Do you think.... - about the presidential debate

cameragirl21 wrote: Ok, so I asked my friend Zoya, who lived in the former USSR long enough to obtain a PhD there, so in other words, she lived there for her entire childhood and a good portion of her adult life also, about her thoughts on the presidential speech because it was such a hot topic here and I was curious what her thoughts were.
I will preface this by saying that Zoya is insanely smart, her IQ exceeds 160, she's been invited to join Mensa and I've yet to see her unable to solve anything. I am considered extremely intelligent by all who know me, both friend and foe alike and yet I can't even begin to imagine what it would be like to have Zoya's brain, to me that is akin to having special powers to levitate or freeze time. That said, I was curious what her thoughts would be on the subject.
Zoya is a registered democrat but NOT an Obama fan, to say the least, and she lives in Chicago, which is Obama's hometown as far as I know.
Anywho, she brought up something I had not considered, which is why I am inclined to ask about it here--she says that a president should NOT be addressing children under any circumstances or for any purpose because he's a politician and not a teacher and she sees it as a form of brainwashing and an opportunity to perhaps sway high school kids who will be old enough to vote in 2012...in other words, she believes that it's just another form of politicking and using tax payer money (because tax payers keep public schools in business) and children as a target rich environment for brainwashing. She also says that as someone who grew up in a commie hellhole, she says that the signs that our country is headed that way are alarmingly real...in fact, she asked me to ask my parents, who also spent a good portion of their lives in the USSR if they agree. She told me that any Russian who grew up there as she did agrees with her that we are headed into what she grew up in and Obama's speech is just further proof of that because now our president is attempting to brainwash children.
I came here as a toddler so while I remember and very much understood at the time, and still do understand the difference between a commie nation and the USA, I can't say I can see what Zoya is referring to because I didn't really live it the way she did. But she says this similar to the Pioneers, a kids commie club that all Russian kids had to join to indoctrinate them into the wonders of communism.
I personally see no harm in any president, whether I agree with his/her politics or not, addressing children for the purpose of keeping them in school and encouraging them to try hard and strive for a good education but she says she doesn't care whether she agrees with his politics either, it's not his place and shouldn't happen no matter what. She said she wouldn't even want a rabbi, whose opinions she would inevitably support to address a group of public school children, simply because she feels it's a form of brainwashing no matter how you look at it.
In other words, she says politicians should address the adults who may have voted for them (or not) but not address school children for any reason.
Do you agree? Do you see it as brainwashing? I know her opinion may seem extreme, over dramatic and perhaps a bit tin foil cap-ish to some but like I said, she lived in an environment that no one here can really relate to. I brought up her extreme intelligence and whatnot so no one here would brush her off as dumb because I guarantee that she isn't and you'll look long and hard to find someone smarter than she is, her IQ is actually higher than Einstein's. And I don't mean to turn this into a convo about how smart she is, just don't want anyone to brush her off as dumb and thereby brush off her ideas because dumb she ain't.
Your thoughts? Do you consider it brainwashing? Do you feel presidents should stick to politics and leave our children out of it?

MommyToAshley replied: There are many extremist that are intelligent, but that doesn't make their ideas any less "out there". The idea of brainwashing was brought up in the other debate. I understand that some parents have legitimate concerns, but I don't get the brainwashing argument at all. And, even if he were brainwashing our children, I can't think of a better message than to stay in school.

This is a simple message from the leader of our country saying, "Stay in school, do your best, be accountable for your actions, you are our future". Period. No politics. No brainwashing. Just a nice positive message to the youth from the leader of our country.

But, that's just me, everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

Kentuckychick replied:
We do not live in a communist nation. We live in a democratic nation where the children of today will become the leaders of tomorrow and I think that they, and ESPECIALLY the high schoolers who will be voting in the 2012 election, have every right in the world to know exactly who is running this country and to be spoken to by him.

Think about what your post just said (and don't take this as an attack, I know words can sound harsher than they're meant... these aren't harsh ) don't you WANT those high school kids to KNOW who they're voting for in four years? They especially are the ones who should be seeing the President! That's how they will develop their own thoughts and opinions on who to vote for next election.

As for the President speaking to children of all ages, I see absolutely NO harm in it whatsoever. There's no more brainwashing in saying "Stay in school" and "get an education" then happens at home on a daily basis. And that's the kind of mantra kids need to hear.

I said the other day in a post that who knows, the president 30 years from now could be a kid from today who sat through his speech and was inspired.

Obama is not the first President to speak to school children... he's just the first to do it as a whole. Where was Bush when 9-11 happened? With school children.

I personally think that children benefit an extreme amount by hearing from the leader of our nation. They don't have to be speaking politics while they're doing it.

MommyToAshley replied:

Well said. Although, Obama is not the first to address school children as a whole. Bush Sr. did the same thing during his administration.

Kentuckychick replied:
thanks for clarifying... i thought someone else did, but didn't want to say without knowing!

