Razcsak

Except that the Western European countries are using only socialized medicine, not an entire socialized system. Rich people can still get rich, so you still have the innovative motivation that defines capitalism, and you still get basic social stratification (which, while I dislike, I understand in inherent to development and motivation of humanity as we know it). You also, however, get basic needs taken care of for the majority of the population, such as food and health care.

As an example, the rich in the United States pay a greater percentage of their income than the poor do (we'll ignore the recent tax breaks for the rich and include the middle class in "rich" for a minute, since they're both groups that are not in danger of starving). This means that the rich pay more than the poor for the roads and public transportation that the both groups use, the rich pay more than the poor for some health care (Medicaid and SCHIP spring to mind) and the rich pay more for defense spending and governmental bureaucracy. By your logic, we will eventually all be poor. In fact, that any country but an entirely anarchic strict capitalist society will all be poor. I say that complete socialism does lead to the problems you elaborate on, but incorporating socialist systems does not mean that the entire country is socialist. It is a matter of degree, and I think that the Western European countries are closer to finding the balance point than the US currently is.

__________________

leejo

I guess I don't understand what the racial problem is in the same sense that you seem to. Two things - look at all the races in the US who exist without the sorts of systemic problems that afflict ONE race. There are obvious differences between the african american experience in the US through history and these other races, but the real question is what to do now? Is it your position that government intervention is necessary to ensure a minority's success? I don't think there's a lot of evidence to support that.

I dunno. Second thing starts with a story. I saw a black comedian on Live At the Apollo one night. He was poking a little fun at the Mexicans and talked about how you'll be driving down the road and look over to see 12 Mexicans stuffed into a vehicle. The audience laughed for a bit while the comedian smiled and nodded.

"And they're all going to work" he said. And there wasn't as much laughing then.

I am no fan of illegal immigration for reasons I've outlined many times, but damn if I don't respect the men and women who drag themselves to stand around a parking lot all day waiting for work to arrive. And it does! Maybe they won't be rich, but maybe their lives will be better than it had been. And maybe their children will go to college. Do you suppose their success would be expedited if they were to receive more government assistance? Or maybe they would move into government housing, live on government food, wait for government money.

Is there work to do to improve race relations in this country? Certainly, and by each of us every day by being decent and kind to one another without regard for race, creed, or color. But I don't think we have a race "issue" that the federal government must resolve. There was a time when it was necessary, but the sorts of institutionalized, government-sanctioned racism that required federal intervention ended decades ago. What exists now does more harm than good in my opinion.

Rob

Perhaps, but I know for a fact that many doctors do not at all like paying the bills of the people they treat. Doctors are usually rated as middle to upper class, and therefore have to pay a much larger percentage of taxes than lower class people: up to and above 50 % and that is an accurate estimate believe it or not. Also, my point on socialism was that socialist policies usually tend towards complete socialism. Though they may work for a short while, and socialism on a small scale could be favorable in view of our current culture, in the long run, socialist policies usually affect countries in a negative. I state this based on the past. The future could bring 'hope' as Obama puts it, and current socialist policies might turn out for the good, but that would be like evolution: everybody says it happens, but we've never seen it. (That was a very controversial comment in and of itself, better for a different discussion).

__________________
BF2142:|TG-Irr|Robb_the2nd
Cod 4:|TG|Rob

AMosely

Elwenil, not thread related but I take issue with your advertisement of religionofpeace.com - it's a hate site. Islam is not the enemy any more than Christianity or Judaism. Evil is evil, and has existed under every flag and every belief system known to man.

AMosely

In terms of only one race afflicted with these sorts of 'systemic problems,' I think you answered your own question. Slavery will never go away, but inequality and discrimination can be made to fade away generationally. My position is that government intervention in the form of affirmative action is just, but its overall effectiveness is debatable depending on the policy. The gains come with a cost. The question of 'what to do' is an incredibly complex one for which I don't have a singular answer, but truly trying to understand the spectrum of racial inequality and white priviledge is a good start.

You're are overlapping two very complex issues. There are major differences between race-based affirmative action and immigration policy. I think some affirmative action legislation, and more specifically general practice such as what most higher education institutions have in place, have been quite successful. The abuse of such policy by people for whom it was not intended is certainly an issue, but should not doom the policy. In broad terms, the benefits far outweigh the costs of good social policy.

