Although I was not aware of that, which is ok, cuz I dont ahve kids yet, my husband has that taken care of.
Although I was not aware of that, which is ok, cuz I dont ahve kids yet, my husband has that taken care of.
Huh? You are going to home school kids that you don't have?
For the sake of any future children you may or may not have, I hope that you are actually much better at English writing than an informal post online. If you "write like you talk" your home schooled children won't be able to pass the basic grammar tests necessary for educational minimums.
Promote yourself and earn more money! This is a business that is owned by strippers for strippers. Let's make that money!
hahahahah Yeah, I know. I never re-read my posts before I submit them. My husband hates me for it. But for somthing like a very informal internet post, I just dont wee wasting them time making it sound perfect. If I were writing something official or professional I edit before I send.
I think I am just lazy.
And just one sec ... I dont have to already have kids to have ideas about how I would want their education, names, all that good stuff. My husband and I have already spoken about different methods of discipline and such. We just a have a lot of time before we will need to put our idea into action. Its planning for the future.
Personally, I think an expansion of our educational system is long overdue. My Stepson is in public school, but we are paying for extra-curriculars so that he can get a better, more well-rounded education.
He not only plays sports, but we pay to have him in additional math and science exploration classes. We also encourage him to volunteer by tutoring younger children in math and he has been building wheelchair ramps with his dad and a charity organization here locally. All of these things are important to his education, and it gives him the ability to more fully explore his world.
If we were not as well off financially, his education would just suck balls. It is unfortunate the phrasing of Obama's educational benefits are getting people up in arms. If he had called it "Earned Educational Internships" or "Career Exploration Credits" would that have made everyone feel better about the programs?
I still don't understand what the problem is with encouraging children to take one hour a week to feed shelter animals or to read to younger kids. What's the big deal? I also think the community service in exchange for college tuition is an excellent idea. We already have some form of that in the GI bill. Shouldn't everyone who is getting a government handout be required to "pay back" in some form or another?
Promote yourself and earn more money! This is a business that is owned by strippers for strippers. Let's make that money!





"never trust a big butt and a smile"-- Bell Biv DeVoe
If you're in your twenties and aren't a liberal, you have no heart. If you're in you're forties and aren't a conservative, you have no brain - Winston Churchill





What's the big deal? I also think the community service in exchange for college tuition is an excellent idea. We already have some form of that in the GI bill. Shouldn't everyone who is getting a government handout be required to "pay back" in some form or another?Arguably, for those Americans who are 'rich' enough to actually make a choice regarding the acceptance of gov't assistance in one form or another, there IS no big deal in willingly exposing oneself or one's children to (as yet unstated) obligations of gov't servitude versus choosing not to do so. But when the 'choice' includes attendance at public schools, acceptance of Social Security retirement checks etc. it really isn't a choice for 98% of Americans it is a necessity. As I posted earlier, this potentially sets a precedent for a two class society, with the 'elite' top 2% or whatever still being 'free' but with the bottom 98% 'owing' mandatory service to the gov't. And while the types of mandatory service being speculated about are now quite benign, there is a 'slippery slope' aspect which could lead to future types of mandatory service being highly controversial (i.e. mandatory 'hitch' in the US military immediately comes to mind, as does mandatory work in gov't hospitals for MD and nursing school graduates).When the government forces you to do something, it ceases to be volunteerism