~Roo'sMama~ replied:
I agree.

Hillbilly Housewife replied: The term brainwashing has taken on different contexts in different parts of the world, and many americans associate it with having someone with their eyes propped open, tied to a chair, and watch images resulting in a zombified ghost of a person they once were, with radical ideals.

But "Brainwashing", in essence, means that you train someone to think or act a certain way, sometimes by using propaganda, alternating between negative consequences and positive consequences. Ie - discipline and rewards.

That can apply to potty training a child, it can apply to education, it can apply to mcdonalds commercials, and it can apply to torturing prisoners.

No, I don't think your friend is all that wrong. I personally think the president has no business speaking directly to young children. He won't be around by the time it's their turn to vote anyway. I'm all for his effort to pass along a good message.. but really, stay in school messages should be made in a format that young kids can relate to, not just some dude having a heart to heart on tv.




Besides.. and please correct me if I'm wrong.. but isn't the proper way to vote, voting for the party and not the person? At least, that's how it is here. We vote for the best party to represent our riding...based on what their party can offer...and depending on how many seats the parties each have is what determines who gets elected... we don't vote on a *person*, nor do we vote on an individual's capability to provide things for us, as voters.. so it really wouldn't matter if the current leader addresses us, socially, as opposed to politically.. because it's not him we're voting for, we only vote for the party to best represent our district..

MommyToAshley replied:
Not really... we are actually voting for the person who represents a particular party. A registered republican can vote for a democrat or independent if they so choose. I am a registered republican, and although I tend to agree with the philsophy and policies of those in the repbulican party and vote accordingly, I don't vote strictly along party lines. If a candidate in the opposite party stands on the same side of an issue that I think is most important then I may cross lines and vote for him/her. The candidate's ability to lead and their moral character also come into play. Afterall, this person is representing us to the rest of the world.

cameragirl21 replied: I am not certain if I agree that the president speaking to school children is brainwashing, I never thought about it that way till my friend mentioned it but I can see why she would think that, it's not the pres's place or job to address school children.
I do agree with Rocky that brainwashing takes many forms and is done by many methods, not just the usual form we think of whereby information is seemingly drilled into an unwitting person who is restrained against his/her will.
I also want to add that my friend is by no means an extremist, in fact, her political views are far more mainstream than many people's on this forum. She is center-left when it comes to domestic social issues and center-right when it comes to domestic fiscal issues and international issues. She just lived in a dictatorship where most of us haven't so the signs of trouble are far more apparent to her than they would be to most of us.
I have to say, I read "Animal Farm" when I was in 8th grade, it was required reading and I thought it was a great book. When I was in college or perhaps a touch older, my dad found the book somewhere in our house and decided to read it. When I came home to visit and found it in his possession, I mentioned that I had liked it and that it was a great book and he said, "well, it's different for me than it is for you because for you it's just a story whereas I lived it." It's not about extremism but rather applying experience to the current situation and perhaps being hyper aware of things that the rest of us aren't because they don't seem odd or out of place to us.

Hillbilly Housewife replied:
Yes but what I mean is on the ballots... do you vote for Republican or Democrat, or do you vote Mr. XYZ or Mr. ZYX

And, do you vote all the way to the top? Or do you only vote for your district?

MommyToAshley replied:
The actual candidate is listed on the ballot (but the party they represent is also listed). It's the same way for the president all the way down to senators, representatives, mayor, even city treasurer. Although, I do know many people that don't know much about their own local government and therefore vote based solely on what party they represent.

My2Beauties replied: Simply put...I don't buy into it and I do not believe he is brainwashing our children. Hanna's school sent home a form to sign if you DO NOT want your child listening to him speak, I didn't sign the form as I believe she should listen to our leader speak, he is our leader. If it were Bush doing this (whom I despised by the way) and the speech was solely about staying in school I would have allowed her to listen to him speak as well. It's a very positive speech and I have no issues with it whatsoever.

MommyToAshley replied:
Rocky, here is what one of our ballots look like, although the ballot I used was electronic, you get the idea:

http://blogs.dixcdn.com/capitalblog/wp-con...ballot-page.jpg

Hillbilly Housewife replied:

It just seems odd to me that american politics makes such a big deal about WHO the president is, because it seems to me that it should be more about WHAT the president represents.

Anyway, doesn't matter.

MommyToAshley replied: Jennifer, I didn't mean to imply that your friend was an extremist, but I do think it is an extreme viewpoint to say the president giving a pro-education speech to students is brainwashing. The term brainwashing has a different connotation than educating, disciplining, and training which the example of potty training would fall under.

Hillbilly Housewife replied: Thanks DeeDee... that's really interesting. We don't do that, at all.

