|
Post by alison on Sept 26, 2008 7:51:30 GMT -5
Angie - I just spend WAY too much time on that fact check website. I didn't even know some of those crazy rumor email existed. Quite entertaining, yet sad at the same time.
Alison
|
|
|
Post by Aussie Rob on Sept 26, 2008 9:10:37 GMT -5
Sorry Jack, but i think those "fancy degrees" mean something. They show an ability to learn; to understand new concepts; and to think critically. Something we all want the POTUS to be able to do well i'd think.
That's the value of education in my mind....and i think someone who has demonstrated those skills by having a lengthy and successful academic career is more qualified than someone who has demonstrated pure grit. Obama will never be tested as POTUS in the same way that McCain was tested as a POW (that goes for McCain too). As admirable as i find his military career to be, i find it less relevant to the job than Obama's academic career, and frankly, i don't think he's as intelligent.
|
|
|
Post by robreddy on Sept 26, 2008 9:56:19 GMT -5
well i have stayed out cause (very sadly) I dont care about this election to be honest.
But on the topic of education credentials and riggor of different higher ed institutions - well I do know something...
Obamma - Occidental (sp?) is a nice school, but not national level liberal arts type insitution. NO way you can discredit his Ivy experience.
McCain - US Naval Acad - equally, even possibly harder, to get into than an Ivy - ya you gotta know someone but the competition is SUPER tough for acceptance. But staying in one of the 2 BIG academies is harder than any other institution in America - there are no qualms bout booting you out over academics, social issue or military stuff. That is completely different than at the top 20 national liberal arts colleges or Ivy's that will do everythng to make sure you complete your degree. Academically the academies are stellar - on par in thier own ways with Ivys.
Biden - U of D - not impressive at all. Syracuse Law - good solid law school but again nothing awesome. Thought Biden was shown to have had a plagerism issue as an under grad? I could be wrong on that one.
Pailin - academically scary
one thing you can not discount - McCains military exp - regardless of dem or rep admin - HUGE $$ go to defense and huge issues surrougn being commander in chief - having military exp puts you way ahead of the game and automatically gives you cred with the military industrial complex
r
|
|
|
Post by Charlie on Sept 26, 2008 10:02:27 GMT -5
John Kerry's military record was discounted and mocked. Medal of Honor and a purple heart. What ever is convenient.
|
|
|
Post by robreddy on Sept 26, 2008 10:05:20 GMT -5
may be true charlie - but gotta deal with the presenton this one
r
|
|
|
Post by Aussie Rob on Sept 26, 2008 10:39:04 GMT -5
Do you think the Naval Academy was as rigorous back then as they are now though Rob? How would you rank finishing bottom of your class in the academy vs finishing with high honors from Harvard?
|
|
|
Post by MattCollister on Sept 26, 2008 11:22:30 GMT -5
I think the service academies have a long history of being very tough academicallly. And it is very difficult to get in. Typically you need to have an appointment from a member of Congress. Although, I suppose having a dad who's an admiral can't hurt.
I don't hold anything about McCain's performance at the Naval Academy, or anything about the kind of officer he was prior to his internment, against him. He seems like he's been very open and honest about his younger days. He's a different man now. It may be a source for ridicule for some (just as George Bush's academic record is). But, that's not what this decision hinges on for me.
|
|
|
Post by MattCollister on Sept 26, 2008 11:32:04 GMT -5
For what its worth, Jimmy Carter graduated 59/820 from USNA in 1947, and Dwight Eisenhower graduated 1/245 from West Point in 1926.
(Googled it)
|
|
|
Post by Angie on Sept 26, 2008 11:42:13 GMT -5
Here's a little inside information. My dad is a die-hard republican (he calls me a communist.. in a nice way)... against high taxes, social programs and big government control. He was a naval aviator with John McCain and thought he was a major a$$hole who strutted around like he owned the place. My dad is also not very accepting of minority groups either , after having lived in Atlanta in the 60's-70's, a time of racial strife. He is a intelligent guy who has traveled the world, knows history, economics and politics pretty well. Well... guess what... he is voting for Obama!!! I asked him why and he said that Mccain is such a hothead and a jerk that he cannot vote for him. How about that? From someone who once knew the man personally Do we want this guy as our president?
|
|
|
Post by MarkD on Sept 26, 2008 13:12:03 GMT -5
Even though I find Palin's resume downright scary, I've gotta agree with Jack... there's more to the individual than a simple degree. Case and point - "W" is a Yale grad and has run his business ventures into the ground and is probably about the worst leader / communicator I've ever witnessed in my lifetime.
