Interesting video.......

[tom e]

Colin Powell is probably one of the MOST trusted men in America. I think that won't hurt Obama with the undecideds, but I don't think there's a lot of them left.
The game from here out for Obama seems to be not to lose any of those 'undecideds' who came to him.. For that Colin Powell is just what he needs.

 

[ForkedTung]

from a CNN story:

Powell said he was concerned about what he characterized as a recent negative turn of Republican candidate Sen. John McCain's campaign, such as the campaign's attempts to tie Obama to former 1960s radical Bill Ayers.

"I think that's inappropriate. I understand what politics is about -- I know how you can go after one another, and that's good. But I think this goes too far, and I think it has made the McCain campaign look a little narrow. It's not what the American people are looking for," he said.

 

[alan]

Colin Powell is probably one of the MOST trusted men in America.

That was exactly what my Sweetie said this morning when we heard about it, what most people would say. I think an endorsement like that must have an effect on some people.

 

[jazzgeek]

Colin Powell is probably one of the MOST trusted men in America.

That was exactly what my Sweetie said this morning when we heard about it, what most people would say. I think an endorsement like that must have an effect on some people.

Time for me to play Devil's Advocate: wasn't Powell's credibility lessened, however, when he went to bat for the Bush Administration at the UN, arguing the case for WMDs in Iraq? IIRC, you two have both served, and I'm curious to hear your perspectives.

Dale

 

[alan]

wasn't Powell's credibility lessened, however, when he went to bat for the Bush Administration at the UN, arguing the case for WMDs in Iraq?

Actually that's what gives his endorsement some weight for me. An insider to the Bush republican machine flips. If it had been someone else I would call "uncertainty". I respect the General for his service and intelligence, not for his (mostly) conservative views. The fact that he has mostly conservative viewpoints makes his endorsement far more than most, if not all, of McCain's cited endorsements from people who would have endorsed the party no matter who the candidate was.
On the WMD thing, wasn't Gen Powell the one that "blew the whistle" on the deception?

 

[jenneses]

I saw that McCain tried to downplay it by citing his many endorsements. Somehow I don't think they are the same thing. For Colin Powell to endorse the dem I've got to think there is something seriously wrong in the rep party.

I agree with Alan on this, no matter what, it's definitely going to hurt McCain.

 

[tom e]

Time for me to play Devil's Advocate: wasn't Powell's credibility lessened, however, when he went to bat for the Bush Administration at the UN, arguing the case for WMDs in Iraq? IIRC, you two have both served, and I'm curious to hear your perspectives.

Dale

I feel like Colin Powell wasn't happy doing what he did on that day, he's the guy who really sold the war. After that moment didn't it seem like he just disappeared? It's like the President knew how people trusted him, so he put him up there. Did it hurt his credibility? Well, he's a life long soldier, and has some history with Iraq. On the one hand, he was reading a script he was given, and on the other he probably really wanted to go after Hussein and probably has wanted to since the Gulf war. I can understand that even while I feel it was a bad move in the context of the war on terror.
Like Alan says, going out on his own for Obama is even more impressive for that.. Also what was the last thing we saw him do nationally? Defend Stevens right? This is no small endorsement.. This guy is a real Republican stalwart.

 

[The_Thunderer]

This is no small endorsement.. This guy is a real Republican stalwart.

While I hold Colin Powell in the highest regard (my dad was an Army man too), his endorsment of Obama does not change my vote - although I respect him more for receiving it. My vote has more to do with the Democratic Party leaning so far into socialism that it scares me. I know there are serious problems, but socialized schools, socialized medicine? Redistribution of wealth? Not the answer IMHO and WAAAYYY too left for me.

Here's another thing... I'm RIGHT in the middle of the middle class... the group that Obama is supposed to be trying to help the most... Thing ARE tight. When I get my tax returns next year (for a comparison figure) and the year after that (when Obama's plan should be in effect), I'll bet that there won't be much difference between the two. If there is... I'll be REALLY surprised... and perhaps go buy a cornsnake!!! LOL!