Here's what our ballots look like (taken off the Elections Canada Website)


Elections Canada Website - ballot explained

Hillbilly Housewife replied:
Your perception of the term it where you derive that connotation. I take the term's definition at face value, whereas you're attaching/assuming a negative context, and I am not. So we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

((((If you care to see what positive contexts I am referring to, have a a read.

http://www.personaldevelopmentforum.com/en...ainwashing.html

http://www.swingofchampions.com/positive-brain-washing.htm

http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/brainwashing.html)))

MommyToAshley replied:
Our election is not based on popular vote either. We have an electorial college that is similar to your "seats". Rather than directly voting for the President and Vice President, United States citizens vote for electors (or how they wish for their electors to vote). Each state has a number of electorial votes (or electors) equal to the number of its U.S. senators (2 in each state) plus the number of its U.S. representatives (which varies according to the state's population). This was originally devised to prevent one geographical area that may be heavily populated from being the only deciding factor in the election. For example, if the election were based solely on popular votes, a few highly populated states such as New York, California, Florida, and Texas would decide the presidency. The folks in the less-populated Montana would have different needs, yet would have no representation

It is generally thought that the presidency is decided on election night and that electors must vote according to the results of their state, thus if a candidate won in Ohio who has 20 electorial votes, then all 20 electors must vote for that candidate (winner of that state takes all the votes). However, it is perfectly legal for the electors to vote contrary to the people's decision. I am sure it has happened before, but I haven't heard of it happening since I have been of legal age to vote.

With all that said, Maine and Nebraska are different, they are the only two states that use a district system. In these states, two electors' votes are made based on the candidate who received the most votes statewide. The remaining electoral votes go by districts, awarding the vote to the candidate who received the most votes in each district. I personally think all states should be set up this way as it would be a better representation of the popular vote yet still allow everyone's voice to be heard.

coasterqueen replied: Ahhh, aren't we all "brainwashing" our children in some form or fashion when we raise them to our beliefs? Same as with religion, there are all types out there, but we raise our children into OUR religion, right? Instead of entertaining all types of religions for them to in turn decide which one they want to believe in?

Am I not brainwashing my child into believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny when we know good and well they aren't real.


Hey Rocky, here in our state you have a primary election, which you cast your vote by declaring your party - meaning in the primary you walk into the polling place and they ask you are you voting Republican or Democrat and maybe Independent (I don't know about that one). This is a controversy in our state because a lot of people will not vote in the primary because they have to declare party. It can really hurt your job around here if you declare one over the other. Then after you ask for the party ballot, you vote on who you want in that party to go to the general election. In the general election you can vote democrat or repub or whoever, but you are actually voting on the people then.

Hillbilly Housewife replied:
By definition, yes.

The same we we brainwash ourselves in thinking that we are, in essence, good people, or that we are capable of success. Or that we must act a certain way (being civil, or polite, for instance). It's not always a bad thing. Many synonyms of brainwashing are indoctrinating, conditioning, catechizing, convincing, educating, and influencing. It is not always negative, which is what the majority of the people believe it to be, due to extreme cases where the people "in control" use means of torture to acheive their goal.

Hillbilly Housewife replied:
I guess this is more simliar to Canada's voting system than the rest of the USA.

Interesting.

coasterqueen replied:
Right, there is good and bad "brainwashing". I just prefer to brainwash my child, not have someone else do it.

Hillbilly Housewife replied:
Only on certain subjects, I'm sure.



I know I have a preference when it comes to the subjects my children are being educated on.. I wouldn't pretend to argue the indoctrination of math rules, for example, but I would object to them being taught that there is a Santa. (to use your example) My children go to a catholic school, not a public school. They are taught about the meaning of Christmas, not some Santa Hallmark crock of crap. I wouldn't judge the other children who do believe in Santa, nor the people who have led them to believe it, and I would never stoop so low as to tell a child that Santa doesn't exist, but I won't confirm it either. The school they go to DO use Santa, around Christmas, but the children are taught that Santa is an idea, not a fact. I'm ok with that. When I don't agree with something they learn in school, I tell them what I believe and why, and they can make up their own mind. I wouldn't say something a teacher said isn't true, just that there are always many different truths.

Children are inanely open minded. Just look at the typical childhood questions, and the amount of answers that we give them that are programmed into us... why can't 2 + 2 = 5... because it's 4.. but why is it 4.. it just IS. They then are programmed to believe that 2 = 2 = 4. It is.. but why?

MommyToAshley replied:
It's the context in which the term brainwashing was used that implies the negative connotation, not my perception of the term. Sure, you can give brainwashing a positive spin if you take the literal definitition, but I am referring to it in the context of how Jennifer's friend used it.

MommyToAshley replied:
I can see the significance and necessity of stating your party affiliation in a primary, especially open primaries. Rocky, in case you didn't know, primaries are elections that the political parties use to select the candidate to represent their own political party in the upcoming general election. Some primaries are closed, only members of that party can vote and some primaries are open, you can vote regardless of you party affiliation. Karen, it sounds like you have open primaries? Open primaries in themselves are controversial.