Regarding military academies - I'll second that motion and have a good personal story to back it up - worthy of discussion over a stiff drink.
|
|
|
Post by Brian Luther on Sept 26, 2008 20:06:29 GMT -5
Angie,
I understand your father's personal opinion about J McCain. Once an a$$hole, always an a$$hole......
With our Country falling apart, I do hope Obama can lead us into a new direction. Fixing everything that is broken, will be a huge and monumental task. He can only do it with a unified Goverment working together and we the people supporting their decisions.
Brian
|
|
|
Post by Jack Carney on Sept 27, 2008 11:48:08 GMT -5
Angie, I understand your father's personal opinion about J McCain. Once an a$$hole, always an a$$hole...... With our Country falling apart, I do hope Obama can lead us into a new direction. Fixing everything that is broken, will be a huge and monumental task. He can only do it with a unified Goverment working together and we the people supporting their decisions. Brian We the people supporting "their" decisions? No they are supposed to be representing us, their constituents but the politicians would love your attitude. Obama will lead us in a new direction? Yes toward an even bigger government that proposes to do everything for us helpless citizens and all we have to do in return is give them more money to waste. Do you really think Obama will fly in with angel wings and wave his magic wand and everything will be OK? With that attitude you could join the national news media. Please don't rely on the government to "fix everything that is broken" because they are the ones that broke it in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by Aussie Rob on Sept 27, 2008 14:29:59 GMT -5
I think you can make a solid argument that the free market f*#ked up health care in this country pretty good.
I like free market solutions as much as the next guy....a bunch of economics classes taught me that, but i also realise that it's not always the best choice.
|
|
|
Post by Aussie Rob on Oct 3, 2008 14:46:13 GMT -5
|
|
Chris
Olympic Member
Posts: 121
|
Post by Chris on Oct 3, 2008 15:02:56 GMT -5
all i know is dems suck
|
|
|
Post by Aussie Rob on Oct 3, 2008 15:10:57 GMT -5
Well, according to republicans, with a water-tight argument like that you would have TOTALLY won against Biden last night
|
|
Chris
Olympic Member
Posts: 121
|
Post by Chris on Oct 3, 2008 15:36:27 GMT -5
what can i say, im the bestest arguer. lol. I honestly dont know much about polotics, i just like pretending and arguing. but I still dont like the dems. and how can you knock that solid point i had there, it was perfect. lol
|
|
|
Post by sidmcmahon on Oct 3, 2008 15:56:07 GMT -5
Well now we could have the government take card of us in retirement provide us all with drug and health care take over the banking and morgage industry run education free college for all take over energy
Looks like we are heading for utopia with the government controlling everything. The spending in Washington seems to have no end, regardless of party. Mind as well just give 100% of what we got and live in a perfect society. The days of working hard and being accountable for your lifes decisions are sinking away. I'm getting a flashback.
|
|
|
Post by Charlie on Oct 3, 2008 18:03:05 GMT -5
Don't expect the utopia to happen overnight. Cleaning up the mess left by the current thrifty administration might take some time. She failed to address banking regulations. Corporate anarchy isn't working.