 

[ForkedTung]

I know there are serious problems, but socialized schools, socialized medicine? Redistribution of wealth? Not the answer IMHO and WAAAYYY too left for me.

6 dictionary results for: socialism
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
–noun 1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.

Ever go to the library?
Utilize the police or fire department?
Drive on a public road?
Pay into social security?
attend a public school?
Go to a park?
Pay taxes?
Send a letter?
Medicaid, medicare?

While not strictly Marxist socialism, these are ALL socialist programs, like it or not.

 

[ForkedTung]

From Wikipedia:

Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital, and creates an unequal society. All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved.[1]

It is my understanding that in the US, The divide between the wealthiest and the poorest americans is growing every year, with the middle class slowly being absorbed into the poorer class.

 

[tom e]

We have socialized schools now... My point I was trying to make earlier is that we even have socialized medicine in a way, but at emergency room prices. I think as long as we're paying we can do better than what we're paying now.
I agree with you Thunderer about Powell's endorsement though.. I don't expect it to change any minds, just that there are quite a few people who sort of go back and forth, or who are on the fence.. For those, I think this will have a powerful affect.

 

[ForkedTung]

We have socialized schools now... My point I was trying to make earlier is that we even have socialized medicine in a way, but at emergency room prices. I think as long as we're paying we can do better than what we're paying now.

No doubt! While I understand the controversy with Michael Moore's films ...Have you ever seen SICKO ? It WILL piss you off about the state of our medical care here in the US of A.
You know Tom the military is also a social program with it's own social programs...GI bill?

I want to make something clear. I'm not a Republican or Democrat or Libertarian or Socialist, or Marxist or even a Capitalist. I can honestly find good and bad with all of those. I'm also forced to practice some of them due to the country I live in. The best in the world, but what I see is America slowly being dragged down by politicians, lobbyists and big business...and anything I can do to point that out I will.

 

[The_Thunderer]

Ever go to the library?
Utilize the police or fire department?
Drive on a public road?
Pay into social security?
attend a public school?
Go to a park?
Pay taxes?
Send a letter?
Medicaid, medicare?

While not strictly Marxist socialism, these are ALL socialist programs, like it or not.

From Wikipedia:

It is my understanding that in the US, The divide between the wealthiest and the poorest americans is growing every year, with the middle class slowly being absorbed into the poorer class.

We have socialized schools now...

I think you know what I mean... LOL.

The park, police, and fire department, public roads, payment of taxes - (I could include others, but I won't) aren't really socialist programs... they're part of the government infrastructure that government is supposed to provide, per Constitution.

And, to be honest, why should I pay into Social Security? If I took that same money that I "pay" into Social Security and invested it myself, I would end up with MUCH more... AND be sure that it would be there when I retired. I'm saving up already, but would be able to possibly do more (or spend more) if I didn't have to pay into a program that probably won't be around for me when I'm "of retirement age".

I also believe that we pay FAR too much in taxes... some of those taxes are "returned" to people who don't pay one cent into it!!! Why? I know that there are people who have their problems... and so do I. But I also know that there are a growing number of folks out there who rely on their government hand-out to help them get by. I used to do social work (over 9 years)... so I've met both sides of this. Those that work hard but can't make ends meet for one reason or another... and those that stood in line every two weeks for their "help". More than one of the "kids" I have cared for while working in the Social Service arena and even here have said that their goal is to do NOTHING so that they can get their "hand-out".

Don't get me wrong either... The LAST thing I want is for someone to believe that I'll vote the Republican ticket at any cost... no way... not me. THAT is the type of fanaticism that we *cough* got rid of.

However, I DO fear that the more and more we lean towards socialism, the closer and closer we turn into those socialist countries we once stood AGAINST. Your definition makes it clear to me... Forked Tongue "although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved." Do I want my kids to "wake up" to a "ruling party" that determines their job, pay rate, residence, what doctor they can see, whether they're worthy enough to get a transplant, etc? If what Obama proposes is okay NOW... what will be okay in 8 years? 16 years? Socialism FAILED... and it seems like we're about to step-by-step reincarnate it... and China is looming on the horizon.