^^^ yes I know, but that doesn't mean that future federal judges appointed by Barack Obama and ratified by a filibuster proof congress won't return to / uphold the original 'liberal' judge's legal position. Making Judicial appointments is one of the most significant powers of a president - and arguably one that GWB was never allowed to freely implement due to congressional filibuster threats and 'bipartisanship'. President Obama won't face similar restrictions ... which is arguably the reason that Supreme Court justices Stevens (age 88 ) and Ginsberg (age 75) have been 'hanging on' in hopes of outlasting GWB. Obviously, with filibuster proof congressional support, and with no need to resort to 'bipartisanship' in order to get new legislation passed, President Obama will also have an essentially free hand to appoint the judges of his choice to all federal courts !
Shaping the future of the Judicial branch was arguably one of THE most important aspects of this year's election ... and one that will have profound consequences for decades to come. However, the issue was barely raised by mainstream media or by the candidates during the presidential campaigns.
(snip)"With Democrats likely to control the Senate in 2009, "The door would be open for Obama, if he were so inclined, to appoint the kind of crusading liberal that the Court has not seen since Justices William Brennan and Thurgood Marshall retired in 1990 and 1991--or, for that matter, to appoint Hillary Rodham Clinton if she wanted the job. Replacing one or more of the current liberals with such a figure would solidify the liberal bloc. And a Scalia or Kennedy retirement would enable Obama to move the Court dramatically to the left, creating a solid liberal majority for the first time since Chief Justice Earl Warren retired in 1969." This is not mere conjecture. Obama cited Warren as a judicial model as he campaigned in Ohio last March.
* For Obama "adherence to precedent" gives way when adherence will not give him the results he wants. He has said that while "most of the time" conservative and liberal Supreme Court justices will arrive at "the same place," what "matters at the Supreme Court is those 5% of cases that are truly difficult. In those cases, adherence to precedent and rules of construction will only get you through 25 miles of the marathon. That last mile can only be determined on the basis of one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works and the depth and breadth of one's empathy.""(snip)
(snip)"* The next President will nominate hundreds of lower court judges who will rule on state legislation (snip). "Apart from the Supreme Court, the next president will fill a steady stream of vacancies--and perhaps a batch of newly created seats--on the federal District and Appeals courts. The cumulative impact of those choices may well be more important than any one Supreme Court appointment, although far less visible." Most of those decisions on state laws will never be considered by the Supreme Court.
The choice could not be clearer. Obama's role model is Earl Warren and results-driven jurisprudence"(snip)
from
Wow. My wife had recently been telling me about some of the absurd things being posted on these forums, but I am amazed, astounded, in awe, etc ...
This thread was at the top and as I am starting there and then trying to make my way 'down' the list, this will be my first recent post. Please forgive my complete and total apathy (in regards to how my posts are taken), but I am forced to be blunt.
First and foremost ... do not call this or anything like it "volunteerism". That is a fallacy, a misconception, and a gross misrepresentation. To volunteer means to willingly undertake a service ... this 'social program' will remove the choice of the vast majority of the citizens to choose, thus making it mandatory. An obligatory or compulsory service is in no way related to volunteerism.
Secondly ... what many people do is look at the immediate effects and not the 'entire picture'. That appears to be what is happening now. Yes, it sounds super nice that people that are getting benefits from the government will have to earn them. Taken in that context ... I would be a huge fan of such a plan. Fortunately, I'm able to look at the 'big picture' and see exactly where such a thing leads us. Social programs that are mandatory (however 'good' that they may appear) are a step in the direction that Saul Alinsky wanted this country to take. That, in and of itself, is reason to despise such a program.
I beg any who read this to look up class warfare and relate it to what this social program will enact upon our society.
Narcissus
P.S. I have to agree with Melonie's post about the judicial choices that Obama will be making. That, in my opinion, was easily one of the most important aspects of this election. It scares me to think of whom he might be placing in those positions. Seriously ... it scares me.
Anyone interested in Obama's career as a public servant would do well to read up on Saul Alinsky and maybe even read some of his writings: ""Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals"" and ""Reveille for Radicals"". The similarities between Obama's rise in power ... his views on social reform ... and those two books is equally scary. Also of note are comments made by Obama in his early days regarding Saul Alinsky and other radical liberals. You have in front of you a wealth of information ... use it and form your own opinion rather than listening to the opinion force-fed you by mainstream media.
There are many nations in the world that require their young people to serve in the Military. As in mandatory. As in there is no choice, you're in the army whether you like it or not. I don't see those places as being scary totalitarian regimes. Okay, some are, like Russia and Malaysia. But there are also nations like Sweden and Germany that are on the other end of the spectrum politically that also require military service for students.
I think some are reading way too much into this "community service in exchange for college money" thing.
Chill out. We aren't turning into a totalitarian regime. It sounds almost like some people hopes that Obama turns out to be the anti-christ or something just for the satisfaction of saying "I told you so!"
In that case, do you really want to be right?
Promote yourself and earn more money! This is a business that is owned by strippers for strippers. Let's make that money!
Errrr ...
Well, I'm trying to figure you out. Many of your posts have been intelligent, well thought out posts that, while I disagree often ... I found to at least have been informed. Other posts have been of the same substance as the one I've quoted here.
Have you actually read anything on radicalism? What about socialism? What about government and social reform and the steps to implement changes in those systems? Ever heard of Saul Alinsky? Have you compared Saul's radical steps of governmental and social reform to Obama's public service history? Do you not find it odd that Obama praised Saul Alinsky (and numerous other radical liberals) in his earliest public appearances? Do you not find it even the slightest bit odd that Obama's entire career ... from his policy descisions to the methodology that he used to glean support (hell even his campaigning method) is virtually identical to the steps Saul lays out in his books?
Stop looking at the immediate and dismissing it as harmless and look at the entire picture! This is so much more than a "community service in exchange for college money thing".
Maybe an analogy will help: you can't change the direction of water by throwing a small stone at one side of a stream, but if you throw numerous stones every day ...
Look at just a couple of things (forget that there are many of them, just focus on these alone):
He is leading the country towards universal health care.
He wants to tax the wealthy and directly distribute that to those less fortunate.
Forget the fact that there are numerous things that could be brought to the table ... just consider those two things and then relate them to how they effect a capitalistic society. Sure., they look great on paper. Healthcare for everyone who needs it! Decreasing the gap between the wealthy and the poor! Fantastic! Except that, just like communism (which looks like an unbeatable form of government ... on paper), things are never as simple as they first seem.
I am literally begging you to get past any hang-ups you might have due to having already given your support to the guy, and do some real research. Forget everything you know about the guy and then objectively research him and his policies. If you will do that, you will be amazed at what you find.
By the way, I want to be wrong, but the only way that I am wrong is if the guy is stupid and just doesn't understand the direction his 'change' is taking the country. However, I know better than that. Obama has proven himself to be a brilliant guy with a brilliant mind. That leaves only one answer: he knows exactly what he is doing and that is far scarier than thinking that he is just stupid.
Raising taxes during a hard economy (think recession) ... anything else need to be said? Waging class warfare ... which could easily thrown our economy into a depression ... implies a serious agenda and a single-mindedness to accomplish that agenda at virtually any cost. That is scary fucking shit.
Narcissus




