanks to people like you guys! Thank you so much, take care and good luck! So, like, may I ask you one final question? lol I don't want to abuse of your patience. :op Do you feel that there are significant differences among the candidate's take or views on the most important issues to the citizens? I don't even know what are the most important there for the U.S citizens! I'd like to know these things, to learn that, what do you people in general find important, and so on. Well, don't want to waste your time - we Pmed and I know time is not on your side! - but, when time allows and you feel like doing so, I'd love if you commented on this. I wish you the very best. Ya'ra |
| StoneColdClassicQueen 27.05.2008 23:59 |
Sherwood Forest wrote:StoneColdClassicQueen wrote:Sagging boobs make ALL the difference ;DZebonka12 wrote: Is Obama fake? He's not even black.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. |
| Charlie Brown 28.05.2008 02:14 |
MasterHistoryGirl wrote: 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.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. |
| Griffin 28.05.2008 08:34 |
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. |
| AspiringPhilosophe 28.05.2008 08:37 |
Charlie Brown wrote: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.MasterHistoryGirl wrote: 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.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. 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). |
| Tranchera 28.05.2008 09:47 |
All the candidates are puppets. Vote Treasure Moment for president '08! |
| Yara 28.05.2008 10:02 |
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 |
| AspiringPhilosophe 28.05.2008 11:21 |
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 |
| Ms. Rebel 28.05.2008 14:04 |
I'm apolitical. |
| Micrówave 28.05.2008 15:11 |
Zebonka12 wrote: Is Obama fake? He's not even black.Yes, and there's proof in his quote from the first post: Obama said: among my Jewish friends in Chicago.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. |
| Yara 28.05.2008 17:11 |
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! |
| Charlie Brown 28.05.2008 18:17 |
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. |
| Micrówave 29.05.2008 15:10 |
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. |
| Yara 30.05.2008 16:01 |
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! |
| Ms. Rebel 30.05.2008 16:13 |
*makes sign of the cross* |
| JoxerTheDeityPirate 31.05.2008 06:57 |
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. |
| Yara 31.05.2008 10:51 |
Thanks a million, JoxerTheDeityPirate, especially for providing the U.K perspective!!! Really thanks, I loved to know your thoughts. And I didn't know the British were that fed-up with the way the war has been handled! MasterHistoryGirl, Music Man (hey, where are you, you are knowledgeable on economics and politics!), Charlie Brown, I'd love to know your thoughts about that quote, well, I'd love to see you guys debating, it'd be nice, it has already been wonderfully informative, but it can be more! JoxerTheDeityPirate, MHG touched on the issue of health care. When time allows, and if you feel like doing so, would you be so kind as to sketch out, in some lines, nothing really detailed, NOO!!!! (I like you guys lol), how's the U.K health care system like - all private, all public, mix, so on? And, the most important, are you satisfied with it? Because programs here seem to be sound if you read the laws, but in reality they are very inefficient. Thank you all! |
| steven 35638 31.05.2008 11:03 |
First of all, I am quite pleased to have found such an in-depth discussion on an important aspect of our lives (regardless of what nation you live in). My knowledge on today's politics is quite limited, but what I do know is important. When writing the U.S. Constitution, the founding fathers did not want a political system (Ex. Republicans v.s. Democrats, Federalists v.s. Anti-Federalists). By putting labels on candadites, they were probably afraid that America would become too divided and unable to think for themselves. Believe it or not, there are too many people in America that don't think for themselves and feel safe under a label in which they can feel a part of something important--the truth is, however, is that both sides have kept the same values for years upon years and have not really changed their values in order to supplement with the times. In fact, and this might go a little too far, I'm afraid that by continuing these political parties, as it's a tradition now, we will only lead ourselves into possible violent and turbulent outcomes. I don't know to what degree, but I wouldn't doubt it if there is bloodshed in the future. Call me out on it if you will, but they are my feelings at the moment (and I realize I have MUCH to learn). Thus far, I refuse to label myself, although I support values on both sides. My grandfather was a die-hard Republican, and my other was a Democrat. My parents are Republicans, my girlfriend might be a Democrat (although she is still undecided), and I'm even a part of an organization (known as Phi Theta Kappa), who in one aspect strongly supports the Green party. It's absolutely crazy. Stop the world, I want to get off! There are too many different flavors out there (meaning parties), how do we choose? I dislike parties, obviously. But I know it's practically impossible to avoid in a democracy. |
| JoxerTheDeityPirate 31.05.2008 12:40 |
Yara we in the UK have both public and private health care. the NHS [national health service] was formed just after WW2 and is THE public health service.however,its been in decline for many years due to a lack of government funding and if the Conservative party had their way would be phased out [theyve been opposed to it since the formation of the NHS in the 1940's]. when the NHS works,it works well,free health care for those that can not afford to go private must be a good thing,however there are not enough trained nurses/doctors working in the NHS [due to poor training,long work hours and poor pay] so the drawback is that one can wait months,even years,to see a hospital specialist and get the right treatment. the NHS hospitals are run down because of the lack of government funding but before anyone blames Labour for this i must point out that although the current government are inept the 'tory' government of 18 years before them went out of their way to not fund the NHS to the capacity it needed therefore making the job of keeping the NHS 'on its game' a far more difficult job than it should of been. Joxer |
| Yara 31.05.2008 14:20 |