Hillbilly Housewife replied:


In THAT sense, yes, I'd have to agree with you that this particular situation uses brainwashing in a negative context. I'm just trying to say that not ALL brainwashing is negative.

cameragirl21 replied:
exactly.

MommyToAshley replied: I am clueless how that can be perceived as brainwashing being used in a positive context. I think it is fairly obvious what she meant, and I think we will have to agree to disagree on both accounts -- the intended meaning of the word "brainwashing" and whether or not the President of the United States, as our leader and a role model, has the right to address school age children and give an inspirational speech about staying in school.

Hillbilly Housewife replied:

Fair enough!

MommyToAshley replied:
Just curious, I am confused by the word "senate" here. I am assuming your senate is different from our senate (which makes legislature) in that it is more like our electoral college. Is this correct??

Hillbilly Housewife replied:

In short, "Prime ministers normally choose members of their own parties to be senators, though they sometimes nominate independents or members of opposing parties. In practice, a large number of the members of the Senate are ex-Cabinet ministers, ex-provincial premiers, and other eminent people."

I can't say whether it is or isn't like your electoral college, I'm still not sure exactly how that works.

Hillbilly Housewife replied: PS - I work a 10 minute walk away from where they "sit", i live about 10 minutes away by car, when there's no traffic.

MommyToAshley replied:
The sole purpose of the electorial college is to place a vote for the presidencey. (As mentioned above, they tend to vote as mandated by the people of the state in which they represent but they do not legally have to vote in respect to how the general voted). But, they do not have any other function... I see it as a ceremonial role.

So, your senate does create legisalture but yet they are not elected officials. That seems to grant a lot of power to individuals that are not elected?

Hillbilly Housewife replied: they "can" create legislature, although they don't normally. Their purpose is more so that government doesn't have FULL control. The Prime Minister generally chooses who he'd like to be on the senate - but you have to know that of the 105 seats, the only time a position opens up is when a Senator reaches the age of 75. They cannot be kicked out (well, I suppose they could if indicted of murder or some other heinous crime...? lol) But the Senate is appointed by the Governor General, who is second only to the Queen of England.



So.... when all is said and done.. the federal party who holds the "power" really doesn't have any power at all.. because everything the party passes by legislature has to be approved by the Senate... and when it's approved, the Gov-General STILL needs to give it her blessing.. upon blessing from the Queen herself. (ETA - the Queen doesn't actually need to give the blessing, it's inferred when the gov general gives the Royal Assent.)

So..if anyone ever wonders WHY parliament sessions in Canada take so long....

Hillbilly Housewife replied:
In other words, these are people who could choose to overtake an election process by voting in who THEY want to be sworn in, even if it doesn't reflect what the country's people wants??????

How is that legal?!

MommyToAshley replied:
I wasn't sure if any elector had ever voted against the people's vote and here is what I found:

In recent history rarely has an elector failed to vote automatically for the candidate winning his or her state's popular votes. In 1976 a Republican elector in Washington voted for Ronald Reagan instead of Gerald Ford, the Republican Party's candidate. In 1972, a Republican from Virginia voted for the Libertarian candidate rather than the Republican, Richard Nixon. "Faithless electors," as described earlier in the above examples, are are a flaw, yet never has a broken pledge affected the outcome of an election.

I am curious as to what would happen if the electors did change the outcome of the election, but I really don't want to find out nor do I think it will be likely to happen.

Kentuckychick replied:
I personally am registered as an independent (though I tend to vote left more often) and I would never ever just vote down the line unless I knew for certain that I agreed with the policies of every single one of the politicians.

There have been plenty of ballots on which I've voted for a good mixture of both democrats and republicans.

Kentuckychick replied:
although the electoral college did change the outcome of the election that one time when George Bush won the election but Al Gore won the popular vote.

In that case it wasn't one particular state, but the people's choice didn't count as much as the electoral college.

MoonMama replied: Like Dee Dee said "There are many extremist that are intelligent, but that doesn't make their ideas any less "out there"." You just came over and went off about the same dang thing just in different words. You claim to be so opened minded but I have yet to see one instance of that! I think plain and simple you want everyone to agree with on whatever subject tickles your mind that day and if we don't we are all wrong and unintelligent! And I know others here agree with me.

I don't think the president of our nation addressing our kids is brainwashing by any means, and I think anyone who wants to educate and encourage them to stay in school is on the right track, all the better and they should absolutely talk to them. WE as parents have the right to decide what our kids will and will not take part in, in that sense. I think if you (well a parent I should say) doesn't agree with it or want them to listen to it.....KEEP THEM HOME!!!! Its as simple as that.

MommyToAshley replied:
This was simply a case where the electoral vote differed from the popular vote, but the electors still voted as they were directed by the people's vote of their individual states.