^
Universal health care and a graduated taxation system haven't led Australia or Britain down the road to serfdom yet. The doomsday analysis doesn't wash.
Excuse me, but ...
Did I say that universal health care was the road to totalitarianism? Let me read what I wrote ... oops, I didn't. Sorry.
Did I say that a graduated taxation system was the road to totalitarianism? Let me read what I wrote ... oops, I didn't. Sorry.
Now, instead of reading bits and pieces and drawing a simplistic conclusion that colludes to an easy, understandable solution ... why don't you spend a few minutes to research and read and learn and attempt to understand even the basic concepts of what I'm saying?
I'm trying not to come across as offensive, but in that one sentence you swept everything I said away and then labeled it as a myth, fallacy, falsehood, etc ... attempting to discredit it when you didn't even reply to what I said, just bits that made it simple to misconstrue and discredit.
Narcissus





I definitely would like the neighbor kids to clean out my dog kennel, so if that's what Obama is promising, I'm for it!
Wtf is complicated about actually reading what I wrote? Seriously?!?
Listen ... if you can't comprehend what I am saying, that is fine. Yet to strike out against it because of that lack of understanding says volumes.
Here is a hypothetical example so you can better understand:
If I say that poor education is a long line of steps that can be taken that can change a country ...
And then I say that someone was taking those steps and in my opinion planned to change the system that is now in place ...
Could you then sweep my entire argument away and claim it is inane and empty BECAUSE ... Lithuania had a poor education system for years and was fine?
No, you couldn't. Why? Because it would make no sense because ... you wouldn't be talking about the same thing. Do you understand now?
I disagree with those things on their own merits, and they do not bode well with our current system at all. Then, beyond that, is Obama's 'Saul Alinsky agenda'. Do you see now what I meant?
Narcissus