Really... if the "left" TRULY believed all that they espoused, then would they not be good examples by redistributing of their money first? Al Gore, the Clintons, Biden and Obama have LOADS of cash and multiple houses... why not give to the poor of their assets first? If I saw that kind of "leadership" then perhaps I'd be willing to follow. Ohhh, but they are the ones that will be deciding who gets what FOR us... :toiletgra

And as for the socialized schools... yes, we do... and they're failing our kids and most of them are teaching ONE-SIDEDLY. BUT, we do still (at least in most states) have the choice of sending our kids to private schools or home-schooling. We know the "Left" wants to take THOSE options away and start even earlier with toddler-aged kids.

No doubt! While I understand the controversy with Michael Moore's films ...Have you ever seen SICKO ? It WILL piss you off about the state of our medical care here in the US of A.

LOL... and Michael Moore is unbiased???? oke: His "documentaries" shouldn't really be called "documentaries" as they lean so far left that they can topple over.

Let me also add... I'm not as eloquent as our friend Jazzgeek, as diplomatic as Tom or as knowledgeable as just about everyone else here... but I do have beliefs and respect the beliefs of everyone. I have real concerns about what we're being fed ON BOTH sides and, wish we had better choices in this election. Well, there's MY book. LOL!

 

[ForkedTung]

The park, police, and fire department, public roads, payment of taxes - (I could include others, but I won't) aren't really socialist programs... they're part of the government infrastructure that government is supposed to provide, per Constitution.

Why aren't they socialist? They fit the definition exactly. My point is we are already a mostly socialist society, it's actually not a four-letter-word.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

What about that isn't socialist?

Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights.

Why Socialism?
by Albert Einstein

This essay was originally published in the first issue of Monthly Review (May 1949).

Capitalism is a dead end! The sooner we realize this the sooner we can look forward...

And, to be honest, why should I pay into Social Security? If I took that same money that I "pay" into Social Security and invested it myself, I would end up with MUCH more... AND be sure that it would be there when I retired. I'm saving up already, but would be able to possibly do more (or spend more) if I didn't have to pay into a program that probably won't be around for me when I'm "of retirement age".

like I said...

like it or not.

I also believe that we pay FAR too much in taxes... some of those taxes are "returned" to people who don't pay one cent into it!!! Why? I know that there are people who have their problems... and so do I. But I also know that there are a growing number of folks out there who rely on their government hand-out to help them get by. I used to do social work (over 9 years)... so I've met both sides of this. Those that work hard but can't make ends meet for one reason or another... and those that stood in line every two weeks for their "help". More than one of the "kids" I have cared for while working in the Social Service arena and even here have said that their goal is to do NOTHING so that they can get their "hand-out".

Again, "Like it or not" I couldn't agree more. I am an inner city teacher. First in juvenile prison, then in a charter school Drop-out-recovery program ( basically the same kids coming out or going to prison and the ones kicked out of every school in the county). I've seen the "handout" mentality too. It's depressing, they just don't know that they just don't know.

However, I DO fear that the more and more we lean towards socialism, the closer and closer we turn into those socialist countries we once stood AGAINST.

I think you may be confusing socialism with communism? Both of which have NEVER been truly practiced. Again we are already socialistic, most people just don't see it or assume it's a dirty word.

And as for the socialized schools... yes, we do... and they're failing our kids. BUT, we do still (at least in most states) have the choice of sending our kids to private schools

True True! Although how many of us can afford private schools ? and how many of those schools will be shut down soon if the economy doesn't improve?
Most of the problems we have with our social programs and institutions come from our bureaucracies, these are created and reinforced by government and ultimately are very resistant to dying out once their usefulness has been served.