|
|
|
Post by Jack Carney on Oct 3, 2008 20:20:37 GMT -5
Here is a quick look into 3 former Fannie Mae executives who have brought down Wall Street. Franklin Raines was a Chairman and Chief Executive Officer at Fannie Mae. Raines was forced to retire from his position with Fannie Mae when auditing discovered severe irregularities in Fannie Mae's accounting activities. At the time of his departure The Wall Street Journal noted, ' Raines, who long defended the company's accounting despite mounting evidence that it wasn't proper, issued a statement late Tuesday conceding that 'mistakes were made' and saying he would assume responsibility as he had earlier promised. News reports indicate the company was under growing pressure from regulators to shake up its management in the wake of findings that the company's books ran afoul of generally accepted accounting principles for four years.' Fannie Mae had to reduce its surplus by $9 billion. Raines left with a 'golden parachute valued at $240 Million in benefits. The Government filed suit against Raines when the depth of the accounting scandal became clear. <http://housingdoom.com/2006/12/18/fannie-charges/> housingdoom.com/2006/12/18/fannie-charges/ . The Government noted, 'The 101 charges reveal how the individuals improperly manipulated earnings to maximize their bonuses, while knowingly neglecting accounting systems and internal controls, misapplying over twenty accounting principles and misleading the regulator and the public. The Notice explains how they submitted six years of misleading and inaccurate accounting statements and inaccurate capital reports that enabled them to grow Fannie Mae in an unsafe and unsound manner.' These charges were made in 2006. The Court ordered Raines to return $50 Million Dollars he received in bonuses based on the mis-stated Fannie Mae profits. Tim Howard - Was the Chief Financial Officer of Fannie Mae. Howard 'was a strong internal proponent of using accounting strategies that would ensure a stable pattern of earnings' at Fannie. In everyday English - he was cooking the books. The Government Investigation determined that, 'Chief Financial Officer, Tim Howard, failed to provide adequate oversight to key control and reporting functions within Fannie Mae,' On June 16, 2006, Rep. Richard Baker, R-La., asked the Justice Department to investigate his allegations that two former Fannie Mae executives lied to Congress in October 2004 when they denied manipulating the mortgage-finance giant's income statement to achieve management pay bonuses. Investigations by federal regulators and the company's board of directors since concluded that management did manipulate 1998 earnings to trigger bonuses. Raines and Howard resigned under pressure in late 2004. Howard's Golden Parachute was estimated at $20 Million! Jim Johnson - A former executive at Lehman Brothers and who was later forced from his position as Fannie Mae CEO. A look at the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's May 2006 <http://www.ofheo.gov/media/pdf/FNMSPECIALEXAM.PDF> report on mismanagement and corruption inside Fannie Mae, and you'll see some interesting things about Johnson. Investigators found that Fannie Mae had hidden a substantial amount of Johnson's 1998 compensation from the public, reporting that it was between $6 million and $7 million when it fact it was $21 million.' Johnson is currently under investigation for taking illegal loans from Countrywide while serving as CEO of Fannie Mae. Johnson's Golden Parachute was estimated at $28 Million. WHERE ARE THEY NOW? FRANKLIN RAINES? Raines works for the Obama Campaign as Chief Economic Advisor TIM HOWARD? Howard is also a Chief Economic Advisor to Obama JIM JOHNSON? Johnson hired as a Senior Obama Finance Advisor and was selected to run Obama's Vice Presidential Search Committee IF OBAMA PLANS ON CLEANING UP THE MESS - HIS ADVISORS HAVE THE EXPERTISE -THEY MADE THE MESS IN THE FIRST PLACE. Would you trust the men who tore Wall Street down to build the New Wall Street ?
|
|
|
Post by Charlie on Oct 3, 2008 20:59:29 GMT -5
Jack, The allegations that these men work for Obama are false.
|
|
Chris
Olympic Member
Posts: 121
|
Post by Chris on Oct 4, 2008 6:05:40 GMT -5
to comment on charlies utopia statement, it is imposible to accomplish that. Just think of it this way, in a utopian society, everyone is equal. that means even if you spent 4,8,12 years learning to be and engineer, doctor, whatever, it doesnt mean a darn thing, the lowley individual who did nothing in life will earn the same thing you do.
|
|
|
Post by Charlie on Oct 4, 2008 8:25:50 GMT -5
In a Utopian society "lowly individuals" don't exist. Everyone contributes if able. Elitism would be erased. So the garbage collector (haha, no garbage in utopia) recycling and compost workers that had been busting ass during the same 4, 8, 12 years would be treated with the same dignity as somebody who was given the opportunity to spend that time studying.