I was referring more to the electors voting differently than mandated on election night. Technically, the presidency isn't decided until two weeks later after election night when the electors officially cast their vote. So, in your example above, Al Gore won the popular vote, but George Bush won more electoral votes. George Bush still won the most electoral votes and when the electors cast their votes, Bush should be President. However, the electors could have voted differently and gone against how they were suppose to vote according to their state and given the election to Al Gore. Could you imagine the chaos that would have caused for an already controversial election!

The same with this past election. Although Obama was announced the winner on election night and clearly "won" the most electoral votes, the electors could have voted for McCain when they officially casted their votes two weeks later and he would be our president and it would be perfectly legal. There were two cases where electors casted different votes than what was mandated by the people's vote, but it's never happened to where an elector changing their vote has changed the election. But, I suppose it could happen. I personally don't understand the reasoning for this part of our law. I understand the reasoning behind the electoral college, but I don't understand how it could be legal to vote differently than how the people of their state vote. I think this part of the law should be revised.

my2monkeyboys replied: I may get screamed at for this, but I somewhat agree with your friend. I do believe we are quickly heading towards a socialist government. I have read and heard from many different sources (not nut-job wackos) that many of the decisions made by this administration are the same kinds of decisions that would be/have been made by socialist governments.
As for the speech he gave I don't have a problem with it, even though I disagree with Obama down to my bones.

coasterqueen replied:

My2Beauties replied:
Oh wow You guys get on us for bashing Bush for being a dumba- which hey let's face it, the man isn't the brightest crayon in the box but yet we're supposed to respect the president....however a dem gets in office and suddenly he is brainwashing us and turning us all into commies...wow I'm ROFLMAO at the hypocrisy

MommyToAshley replied:
Not all of us think that way... there are many of us that oppose Obama for his policies and have logical arguments. All that she said was that the policies are leaning towards a socialist nation, not that Obama was brainwashing anyone. And, she said she didn't have a problem with the speech. I personally think the idea of brainwashing and the comments that Jennifer's friend made are a little aburd. There's extreme views on both sides.

luvmykids replied:
First, at least she IS being respectful in her disagreement.

Second, she didn't once say he's trying to brainwash anyone or turn us into commies. What she said is there is talk of this administration doing or talking about doing things that bear striking resemblance to what socialist governments do.

Just another case in point of the hypocrisy in Obama supporters, actually....it was perfectly fine to disrespectfully bash Bush, but how dare anyone disagree with Obama?

And, fwiw, even Putin (President of the USSR) has commented on things we're doing that seem to him to be socialist or at least mildly headed that way.....if he doesn't know what socialism is, I'm not sure who would.

On a side note, if it were true he was trying to "brainwash" anyone, I'd have to say he's doing an awful job of it....the whole point of brainwashing is for people to NOT realize what you're trying to do/convince them of.

My2Beauties replied:
Oh I know Dee Dee, like I said your views and opinions are your views and opinions I have no qualms with that. Everyone here knows I'm an avid Bush hater and whenever I would say something about him on this board I was totally slammed for it and I never ever once said the awful things people are saying about Obama, I simply stated the man was an idiot and I didn't agree with his views and the war. Now Repubs are saying Obama is turning us into a socialist country and he is brainwashing our kids and blah blah blah......I just find it funny that I was bashed for saying Bush was an idiot but they can bash Obama and do it by bringing up some extremely serious accusations. Again, I am ROFLMAO at this, so funny!

coasterqueen replied:
Here, here!!!

luvmykids replied:
Calling the President an idiot is respectful?

coasterqueen replied:
But are they bashing you for your views on Obama?? Confused on your argument.

My2Beauties replied:
Honey - idiot is nice compared to what I have to say about Bush, let's just leave it at that. I'd rather be called an idiot then a commie, socialist, brainwasher, all of the above statements about Obama! At least an idiot doesn't mean you're trying to completely change the core foundation of the entire country as you guys are accusing Obama of doing. Karen to answer your question, no they are not bashing me and I am not bashing anyone either, I'm simply stating that I am laughing at the hypocrisy going on here because I was slammed dozens of times (as was Jeanne and several other dems on this board) for stating our dislike for Bush and his policies but yet you guys are doing the same thing to Obama. Not that I seriously care, free country, do what you want, but I'm just saying I was bashed for saying what I wanted to say about him and now you guys are bashing him. I will freely admit I bashed Bush, hated him and that's my prerogative but how dare you guys jump on me or anyone else for bashing him and saying I'm disrespectful when you guys are bashing Obama. It's a two wat street my sweethearts

coasterqueen replied:
Hmm, well thank you for kindly explaining it to me. Now I see your point. I'm not called honey or sweetheart very often by others except my husband.

MommyToAshley replied:
I just wanted to add, I took it that she agree with her friend on the socialist part, not the brainwashing.

I think people get caught up on the words socialism and communism. As I see it and I was taught --Communism and Socialism are not the same thing. Communism is a form of government in which the state operates under a one-party dictatorship system and declares allegiance to Marxism. Socialism is a is not a political system; it is an economic system that is the basically the opposite of capitalism.

Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly gives the power and wealth among a small segment of society creating an unequal society, does not provide equal opportunities for everyone to maximize their potential. Therefore socialists advocate the creation of a society in which the government owns and controls all means of production and allows for wealth and power to be distributed.

So, if you look at it in that sense, Obama's ideas (and the democratic party in general) are more socialistic in nature, especially when you talk about redistributing wealth through taxes and creating socialized medicine. That doesn't mean that Obama is trying to turn us into a communist country, it means that he ideas are leaning more towards a socialist nation than what those of us believe in the republican party. Again, I am not saying that all democrat are socialist... I am just saying that their basic beliefs lean further towards socialistic beliefs than those of us on the right.

coasterqueen replied:
That's how I learned it too in high school and college. Although I probably slept through a lot of it in college.

Kentuckychick replied:
Yeah, trust me, if we lived in a communist nation we wouldn't even be able to sit here on this board and bash the president at all. I think we'd all better thank our lucky stars for what we have.

As for this country becoming a "socialist" country (which I think some individuals in their arguments and accusations -- not saying specifically anyone here -- need to look up the true definition of the word "socialism")... it's not happening. People act as if Obama will be the President forever. As if every single decision he makes will be the decision we're stuck with the rest of our lives.

Like Public Healthcare for example. I doubt honestly that we will ever end up with truly public healthcare in the sense that Obama is fighting for and trust me, that's okay with me. But, as an American who has had to pay nearly $10,000 in medical expenses in the past two year (who has a good job and has her own private insurance) I can tell you right now that I will be perfectly happy if SOMETHING changes.

It's like the long standing war/battle/dilemma over Roe v. Wade. Lots of people through a hissy when they found out there was possibility of r.v.w being overturned. It was infringing on human rights and yadda yadda. Well if anyone had stopped to think about it, there was literally a slim to none chance of that ever happening.

A president does have a lot of power, but he does NOT have supreme power.

If there's anything I learned from Bush's loooong run in office (and allow me to be slightly disrespectful for a moment) it's that THANK GOD IN HEAVEN one man can only ever be the president for a set period of time.

coasterqueen replied:
Can you provide us with the "true" definition of socialism, please. ETA: change meaning to definition, lol.

cameragirl21 replied: First of all, I think it's very unfortunate that any person here should feel the need to start a post with the words, "I will probably get screamed at here for saying this but"...unless someone is insulting you personally, or engaging in some form of prejudiced bigotry about a certain group of people, such as, "all Hindus, Jews, Chinese, etc are (fill in the blank with something negative here) there is NO reason to scream. If you can't express yourself without screaming then perhaps it's time for a time out, seriously.
Everyone here is entitled to their opinion, full stop. If you don't like someone's opinion, have the courtesy and maturity to express your disagreement respectfully. If you can't do that or simply don't wish to, move on to a topic that you may find more palatable.
Back to the OT--I want to stress that from the get go, I said that I don't really agree with Zoya but I do find her perspective interesting and worth considering. And by considering, I do NOT mean that you should agree with it because she's has a genius IQ or whatever but rather that you may take into account her life experience living in a communist dictatorship, which is an experience that no person here has had and say to yourself that while you may not agree with her or find her opinion odd, she may have a valid point because she has the benefit of experience that you lack. That does NOT automatically make her right and you wrong. But I think it's fair to say that someone who has lived in Cuba, for instance, where Castro would speak for hours and people were forced out of their homes to listen to him speak, together with their children, outside in the Cuban heat for hours may feel a bit wary when a politician chooses to address school children and essentially creates for himself, a captive audience. That does NOT mean Obama is anything like Castro but I do feel that someone who lived that life may have the benefit of life experience and thereby may bring another valuable opinion, even if you disagree with it, to the table.
Incidentally, I took Zoya's advice and asked my mom, who lived the same experience that Zoya did for nearly the same amount of years, what her thoughts are on the subject...my parents did not vote for Obama. My mom actually had a totally different perspective that I did not consider--she said that because Obama had such a difficult childhood and overcame so much adversity to ultimately win such a prize position, he is qualified to encourage to focus on education because he is living proof that with education and dedication and perseverence, one can overcome much and become successful. She did not agree with Zoya at all, even though she conceded that she can see why Zoya or any person coming from a communist dictatorship may automatically feel the way Zoya does.
That said, I initially gave this topic no thought--that the president wants to address school children about education wouldn't have elicited a second thought in me at all. Once I saw the discussion here on the topic and read people's objections, I became curious and opted to ask some people IRL what their thoughts on the subject are.
My opinion still remains what it was--that there is nothing wrong with the president addressing school kids about eduation. I don't agree with Zoya but I respect her right to her opinion and I believe that anyone who lived what she lived may be inclined to such an opinion and that does not make it extreme or absurd...it's par for the course when you come from where she comes from. My mom on the other hand,washed her hands of the old country (at least in this sense) and opted to base her opinion on the qualifications of the speaker, regardless of her thoughts on his politics. That too, imo, is a valid point.
I think much can be learned from these discussions and much more would be learned without casting personal attacks or any person feeling the need to preface his/her opinion with concern about being screamed at, there is no need for that. I should also add that perhaps my stressing Zoya's extreme intelligence was a bit ill conceived because I see some people took it to mean that that automatically makes her right. I disagree with Zoya on several political/social issues and we've had some heated debates of our own and I don't think I'm wrong or dumb, nor is she, we just see it from different perspectives. I just didn't want anyone automatically writing her off as dumb just because her perspective may be hard for people who grew up in the USA or Canada to relate to or understand.
I understand why the dems here (myself included) may feel resentful that their comments on Bush were not well received here while the repubs feel free to rip on Obama and I can see why the repubs here feel resentful that Bush got called all sorts of names and yet now they get chided for ripping on Obama.
I have to say that I am continually amazed at the nice, supportive PMs I get here from people whose political/religious beliefs could not possibly be more different from my own. It's not about agreeing or disagreeing, it just comes down to respect, plain and simple.
I also want to say that if I made anyone here feel dumb for not agreeing with Zoya, I apologize and that was not my intention. And also, bottom line--everyone has a right to their opinion, no matter how much it doesn't jive with yours. I think I have learned more here from those who don't share my opinion than those who do and that is what makes these conversations so valuable, imo. They lose their value when people start slinging personal insults and others feel afraid to respond for getting screamed at.
Sorry this got long.

MommyToAshley replied:
I completely agree that there need to be some changes in healthcare. But, that doesn't mean that Obama's plan is the right plan. I agree with some aspects of his plan but not others. I suspect it will come to some sort of a compromise. This is a critical moment in our history -- I hope we get it right.

Kentuckychick replied:
Here is the merriam-webster definition of "socialism"

Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1837
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done


And a newer definition of socialism;

Socialism refers to various theories of economic organization advocating state, worker or public ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with an egalitarian method of compensation.[1][2][3] Contrary to popular belief, socialism is not a political system; it is an economic system distinct from capitalism.


... Based on these definitions I hardly think we're headed towards a socialist society.

Trust me though, there are things Obama has done/planned that I'm not happy with either. The bailout for one... (but that began before him and Bush felt there was no other option either when he signed the first one - so perhaps there truly was no other option). And that's not really socialism because the government hasn't taken over those businesses, they've just bailed them out and of course only time will tell where that goes.

Public healthcare -- but that's not really socialism either, because there would still be private healthcare as well (it would just be more expensive) and medical professionals would not be working for the government, they'd still be working for private coorporations. I don't think public healthcare is a good idea, so don't get me wrong... but it's not socialism either.

And then, the speech in schools. Not socialism. Although, in this country, the government run school systems (which have always been that way) could very well be considered socialist. Would we call every president who ever supported the public school system socialists?

Nah.

coasterqueen replied:
This isn't what we may be going towards?????????

"And a newer definition of socialism;

Socialism refers to various theories of economic organization advocating state, worker or public ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with an egalitarian method of compensation.[1][2][3] Contrary to popular belief, socialism is not a political system; it is an economic system distinct from capitalism."

Isn't this what most Democrats want? - "a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with an egalitarian method of compensation"

cameragirl21 replied: I am democrat and a capitalist. I believe in equal access to all for education (including college and grad school), health care, equal access for gay people to marry and reap the financial benefits of marriage, etc.
I also believe in incentives and working toward your dream and that those who are more motivated and may work harder, dream bigger, or perhaps simply be more talented have the right to earn more and reap the benefits of that, etc.
I agree we need some healthcare plan, don't know enough about Obama's to say for sure it's the right one but I think the fact that the idea is even being discussed is progress.

MommyToAshley replied:
As of July 10, 2009, General Motors is majority owned by the United States Treasury.

Kentuckychick replied:
Um... no. At least not this one.

"equal access to resources" -- absolutely! I think every American should have a chance to make it... and in the past that hasn't always been an option... and to an extent it still isn't, but there will never be such a thing as equal compensation for work that isn't equal.

Doctors and Lawyers will always make more than the guy working at McDonalds... that's life. That doesn't mean that everyone shouldn't have a chance to work SOMEWHERE.

And I do think that there are some individuals out there who need help from the government to get going... some use that sure... but some don't and for those who don't, it's worth it.

Kentuckychick replied:
Only because they were bailed out by them... technically, as soon as they pay off the bailout (which several big companies have), they no longer will be.

Were it not for the government, General Motors would no longer exist... and the unemployment rate would have skyrocketed.

80% owned by the government does not equal 100%.

And I would like to add again... George Bush was responsible for part of this... not just Obama.