Let me also add... I'm not as eloquent as our friend Jazzgeek, as diplomatic as Tom or as knowledgeable as just about everyone here... but I do have beliefs and respect the beliefs of everyone here. I have real concerns about what we're being fed ON BOTH sides. Soooo, "have at ya!!" LOL!

LOL!I couldn't agree more! I respect what you've written, I just see things a little different. Ya know the people who scare me the most in this world? The ones that are absolutely, unerringly convinced without any doubt that they know what's right and what's best for other people. These personality types tend to do the most damage and be the biggest hypocrits. I think there were a few posting here earlier before they were banned? oke:

 

[The_Thunderer]

You're right... Perhaps I am confusing "Socialism" with "Communism". However,

In the schema of historical materialism, communism is the idea of a free society with no division or alienation, where mankind is free from oppression and scarcity. A communist society would have no governments, countries, or class divisions. Socialism is the intermediate system between capitalism and communism, when the government is in the process of changing the means of ownership from privatism, to collective ownership.

So I guess that what I should write, instead of "socialism" or "socialist" is "EXTREME" socialism or "EXTREME" socialist. If, indeed, as the definition above says, "Socialism is the intermediate system between Capitalism and Communism," I would rather stay WAAYYY right of the middle of Socialism, much closer to capitalism if not within the realm of capitalism where our freedom to own property, freedom of unrestricted movement, etc. come from. And, as we have already experienced problems with "imminent domain" and over taxation, any move to the left for me is "extreme". To me, John McCain himself has moved too far left... but what other choice do I have?

I know there are problems that need to be addressed, however, in addressing these problems, I would rather not lose those ideals and freedoms that made us the great American nation we are in the first place.

 

[jpccusa]

With all that said, I just don't understand why some people that struggle to afford one more cornsnake (we, the middle class or sometimes the poorer) are fighting Obama's idea of redistribution of wealth and "socialist" health care.

Now if you are part of a VERY small wealthy population, then I could understand the fears. :shrugs:

 

[The_Thunderer]

With all that said, I just don't understand why some people that struggle to afford one more cornsnake (we, the middle class or sometimes the poorer) are fighting Obama's idea of redistribution of wealth and "socialist" health care.

Now if you are part of a VERY small wealthy population, then I could understand the fears. :shrugs:

Maybe because I believe I should "earn" my money? Maybe I believe that those who have more (most of them) have "earned it?" Thomas Edison, if he were alive today, would be ONE RICH DUDE... and he would have earned that position.

I also believe and know that those who are rich, hire others and invest in others and their ideas.

 

[ghosthousecorns]

I just wanted to say something about the "handout mentality". It's easy to say and feel that when you are working and secure.
There are many people on welfare who are trying very hard to get jobs, to get back on their feet, who have no choice but to have to apply for these types of government aids because they simply can't get by without these "handouts"
Don't you think it's a blow to their pride to have to take "handouts"? Don't you think they would much rather be able to find work and pay their own way through life? That they would go to school and educate themselves only they can't afford that either? Is everyone who needs a helping hand in life to be lumped together in one big and sneered upon category of "Freeloaders'? The current group of unemployed, layed off and out of luck people is huge. Sure there are those who abuse the system, but government aid does save many people from hunger and disease.
My vote is going to be 100% about the economy and which candidate I think will create more jobs here in the U.S. Both candidates are promising to do this and I don't know if I believe either one right now. I'm so sick of hearing about "Joe the plumber" right now I could just puke.
But I just don't like the idea of eliminating the programs designed to help people get back on their feet and tell them hey, sink or swim?

 

[ForkedTung]

I just wanted to say something about the "handout mentality". It's easy to say and feel that when you are working and secure.
There are many people on welfare who are trying very hard to get jobs, to get back on their feet, who have no choice but to have to apply for these types of government aids because they simply can't get by without these "handouts"
Don't you think it's a blow to their pride to have to take "handouts"? Don't you think they would much rather be able to find work and pay their own way through life? That they would go to school and educate themselves only they can't afford that either? Is everyone who needs a helping hand in life to be lumped together in one big and sneered upon category of "Freeloaders'? The current group of unemployed, layed off and out of luck people is huge. Sure there are those who abuse the system, but government aid does save many people from hunger and disease.