One thing I love about Ironman is that all efforts are recognized and respected. This is as close to utopia as I can find.
|
|
|
Post by Brandon on Oct 4, 2008 9:16:36 GMT -5
One thing I love about Ironman is that all efforts are recognized and respected. This is as close to utopia as I can find. I like the analogy Charlie. Another one that I pull from Ironman is that you will never achieve that which you deem impossible. Before the first ironman competition, nobody knew if it could even be done. Now, we all know that a few thousand dedicated individuals do it every year...and more could given that they became dedicated themselves. Ditto for society. If we think we cannot eliminate its ills, we won't eliminate them. The first step is conceiving that it can be done. The next step is to commit to do it. Poverty, hunger, war, corruption, etc. will continue until we first conceive we can eliminate them. The difficulty with society (vs. ironman) is that society is a team "sport" where ironman is individual. But, who makes up the "team" we call society? Individuals who make choices? Yes, it's utopian, or whatever. But even if perfection (and utopia) are impossible, isn't it better to set the bar higher and move nearer to perfection (or utopia). Kinda like missing your lofty goal time that will send you to Kona, but still setting a PR, no?
|
|
Chris
Olympic Member
Posts: 121
|
Post by Chris on Oct 4, 2008 9:18:25 GMT -5
If you wish to use an analogy like that, yes a utopian society sounds wonderful. however, think of it like this, in the boston marathon the winner takes home a lot of money, the guy that finishes last, a t-shirt. Do you think that guy that finishes last deserves that same cash prize as the winner. you get rewarded for your higher accomplishments. Its one thing to be treated with dignity, and I think everyone should be treated with the same dignity, no argument there. but to say they are all equal is different.
|
|
|
Post by Charlie on Oct 4, 2008 9:38:01 GMT -5
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.
Age group athletes are not motivated by money....at least not within the sport. I have no problem with a Kenyon returning home with the ability to feed their family and help their village. Running is an occupation for some. Funny thing is Braylon Edwards will make a lot more then the winner of the Boston marathon. Last I checked, Braylon has won nothing.
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Oct 4, 2008 13:56:48 GMT -5
to comment on charlies utopia statement, it is imposible to accomplish that. Just think of it this way, in a utopian society, everyone is equal. that means even if you spent 4,8,12 years learning to be and engineer, doctor, whatever, it doesnt mean a darn thing, the lowley individual who did nothing in life will earn the same thing you do. Chris you are correct. It is impossible because it removes the motivation to excel Cuba, Soviet Union, North korea have tried it and failed. here are some thoughts on economics; "D" 0%-----------------"C" 50%---------"B" 75%-------"A"100% On the above graph, "A" represents where you work, get paid and keep all of the money you made. If you made $100.00 and walk into a store that has every item $99 or less you have 100% freedom. 100% freedom gives you more choices and a higher standard of living. Thomas Jefferson said that "more freedom means more choices" At point B you work and keep 75% of your pay. 25% is taken away. Less money, less choices, less freedom, a lower standard of living. Point C half of your money is taken, less money, less choices , less freedom and lower standard of living. Point D is where all your money you earned by working is taken away. You are then called a slave. If you take the above graph and apply it to any nation. The closer they are to "A" the more money they will have , the more choices, the more freedom and a higher standard of living. The further toward the "E" the less money,less choices the lower the standard of living. You can make any rich nation poor by taking more money away from them and you can make any poor nation rich by letting them keep more of their money. Examples Britain's economy was drowning in high taxes. Margaret Thatcher was elected and cut taxes and almost immediately began to recover. Korea was in poverty after the Korean war. The North got communism and was promised free housing, free health care ect. The last 10 years over 2 million people have lived on the edge of starvation. South Korea was given freedom and has the 8 highest GDP in the world. They both have the same language, climate,culture. 