I don't think the government can resolve it. The government can adjudicate it (hate crimes and discrimination) and in some cases craft policy to shift the balance in terms of social equality, but as you know this is a tricky business that is often ill-suited for the political arena. What exists now (and has always existed) is generational stereotypes (i.e. 'my parents always hated those _____') and a sense of inherited resentment (i.e. '_____s have always hated us') that can really only be broken down through constructive confrontation and dialogue. I've witnessed many minds changing through such a process, planting seeds for other people and future generations. A government can't do that, but an educational system and open-minded people can - and do on a daily basis.

It does say quite a bit about America that a black (or half-black) man is a major contender for presidential office. It means more, to me anyway, that that man is honest about where race is in America and where it needs to go.

Hambergler

Why Obama represents my interests.

Iraq

I didn't see a best case scenario before we went into Iraq and I still don't see one.

I don't mean this with any disrespect, this just the way I see it. With many Republicans patriotism, pride, and flag waving cultivates a feeling of superiority in regard to other nations. Especially nations that have oppressive leaders or have poor economies. The idea that we can show the Iraqi people how they need to live is very condescending and they will die before they let that happen. The only way for us to be successful is to kill everyone in Iraq and everyone in the surrounding countries. This is only if peace is your idea of success (it is for me). I would hope that we would act the same way if a nation came here, killed our leaders and said you are doing things our way from now on. Ultimately I am deeply offended by the idea that one person is superior to another just because of the country they were born in. One World.

Economy

This attitude also leads to poor relationships with other nations and when people don't like you, things have a way of not working out for you. Obama will change this perception. The US produces very little. We need to rebuild strong relationships.

Taxes

What difference does it make if your paying 25% tax or 29% tax when your government is charging up 550 trillion in debt. It's the same as millions of Americans who owe $20,00 in soul sucking CC debt and are worried about how much their minimum payments are.

Healthcare

We have the worst healthcare system in the free world. Countries who have the best have universal healthcare. Works for police, firemen, military, roads, ports and bridges. I'm OK with it.

Terrorists

If you believe the world is a ghetto and you are only concerned with you and yours. And you believe there will never be peace, then the terrorist have one. I choose not to live my life that way. I'm going to enjoy my life. All this drama and who have we caught? We can't stop terrorism by running up into some country. If someone wants you dead, there is nothing that is going to stop them. Paranoia is king right now IMO.


These are the countries that are designated as terrorist nations.
Cuba
Iran
North Korea
Syria

If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your enemy. Then he becomes your partner.
-Nelson Mandela

The Bad

I do question his decision making abilities for staying in Rev Jeremiahs congregation for so long. He is a Republican after all.

__________________

Sara

oh and btw
Hillary wants to
ban
VIDEO GAMES
haha

__________________
Me - I'll Just blame bush.
Disciple - Bush? Is that some sort of slang for women? - Hahaha I love disciple.

btw Bush = worst president ever.

Elwenil

No problem, after all that is what this discussion is all about. I think some of us get a little too excited and proclaim that some of what we say is put forth as an absolute truth. In reality, this whole discussion is based on our opinions of the facts and even our own personal assumptions. We are sharing thoughts and ideas here, not rules to live by. Some will agree with our assorted thoughts, others will not. But I digress...[/quote]


I think Iran does qualify as the same as a terrorist organization. Remember that a lot of the IEDs and the technology for the more advanced versions of IEDs come straight out of Iran. Iran, Syria, and to a certain extent, Pakistan all support the insurgents in Iraq. I will say that Pakistan is walking a fine line of trying to cooperate with the US in some ways, but still not being able to fully cooperate due to the powerful religious leaders in the country. The Pakistani government doesn't appear to support terrorism, but some of the organizations and religious factions inside of Pakistan certainly do. Iran on the other hand, has gone so far as to plant their own troops inside Iraq to train the insurgents and provide them with recruits, weapons and supplies. Syria and other nations in the area also support the insurgents with recruits and supplies in varying degrees. Syria and Iran also have desires to secure nuclear technology, which must be avoided at all costs.

In many ways, we are in the middle of a covert WWIII. Many nations have chosen sides and supply troops and aid to either side, but many of these actions are covert or "black ops" with deniability to the originating nation. I imagine that if the majority of the anti-war citizens of certain European nations knew exactly how much their countries cooperate, aid and even execute these sort of missions while denouncing the war in the press, the outcry would clearly be heard on our side of the Atlantic. But again, I digress...