As of a few months ago,I actually happen to be one of those "unemployed,layed off and out of luck people". I have applied for as many social welfare programs as I can think of. This is the first time in my life this has happened to me and I don't for one second feel ashamed about taking part in any of them. I PAID for them, I NEED them and I'll USE them and I'm THANKFUL that they're there.
As for the "handout mentality". Have you ever worked with a population of people that have basically been brought up this way. My former students were. We use a van to move the students around to the worksites (It's a charter/ vocational school and I teach carpentry). While driving 8-10 students that are black, white ,blue, green doesn't matter...there has always been at least one student that openly hopes we get in an accident...Why? They think quick, easy money in the form of a lawsuit. I patiently explain how expensive, time-consuming, and improbably it is they'll become instant millionaires and that if they did get money it would probably be in addition to a lifetime of suffering whatever injury they received the money for. Why are they like this? it's how they were raised ( or not raised as the case may be). Is it right? hell no! but it is what it is. That is why I earlier pointed out that "they don't know what they don't know". I could go on with stories but let me quote what a very wise man once said

"I see no hope for the future of our people if they are dependent on
frivolous youth of today, for certainly all youth are reckless beyond
words... When I was young, we were taught to be discreet and
respectful of elders, but the present youth are exceedingly disrespectful and impatient of restraint" (Hesiod, 8th century BC).

Note this was written in the 8th century B.C., so these things really haven't changed. One change I've seen with my student population that at times blows my mind is this: their sense of entitlement .
They will ask for and expect just about everything to be given to them ( without a simple thank you) and at the same time look horrified if you ask anything of them.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a jaded teacher, I just understand that that is what they know because of the situation they are in. That is:
Low to no-income, very little if any appropriate adult role models ( an almost complete lack of positive male role models), a skewed sense of ethics and morals, no expectancy of anything past what they are doing at the moment and no vision to better ways and means.
This is a case of where some of our socialist systems have failed us and we have allowed it.

 

[tom e]

I won't do the quotes here, cause I always seem to mess that up unless I quote the whole dang thing, lol.
I'm mostly responding to Thunderer here.

On social security.. Or rather on the savings you would know you'd have if you didn't have to participate..
What would you have put that money in if not the communal pot? I love the stock market, I always try to make sure I'm putting in at least 4000 in my IRA every year (so that I can save AND pay less taxes) and it's self directed, so I'm even putting it right into the stock market. You know what I look at it right now, and it's much less than half of what it started as. My dad does an IRA but with mutual funds and he's not any better off. Do I regret it? Naah, not really, I have a long way to go before my retirement, and I like the price of the stocks now so much (bargain shopping, lol) that it takes the sting off. I didn't buy any companies that are going to go under, and I still like them so I'm confident they'll recover. I'll probably put more in this year than I have in the past, even beyond the tax savings figure..

But my dad? He's retiring very soon. This market dump is a very different thing for him. He's going to have social security regardless though, and my step mom has the California Teachers retirement which is even better than Social Security (it's another Socialist program and she has to opt out of Social Security to get it)..
Social Security is in trouble because politicians keep borrowing from it, but this has happened before and Ronald Reagan thought it was important enough to save, and he did.

As for 'extreme socialism' would it be more extreme to socialize medicine than education? We don't privatize our Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and those have the purpose of protecting our lives and health as well.

Michael Moore I don't like. I've watched some of his films (not Sicko- even though the subject matter interests me) I have been satisfied that he purposely edits to take people out of context and I agree he makes crap journalism films. I don't think he's any better a spokesman for my side than Ricky/Michael/Celtic, and at least they have the excuse of their age. I lump Michael Moore in with Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter.