Obama '08?

okie, It's because you are so isolated in your own world, you don't understand why learning more than one language enriches our own life.

Not only that, but in a world economy, it behooves us to be able to communicate to as many people around the world as possible.

In the world of economics and politics, learning the language of our friends and enemies provides us with an advantage.

In some circles, it's known as "intelligence."

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

She's about as un-redneck as they come.

"Un-redneck." Cute.

0 Replies

The truth is that when you analyze secondary languages versus your own, you understand more than how to communicate. You learn in general some differences in culture.

For instance, I speak Japanese, and many people are always asking me how to say certain things. The most common phrase is...

"How are you?"

The problem is that you can't ask that question in Japanese. You can ask a question similar to it...

"Ii genki desu ka?"

but that means "do you have good vitality?" The point here is that we assume that this phrase is a polite question only because it is polite in our form of communicating. In Japan, if you were to ask it, you might alarm a person. They might think you are asking if they are well because to you they look sick/ill.

In a better understanding of a culture, we understand the uniqueness of our own culture, and it provides a window to see more abstract solutions and ideas. Upper level thinking and all.

Arguments for economy and community aside, we will benefit. Like I said, an English speaker will learn a lot about their own language from studying a second one.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Diest, I wrote (my first sentence that you attacked): okie, It's because you are so isolated in your own world, you don't understand why learning more than one language enriches our own life.

0 Replies

CI - Sorry if things were unclear. I was supporting your argument from a different angle.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

realjohnboy wrote:
I tried, ci, to find the reference to "toothless" NASCAR fans. It is about 10 pages back here on this thread. The inference, of course, is that folks who watch car races are southern rednecks, and, as you know, southern rednecks, like realjohnboy, are missing most of their teeth. And we are stupid.

As well as all sitting around reading their Bibles and cleaning their guns. Bitterly

In case anyone inferred from this exchange that it must have been one of those darned liberals disparaging NASCAR fans as toothless, think again -- it was Brand X.

0 Replies

rabel22 wrote:

I have had that problem since Kricinich dropped out of the race. This elect a democrat no matter what has made me very nervous. If he is a clinton democrat than he is just slightly better than Bush. He seems to me to be a republican lite just as Clinton was. Too much backtracking on issues that are important to me.

I'm inclined to agree! Matter of fact, I DO! Very Happy

0 Replies

I don't think anyone can identify who Obama is at this point; even the republicans are at a loss as to what to attack against Obama. That's kinda funny, but it's not good for the democratic base. They're all lost.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

I have to wonder why Obama seems to be dodging this meeting.
By dodging it, it looks like, to me, that he doesnt want to face veterans...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/12/us/politics/12obama.html?ei=5124&en=318f2ce8402d7125&ex=1373515200&adxnnl=1&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink&adxnnlx=1215867724-AkKSJMGvT85uAkwKfES5ng

A coalition of military groups is planning a nationally televised town-hall-style meeting with the presidential candidates near Fort Hood, Tex., the largest active-duty military installation in the country. But so far, only Senator John McCain of Arizona, the presumptive Republican nominee, has agreed to attend.

CBS has agreed to broadcast the meeting live from 9 to 11 p.m. Eastern time on Monday, Aug. 11. The candidates would face questions directly from an audience of 6,000 people, made up of veterans, service members and military families from the base.

Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, the presumptive Democratic nominee, has not agreed to participate

Where's Bush? You voted for him, didn't you? Why can't HE solve his OWN problems! McSame, says he's going to KEEP our soldiers there for 100 years! Let McSame talk to the active duty and veterans about THAT! Why should Obama solve Bush's problems? Very Happy

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

I don't think anyone can identify who Obama is at this point; even the republicans are at a loss as to what to attack against Obama. That's kinda funny, but it's not good for the democratic base. They're all lost.

Heck, I am TOO! Cool

0 Replies

teenyboone wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
I have to wonder why Obama seems to be dodging this meeting.
By dodging it, it looks like, to me, that he doesnt want to face veterans...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/12/us/politics/12obama.html?ei=5124&en=318f2ce8402d7125&ex=1373515200&adxnnl=1&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink&adxnnlx=1215867724-AkKSJMGvT85uAkwKfES5ng

A coalition of military groups is planning a nationally televised town-hall-style meeting with the presidential candidates near Fort Hood, Tex., the largest active-duty military installation in the country. But so far, only Senator John McCain of Arizona, the presumptive Republican nominee, has agreed to attend.

CBS has agreed to broadcast the meeting live from 9 to 11 p.m. Eastern time on Monday, Aug. 11. The candidates would face questions directly from an audience of 6,000 people, made up of veterans, service members and military families from the base.

Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, the presumptive Democratic nominee, has not agreed to participate

Where's Bush? You voted for him, didn't you? Why can't HE solve his OWN problems! McSame, says he's going to KEEP our soldiers there for 100 years! Let McSame talk to the active duty and veterans about THAT! Why should Obama solve Bush's problems?

McCains going to be at that town hall meeting, why isnt Obama?
And lets be honest, you dont want Bush to get us out of Iraq.
That would kill any chance Obama had of winning the election, and you dont want that to happen, at any cost.

And you can complain about what McCain said only AFTER you start complaining about the dem president that has had us in Europe since 1944.
thats 64 years so far.

0 Replies

mysteryman, yeah Obama must be scairt meeting vets in town hall meetings. Not McCain though. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnyEMLXvgV8 Their voting records when it comes to voting for veterans benefits are vastly different.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

I don't think anyone can identify who Obama is at this point; even the republicans are at a loss as to what to attack against Obama. That's kinda funny, but it's not good for the democratic base. They're all lost.

My theory is that Obama is a flaming leftist with grand ambitions of power, but he is triangulating everything at this point. Everything is fair game to him, in fact it is sort of a game, in his effort to be elected. All the big crowds have given him a sense of entitlement, and a sense that his admirers will not abandon him no matter what, so he is going after all the other voters as well. McCain's one strong card to play, national security, and Obama is possibly thinking he will even take that away from McCain. It is my suspicion that Obama is now entertaining thoughts of not only victory, but perhaps he can make it a historical landslide, and then who knows what kinds of thoughts he may have if he could make that happen? Who knows what is going on in the man's head, but I think he is somewhat grandiose or even delusional in what he may be dreaming of. Just a guess, ci.

The FISA bill is somewhat revealing, maybe the man does have a soul, as he opted for national security instead of following what his radical base would like him to do. Perhaps it is for votes, as indicated above, but we don't know, do we, ci? One thing is evident, it is inconsistent with plenty that he has said in the past, which makes him a phony or hypocrite at least.

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/07/10/obama_fisa/

0 Replies

"Flaming Leftist?"

T
K
O

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

"Flaming Leftist?"

T
K
O

I think it is pretty well established that Obama is well left of center, and I think he is further left than most people suspect. That has been one big reason why many radical left wingers have lined up behind Obama. They did not think Clinton was moving fast enough on their agenda, so they jumped on the Obama bandwagon.

As I posted on another thread, there are two possibilities for Obama. One being he is very focused on what he believes, he is very leftist, but he cannot be totally honest and he knows this, and he is now triangulating and flip flopping to gain votes, figuring that his leftist support will be temporarily disappointed or confused but will vote for him anyway. The other possibility is that Obama, while being very liberal, is actually a very confused man, not that focused on what he believes, and is in a state of flux in regard to his beliefs, because he has no solid underpinning of convictions that drive him. He is a mixed bag, some almost conservative, others being very liberal, and every day something else comes forth that is totally unexpected.

I tend to believe he fits the first description, but I hold out hope that if he elected that he could turn out to fit the second description, and he will end up having a little bit of common sense dawn on him when confronted with the awesome responsibility of reality staring him in the face. So when reality kicks in, he might wake up to common sense decisions over what he might have previously thought was sensible in his liberal idealistic world.

0 Replies

"Liberal idealistic world?"

I'm very interested in your rhetorical choices re: Obama. You use words like "flaming" sometimes which can be solely energetic and jump off the page at the reader, other times you use phrases which stay level but aren't justified.

When I look at the Democrats, I often see a great deal of struggle as to who they are, and what they want. They are a heterogeneous group constantly exercising compromise within their own ranks. Nothing could be further from ideal. I think you imply that liberals are blind to certain practical arguments, but I feel as if before thy even square off with a republican, they have already worked out many rough edges within.

Vision is certainly different between each party, but I don't think you've justified in any way how the world the liberal lives in is so divorced from reality.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Diest, to discuss idealism for a moment, I do find that to be very fascinating, and I think there is a very basic difference from whence people draw their foundational beliefs. My idea of it is as follows.

I think liberals are more idealistic in terms of mankind being basically good, that the whole idea of evil is not taken seriously. Thus decisions are based upon shades of gray. In contrast, conservatives definitely believe in the concept of good and evil, with right and wrong having more definite boundaries and distinctions between them.

In accord with the above, liberals tend more to believe that the elimination of wars, and that utopia or something close to utopia can be achieved on earth, mainly through government helping them to achieve it. This also includes the elimination of poverty, etc. etc. In contrast, conservatives accept history as being a realistic example of what to expect in the future, and so a strong defense is deemed more necessary and crucial, that wars are more or less inevitable to protect freedoms, that poverty will likely never be eradicated, etc. etc., and that the best course of action is to encourage individual freedom and responsibility, both to minimize suffering, such as poverty, etc., and to remain free by winning any war against those that may have evil or misdirected intents.

Liberals tend to see government as the best answer to social ills, while conservatives tend to turn to religion or their belief in God as the personal solution to their ills. Liberals tend to be more group minded, while conservatives believe in more individually directed responsibility and freedom.

There is alot more to it than the above, but that is sort of a very quick introduction to it. as I see it. And to summarize, I think the conservative view is more realistic in terms of what the world is really like, while the liberal view is more idealistic and what they wish it to be like.

The difference between these two views are manifest in virtually every issue, from gasoline prices to foreign policy.

0 Replies

okie, thanks for the reply. I think this might be a subject worth it's own thread, so I started one here.

T
K
O

0 Replies

"Vision" and "politician", no matter what party, do not belong in the same sentence.

You want a visionary president? To hell with Obama. Elect Steve Jobs. And, he's a Democrat too (except in April when taxes are due).

0 Replies

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/29983/thumbs/s-NEW-YORKER-COVER-SHOT-large.jpg

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know