I did read your posts and my overall impression was that you were making a doomsday argument, though you did not spell out 'The apoclypse is nigh!' or anything similarly dramatic. I understand you as making the implication that universal health care and graduated taxation will destroy the capitalist system as you know it. Is this correct?





Sorry, I'm just getting frustrated because I have the same individual tearing my posts down on three-ish threads without understanding what I've said on a single one of them. Frustrating.
A doomsday argument? Again ... please stop labeling my beliefs/thoughts/posts/opinions in a way that makes it easy and simple to tear them down. If you cannot understand, then simply stop. It isn't that hard.
No, I did not make that implication. While I am vehemently against either of those programs, alone they do not end the world. Each of them does mark an even greater divide between our current system of government and capitalism, yes.
Please, for the love of god re-read my posts before replying. I said in my first post in this thread such fantastical things as:
Social programs that are mandatory (however 'good' that they may appear) are a step in the direction that Saul Alinsky wanted this country to take. That, in and of itself, is reason to despise such a program.I beg any who read this to look up class warfare and relate it to what this social program will enact upon our society.NarcissusAnyone interested in Obama's career as a public servant would do well to read up on Saul Alinsky and maybe even read some of his writings: ""Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals"" and ""Reveille for Radicals"". The similarities between Obama's rise in power ... his views on social reform ... and those two books is equally scary. Also of note are comments made by Obama in his early days regarding Saul Alinsky and other radical liberals. You have in front of you a wealth of information ... use it and form your own opinion rather than listening to the opinion force-fed you by mainstream media.




I never said that you stated these programs would end the world. What I said (for the third time) was that you implied the fall of capitalism might result. In fact, you just re-stated something similar in your last post. Kapish?
Perhaps it is you who does not understand what I am saying (or the implications of what you are).
If you don't care for a debate, perhaps you should stop posting in Member Boards.




P.S.- I don't find Alinsky scary at all. Certainly he was not in favour of completely tearing down the system in favour of a Stalinist dictatorship.
For someone that is one exam away from a law degree ...
Hmmm, although that does makes sense of all this. Most lawyers find ways to obfuscate statements and twist words/statements to the point where they meant nothing compared to their original meaning.
I already answered you, but to humor you:
I would love to have an intelligent debate on the issue of socialism, capitalism, social reform, and even fanatical radicals. However, since you are the only one questioning what I'm saying, I have to continue repeating basic concepts that you unerringly fail to grasp.No, I did not make that implication. While I am vehemently against either of those programs, alone they do not end the world. Each of them does mark an even greater divide between our current system of government and capitalism, yes.
The end the world comment was a frustrated attempt at a joke ... my way of displaying a rapidly depleting ability not to rant and rave at you.
The fall of capitalism would/could happen following someone like Obama who prescribes to the teaching of an extremist radical like Saul Alinsky. Socialized/universal health care is a step towards such a lofty goal. Re-distribution of wealth is a step towards such a lofty goal.
Is it the penultimate step of the end of capitalism? That depends on how you want to define and see capitalism. In truth, the U.S.A. veered away from true capitalism quite a long time ago and just uses a semblance of capitalism as a reference. Would that proscribe the end of capitalism? Depends on your viewpoint.
Or if you prescribe to a more lenient generalization of the word, then it is still a difficult view as what then would be considered private property in relation to government gifted property/assets/monies? Then what about decisions based for a business and/or investments? Although the direct owner would be a private individual, would the right to determine value for products still be placed upon the individual or ...
When talking about re-distribution of wealth, where do the definitions come together to confine and encompass wealth? I'll tell you: wherever the government decides. So what one day is considered middle class, the next might be considered upper. The tighter those strings are pulled, the less definition of each 'class'. Eventually, even without any other social reform ... lines will be blurred and the only one with the capability to define those lines is ... yep, you guessed it: the government. Again, it wholly depends on how far, and how strict Obama (or whomever) decides to define those lines.
That is why I cannot answer your question about whether it would be the end of capitalism: It depends on how you view the definition as well as how much redistribution the government would end up at. Welcome to the loving world of class warfare. It gets much more complicated than this (I assure you) as this is a super simplistic version, but it makes the point.
I honestly have no intelligent reply to this. Anyone that believes Saul Alinsky ... never mind.
I'm forced to assume that you never read any of his several works that define ways of tearing our government down and rebuilding it from within. I suspect, at best, you googled the guy, read a few sentences, and now base your opinions on that.
Narcissus