Dialogue with terrorists will only work when we put them down. When we show them that no matter how fanatical and determined they are, we will outlast them. Once they realize that we will not be defeated, then perhaps they will see that they are not at war with us over our influence, but at war with the natural passage of time and progress. The Taliban tried to halt that progress and in doing so, reverted to a lifestyle that is seen by many around the world as barbaric. If anyone wants to question the War on Terror, go ask a woman who lives in Afghanistan and see if she feels things have changed for the worse.

No one is required, but I find it very suspicious that when questioned about it, he commented that no, he would not wear a flag pin. He has commented that the reasons for this are that he is unhappy with the current government. I find that to be ridiculous for someone who is running for office in this country. I expect that sort of stubborn foolishness from some anti-American protester in France or some other country rather than a politician in his own country. It's ok to disagree with the government and even stage various protests, but the flag should be respected regardless of personal views about the government. It's a symbol of our nation, not of a particular President or his government. It's unpatriotic and really brings to question exactly what he's up to. If he doesn't support the idea of our country, what will he do if he's our President?

The easiest example is the Taliban. We have had various run ins with them over the years and Bin Laden was a target for the US long before 9/11. Clinton had the chance to take him out, but refused to give the order because he was too busy with golf. With the Taliban, we invaded Afghanistan, took them out of power and they drew back, went into hiding, and came back stronger than before. The attacks after 9/11 around the world are proof of that. We assumed we had them trapped or neutralized because of the bad intel we were getting from the Afghan locals, but in reality they were mostly working for the Taliban and allowed them to escape into Pakistan. If we had put more of our own troops on the ground initially, we would have probabaly been able to end the Taliban for the most part, but it was a quick operation that used a lot of our major air assets and a lot of local Afghan troops.

Also, one could say the former Iraqi regime was a terrorist organization due to the attack on Kuwait and the genocide on Saddam's own countrymen. I am positive that years later when things are declassified we will find out that there was plenty of justification in the invasion of Iraq. I'm quite certain that many in our government know this, on both sides of the fence. Why else would with all the worldwide outcry against Bush and the obvious Democrat opposition has no one tried to impeach President Bush? We couldn't wait to try to impeach Clinton over his infidelity and shady business deals, why has the Democrats, who control a lot of the government these days, not called for an impeachment? I can only imagine the frustration President Bush must deal with everytime he talks to the American people, knowing a lot of them hate him and not being able to justify his actions all the while his enemies int he government use this against him even though they know the truth. It's something to think about...


Again, this goes back to the discussion above about the flag and pin. I would question anyone who wants to be a part of something, but refuses to show signs of supporting it. It's very shady and a large amount of Americans think so.

Obama has a few people in his history that are suspect in my opinion. Naturally any public figure will have someone around him/her that has done something questionable, but couple that with a lot of the other things that people find wrong with Obama and it starts to paint a disturbing picture. That and Obama refuses to denounce Wright. He has said he doesn't agree with some of his statements, but to my knowledge, has never specified which statements. I also don't recall him even saying that Wright was wrong in any way and we all know that Wright is way off the path of anything sane people would call a good mentor.

Again, I don't care what color Obama is. I just find it disturbing that he has had for many years, a radical racist pastor and has made comments himself that a politician seeking office should have sense enough not to say. There is definitely a double standard, just as there is with men and women. I don't see that changing anytime soon, really. There are too many people like Rev. Wright, Al Sharpton, white supremacists, and others that don't want it to change. I guess we are just not ready to take that step as a nation. I do firmly believe that public figures like Obama, making racist comments hurt more than they help. As far as "white privilege" goes, I don't believe in that. Anyone can make whatever they want out of themselves if they try hard enough. I honestly feel that too many minorities use their minority status and other social issues as a crutch and more a reason to complain about their circumstances than a reason for their circumstances. I know just as many lazy, dirt poor white people as I do black people who are in similar situations. There are many positive white and black leaders out there, but people continuously focus on the negative leaders and their culture enforces this. In many ways, their culture is made of this. Black people have rap artists who glorify the absolute worst in their culture, people like Rev. Wright who twist otherwise good things into their own hate agenda, and gang culture which seems to enforce crime and incarceration as ways to get respect. Whites have the absolute worst in ethics, white supremacist organizations, and a culture that enforces the idea that they are somehow superior. No one admits it, but it's true more often than not. The bottom line is this, I'm white, I went to school, screwed off like everyone else and never went to college because my family couldn't afford to pay for it and competition was tough for any financial assistance. I was good friends with black girls and guys who did the same things I did in their fashion and were handed scholarships to college and now make 3 or 4 times what I do. And I am from a redneck town of about 6k people. So who really has it bad? Are things equal? No. Will they ever be when we try to use race as a lever to get perks in life? No. Does it matter that Obama is black? Not to me. I could care less about it and you could argue that he isn't black, he's half white. Does that give him the right to make comments that are obviously going to put people off and cause bad feelings? No. Again, just small things that add up to a very disturbing President.