40 years ago Detroit had the number 1 economy. After high taxation and liberal policies it is currently 65th in the nation. There are two ways for someone to take money from you. 1. you get paid, walk out to your car someone puts a gun to your face and takes it. 2. you get paid walk to your car open you paycheck and see the government has already been there The effect is the same less money, fewer choices, less freedom lower standard of living. No one knows best how to spend your money than you. You earned it and will seek the best value at the best price. You pay for it you use it, a first person purchase. If you buy something for someone else with your money. As in a gift. It is your money so you care about price. You will not use it so you do not care as much about quality; " she will like green". a second person purchase. Lets say at the office every week everyone puts a dollar in the pot and at the end of the month there is a raffle. The boss takes the money hands it to you and says go buy something. You have $150 and as you walk down the street you see a 6 foot stuffed green frog. You look at the price and it says $149 so you buy it. At the office they raffle it off. The secretary wins and you bring out this frog. Everyone laughs and she puts it in her car and takes it home. This is a third person purchase.It is not your money so you do not care about price and you will not use it so you do not care about the quality. By definition every Government purchase is a third party purchase. It is made by someone else's money that will be used by someone else. Whenever a Government seeks to take away your money and says it can spend it better than you it is in the process of making the nation poorer. They always say they will not tax you but they will tax the "man behind the tree" or someone else. They may say we will tax the "Big Corporations" (Said with a deep harsh voice). Remember when the Government takes away money it is making the nation poorer.,less freedom , less choices and lower standard of living. Corporations are a piece of paper. Whenever there is a tax it is people who are being taxed. Big corporations do not print money. Any tax on gas, rubber, oil will be added to the price of the product. Guess who will pay the tax? Anything the government has gotten it hands on has been ruined; health care, education ect. A common practice is to make promises about providing for the people. The motive is fairness and equality. Problem; the government does not produce anything. It must take from someone. When they do the people will object. Then you have to kill them. Stalin 35 million killed, Cambodia 2 million. The symbol of the French revolution was the guillotine. Cuba 300,000 killed. They make promises but with a price. Less freedom, less choices and lower standard of living. You can listen to a politician ( does not matter which party) and know where they stand. Either the Government is the answer , with many promises and higher taxes. Always leads to fewer choices, less freedom lower standard of living. Or it is not the answer , personal responsibilty, smaller government and less taxes. More choices, more freedom higher standard of living. mike
|
|
|
Post by Brandon on Oct 4, 2008 17:04:52 GMT -5
Mike, I agree with what you are saying to some degree, but I don't think higher taxes always leads to lower standard of living. The state of California has the highest tax burden of any state in the union, and simultaneously has the 8th largest GDP in the world (ahead of Canada and Spain). California has had a progressive tax system for some time, and standard of living is as high there as anywhere. I think small govt. and less taxes IS the answer, but personal responsibility is the key. The problem is too many people aren't responsible and that is where government is meant to come in IMO. Arguably, early government interaction (a.k.a. bigger govt.) could have kept the housing bubble from growing so large and causing so many problems. Big government isn't the problem, bad government is. Or maybe I should say, a greedy government regulating greedy people is the problem. We always seem to return to taxes, it seems
|
|
|
Post by Aussie Rob on Oct 4, 2008 17:41:19 GMT -5
I think of taxation as membership dues. I want to be a member of something that provides me benefits, that only seems fair; be it this club, or the country i live in.
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Oct 4, 2008 19:47:04 GMT -5
Mike, I agree with what you are saying to some degree, but I don't think higher taxes always leads to lower standard of living. The state of California has the highest tax burden of any state in the union, and simultaneously has the 8th largest GDP in the world (ahead of Canada and Spain). California has had a progressive tax system for some time, and standard of living is as high there as anywhere. I think small govt. and less taxes IS the answer, but personal responsibility is the key. The problem is too many people aren't responsible and that is where government is meant to come in IMO. Arguably, early government interaction (a.k.a. bigger govt.) could have kept the housing bubble from growing so large and causing so many problems. Big government isn't the problem, bad government is. Or maybe I should say, a greedy government regulating greedy people is the problem. We always seem to return to taxes, it seems I just read where Arnold wants a bailout for California. It takes time to destroy a good econmy. It takes time to restore a bad one. Those policies in California have been living off past prosperity but give it time the principles I wrote still hold in the end. mike
|
|