Hi, Joxer! Thank you so much for the reply! Great input, I learned quite a good deal. It's interesting because the system is similar to the one here in Brazil. Here there are private health insurance companies alongside the government national health program (here called SUS). It's our "NHS", so to speak. What's most striking is the similarity: just like what you described about U.K, here in Brazil our equivalent to the NHS has also been neglected and underfunded throughout the years by both sides of the political spectrum. So, it's interesting. There's a chronic lack of funding to the Publich Health Care System and, above all, there's a whole lot of mishandling of the public resources earmarked for it! Not a good scenario! THANKS, huge thanks for the answer and the input! PS: Underqualified personnel is also a problem here in both public and private sectors, by the way. Though the situation is not calamitous, and there are a lot of good professionals, there has been a decrease in quality of the medical personnel generally. And sadly! |
| AspiringPhilosophe 31.05.2008 16:18 |
I'm in the process of moving home, but I'll reply as soon as I can. Hey...I'm royalty!! :-D |
| AspiringPhilosophe 03.06.2008 10:07 |
OK....now that I think I've gotten a temporary internet source worked out (my parent's don't have anything but dial up at their house and I've been working on getting high speed so I can still work) I think I can answer you Yara...or at least address the issues. What we could really use is MusicMan...he's the financial whiz. My knowledge of the US budgetary process is very limited. Medicaid vs. Medicare: Medicare is part of the Social Security Act. It was created in the 1960's (I believe it was Lyndon B. Johnson) because it was discovered that health care was getting to be too expensive for seniors who lived on Social Security. So he created the Medicare program to provide health insurance to elderly people and those who qualify to be on Social Security, so that Social Security checks aren't being used for medical care and leaving no other money for food or any other bills. Medicaid is a program for everyone else who simply cannot afford health insurance but who aren't on Social Security. You have to qualify for it via income (your income has to be under a certain set amount) and there is only a limited amount of procedures and prescriptions they will pay for. For example, they usually pay only for the generic versions of drugs, not the name brands and you cannot get elective procedures covered; only those that are medically necessary. The problem with these systems, of course, lays in their definitions of what is medically necessary and what isn't; some surgeries that are considered "elective" are in some cases medically necessary, but Medicare or Medicaid would likely not pay for them (at least not without tons of other appointments you'd have to pay for out of pocket to back up the fact that it was medically necessary). Prescriptions are also a problem; sometimes the generic formulas of medications make people sick, and they need to be on a name brand. Other times a person cannot take one brand of a class of drugs (for example, high blood pressure drugs) for some reason; they need another drug. But the drug they need won't be covered by Medicaid or Medicare because it's more expensive than another kind. As far as expenditures by the government goes...that's difficult to tell really. We have the figures that you pointed out about how much the government spends on military vs. health care, but really those numbers aren't exactly accurate for the military. The Department of Defense has an entire "Black Budget" that they get to spend on whatever they want, and they don't have to report the amounts to anyone because it might compromise security. We have no idea how much money is in that Black Budget or where it goes. So the amount on military expenditures is potentially much larger because of the Black Budget. I really can't say much else about the US budget...it's not my area of knowledge at all. MusicMan could tell you more. But as far as I can see, those numbers are likely accurate (with the exception of the Black Budget) |
| Yara 03.06.2008 11:55 |
Don't I love this website? I do! Thanks a million, MasterHistoryGirl. Such a thoughtful and kind person is not easy to find anywhere, here or outside "in the real world". Thanks a million. It's, by the way, the first time I get a decent explanation about the U.S health care programs, and there are authors who, instead of informing and educating, play politics and talk about it all without telling us what the programs really are. THANK YOU! You're great. Yes, Music Man input would be very welcomed because it could shed some light on the links between the war costs and the health care crisis. By the way, I like to understand things, I don't like playing politics. I'm not even arguing about whether going to war is right or wrong, I like knowing other people's countries, culture, problems, issues and so on. And it turns out that there are similarities between us and we can relate to each other because sometimes we have the same issues or problems. Like Joxer was saying about the U.K, it's very similar to what happens here, though in a different degree, I guess. It's great, I love this website, I like you guys, you're great. Thanks a million! |
| The Real Wizard 03.06.2008 16:55 |
< Stephen Colbert's "The Word" mode >
MasterHistoryGirl wrote: The "left wing academic" is more of a stereotype in America ... 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 resent being labeled as something because of something silly like my academic background.Left-wing academics... claiming it's possible to be "informed", and not be a communist. 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.Including the trillions of dollars that must be spent on the war. The problem with this system is that it is expensive; government costs would skyrocket, and they are already astronomicalUnless Obama's foreign policy would adhere to UN policies and international law. < / Colbert mode > |
| AspiringPhilosophe 04.06.2008 10:35 |
Sir GH*laughes* If I didn't know you so well, Sir GH, I'd be forced to beat you for that. But I do, and as I'm also a Stephen Colbert fan I can laugh in appreciation :-) Besides...I was right. The Stanley Cup IS coming back to the US (and most likely to my beloved Red Wings!) I told you that you guys would be forced to give it back this year :-P |
| Yara 04.06.2008 12:03 |
Hahaha. "The Word" is my favorite segment in his show, it's really funny. And the "interviews" too, I get amazed by how fast he can come up with jokes and witty answers when he's interviewing a guest, and you can see he's improvising because he ultimately can't control what the person will say once she/he is there! And doing all that in front of the cameras and so on, and gettting to be charming and funny at the same time, but never vulgar, that's a talent, a huge talent. I wished they sill broadcast his show here. :-(( |