Ok, my head hurts. I'm not even sure if all of that makes sense, but it is way too much for me to proof read right now so please excuse any mistakes or misspellings, lol.

__________________
|TG|Elwenil

Elwenil

Honestly, I don't really get that from the site. I think it does put a spin on the topic like any other media, but it does clearly make the distinction between Islamic terrorists and peaceful Muslims. I think that if Muslim Clerics can twist their religion around to say what they want, that someone should be able to expose them as doing so.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pa...on-Muslims.htm

Also, there is a difference between www.religionofpeace.com and www.thereligionofpeace.com.

__________________
|TG|Elwenil

Fenian420

Haha props to me for creating this thread.. probably also created some anger, w\e....

Elwenil

It's a stimulating conversation. Naturally it's gone a little far afield from the original topic, but a good discussion overall. If anyone is getting angry about it, they probabaly need to take a step back. It's a discussion sharing thoughts and opinions about politics, nothing more. If we all had the same opinions, there wouldn't be much of a discussion.

__________________
|TG|Elwenil

Rob

Hamburgler, with all due respect, your statements show that you have earnestly researched articles written by very ignorant, uncaring human beings. Please do not try to back up your statement that America has the worst healthcare system, and that Obama will somehow make things better. And by the way, we're not talking about 25 to 29% taxes, we're talking about between 35 to 50% taxes on middle to almost but not really upper class citizens who have earned their money fairly in most cases and do not deserve to have their pockets leak even more into the government's already enormous spending program. Also, as far as can be told, Obama wishes to increase spending even more, and we mustn't kid ourselves into thinking that's a good thing. The American Colonies complained about taxes that were less than what we pay today.

__________________
BF2142:|TG-Irr|Robb_the2nd
Cod 4:|TG|Rob

Kerostasis

So, it seems to me this one line is a huge part of what makes us view negotiations with unsavory characters differently. If the worst possible outcome of dialogue is indeed no change, then it is always worth trying -- mathematically, you can either gain something or gain nothing, but you never lose, so the probabilistic "expected value" of negotiations is always positive.

However, I submit that the worst possible outcome of negotiations is not, in fact, no change. While a good negotiatior can frequently come up with a plan that benefits poth parties to a deal, a bad negotiator may just as easily agree to a deal that benefits the opposition but costs your own side. So negative outcome number 1 is "agreeing to a bad deal".

Alternately, negotiations may indeed prove fruitless and lead to what looks like "no change" on the surface. But if you look closer, there was a hidden opportunity cost involved: Time. An adversary who has no intention of agreeing to a deal may involve themselves in lengthy negotiations simply to stall for time while covertly pursuing some other plan, such as the development of a nuclear arsenal. Your other options aside from negotiation may be steadily disappearing while you talk. So negative outcome number 2 is "losing time and missing your window of opportunity".

Now, don't read this to imply that I never support negotiations. Quite often they are indeed a good plan. But not always! Some circumstances call for a different set of actions. Further, I don't personally trust Obama to be a good negotiator -- I suspect he would have a higher than normal chance of agreeing to a bad deal.

__________________

Elwenil

Also Hambergler, I would suggest that you talk to some soldiers that have recently come back from Iraq. The majority of the Iraqi people are very happy to be rid of Saddam. They are upset that there is so much turmoil in the country that upsets their normal lives, but they understand that it is a few that are making it hard on everyone. It's also important to understand that the insurgents in Iraq are mostly not Iraqis. They are foreign fighters from other countries that have answered the call of the Jihad that has been declared against the US. While it is true that some Iraqis feel they were better off with Saddam because there was no open fighting in the streets, many are happy that they have the freedoms that they do have now and just want to live a normal life. No one wants to be oppressed or live in fear of one's government. They do not want anyone fighting in their country, the US included but until they can get up on their own like they wish, we have to back them up. We are not forcing our lifestyle on anyone.

__________________
|TG|Elwenil