^
You've already been ranting at me for some time now, with the odd argumentum ad hominem thrown in for good measure. Notice that I have not once insinuated that you must lack intelligence, despite disagreeing with many of your points. Clearly you don't handle diverging viewpoints well.
Thank you for explaining. I had thought the implication you made was that these type of soft socialist reforms were destructive to US Capitalism and you have confirmed that view, though in far more detailed fashion than is obviously conveyed by that single generalisation. I would argue that, on the contrary, America is in fact ultra-Capitalist compared with the developed world, and that much of the developed world, having already instituted similar programs, remains capitalist, though in somewhat modified form. I would argue, however, that the modification of capitalism is necessary to ensure just outcomes.
You're right on the google thing- Alinsky doesn't exactly come up too often around these parts- but reform from the inside and community organising seem quite unproblematic to me.



50 hours a week is not alot. it is less than one hour per week for a year. At my high school we had to do so many hours before we could graduate.
i think its a wonderful idea, and it really taught us some values we wouldnt otherwise have.
we also got scholarships, and financial aid.
people always talk about how they want the world to be a nicer place, but dont want to find ways to do it.
thats like opposing gym in schools because its not "educational". ok but its part of being a well rounded human being.
this site always reminds me of how lazy and spoiled americans are.
why dispute something that will help the next generation be better people?
why would volunteer work anger you to the point of not sending your children to school? its just ridiculous.
"We are the coolest mothafuckas on the planet....The sky is fallin ain't no need to panic"... -Outkast
I would apologize for my irritation at you as well as include any slights made, but you were, in several threads arguing points that had virtually nothing to do with my original posts/thoughts on the matter and then labeling them outrageous things ... therefore debunking my opinion based on a fallacious skew. I feel that my irritation, and therefore any heated unnecessary comments, were fully justified. I don't have a problem with people holding a differing view than I ... I just have a problem with people searching for an argument and/or attempting to find an easy way to discredit an opposing view. Big difference.
Wealth redistribution at its most base form is hardly what I would consider a soft social reform. True, definitions may be apt ... yet saying the titanic was large would be true as well, but does so little in describing its massive size. When the government starts deciding who has too much money, takes some of that money, and then distributes that money to those it deems are deserving ... that is a radical move away from capitalism. It starts down a road of reform and class warfare that goes against the very ideology that capitalism stands for.
Yes, I agree that we have instituted similar policies in the past. It still is a step in the wrong direction (the same as socialized/universal health care) and more extreme than ever before. Add to that the fact that Obama is an admirer (or was in his younger days - lol) of the man that is arguably the father of the radical movement. I'm not sure what you read about the guy, but he is famous for inventing community organizing as a political camouflage for subverting America's democracy and capitalist economy. He details numerous ways in which a man can rise in political power and beguile a country into changing into an 'idealistic socialistic society'. He is what an informed American would label as: 'a bad, bad man'.
Then when you mix even even more radical influences that they guy had throughout the majority of his life (beyond that of Saul Alinsky), it makes the his motives a bit more clear. Here is a small list of the most well known connections that Obama has had:
Bill Ayers - Frank Marshall Davis - Rev. Jeremiah Wright - Father Michael Pfleger - Antoin Rezko
Narcissus
Bookmarks