The bailouts were one of the big things on both these presidents parts that I have disagreed with.

MommyToAshley replied:
I don't think the percentage is that important (which is actually 60%). The fact is that our gov't has majority ownership in what was a private enterprise. There are so many reasons this is a bad idea, but one that comes to the front of my mind is that the gov't has a vested interest for GM to do better than other car manufacturers.

I was against the bailouts from day one, regardless of who did what.... at least we both agree on that. And, if GM failed because they weren't competitive or financially responsible, then they deserve to fail. There would be another car company that will succeed, do the job better, and hire those employees -- that's capitalism. And, no, Obama isn't completely to blame, congress played a role in passing this, but that doesn't negate the fact that our gov't is the majority owner in a major business regardless of how anyone tries to spin it.

Again, I still do not think we are headed towards a socialistic nation, I simply said some of his policies lean that way... there's a big difference.

MommyToAshley replied:
Unless you are one of the people that is in a higher tax bracket because you worked hard to earn more money only to take home less pay.

luvmykids replied:
EXACTLY....you got to speak your piece about Bush (and continue to do so), and others have that very same right. You've mentioned that others got upset but if I recall correctly, that didn't stop anyone, back then it was "It's my right to feel this way" and I hate to tell you, but that is still true. If you or anyone else got jumped on (by me, at least) it was for the lack of respect in the actual disagreeing, I've tried to remain respectful in my disagreements with Obama (which are every bit as strong as yours were/are for Bush) because like it or not, he IS the President.

What I am ROFLMAO about is the fact that somehow Bush haters think they're qualified to say he "deserved" it, but because Obama is a little more smooth with the speeches, he doesn't.

And for the record, I do believe everyone is entitled to their opinion. You're absolutely, 1000% entitled to your feelings about Bush. It's not disagreeing that I think is disrespectful, it's the manner in which it's done.

cameragirl21 replied:
So true.

msoulz replied:
Absolutely true.

my2monkeyboys replied: I think the fact that Obama said that he wants to redistribute the wealth, on television no less, shows that he is very much leaning towards socialism. Not every decision he makes may be a to-the-core Marxist decision, but there is enough that lends itself to socialism that I do not at all agree with. I am for capitalism, pure and simple.
And for what it's worth, I didn't/don't agree with Bush on all of his policies/decisions either. It's not about sticking with one party or the other, it's about the core beliefs.

Hillbilly Housewife replied:
I noticed a lot of people here seem to have difficulty having a conversation without assuming that someone trying to explain their perspective is trying to change their mind.

Listening to another perspective and acknowledging that there are other opinions than your own whether you agree or disagree with them is what makes a discussion productive, it is NOT trying to convince someone that your opinion is better, or right... it is simply validating the other person's right to have a different opinion than your own.

Ask any couples therapist.. the best way to resolve an argument is to understand what the other person is saying and respect that, even if you don't agree, by letting the other know that you understood what they're trying to say. Most of the frustration comes from feeling like you're not being understood.

It's ridiculous to think that just because someone is explaining to me what they think and why, that I will jump down their throat. But, join me in the "being screamed at" boat, because I have a different perspective than the majority of people here, and that's why I hardly bother to post anymore.. because automatically I will be accused of trying to change someone's mind even if the ONLY think I'm trying to do is give a different perspective. Thing is.. I don't care if I get screamed at. For myself, to be screamed at by someone who has a different opinion and is convinced that I'm "wrong", or someone who assumes I'm judging them because I think differently... frankly I just feel sorry for them.

When I give a different opinion it doesn't mean I expect anyone to agree with me, and it doesn't mean I expect anyone to admit that they may be wrong. But for the majority of the people here who dwell on one word that they misinterpreted (and post it all over the place as if each time was some subtle dig at the minority opinion ), I DO expect that they will take their own interpretation of it and start victimizing themselves when they don't agree with my opinion, accusing me of disrespecting them and trying to change their minds.

From there it's all downhill, because no matter what the intent was, those same people are absolutely fixated on how they feel they need to defend themselves even if there was nothing to defend themselves about and will lose sight of the discussion in lieu of trying to prove that they have a reason to feel offended, which in turns makes the minority poster feel bad for having offended someone even if there was no intent to, and having to go back and forth on trying to apologize and explain and blah blah blah.... Really. Productive. Not!

Some of you may say "you always post this, that, topics that are controversial..." but in turn... you're probably the same people who always feel attacked instead of taking the discussion for what it's worth. If you took the different opinion as just that, rather than making your own intents and assumptions about it, maybe these posts wouldn't be so inflammed. It burns me that the minority opinion posters are who get all the blame from you majority opinion posters - but if you take a look at all the psots on controversial topics... you majority opinion posters are who assume intent and make the post about how you feel victimized and attacked rather than continuing the discussion and exchanging ideas and thoughts on the subject in a productive manner.

Minority isn't welcome here, and for anyone to think that's not true, well, look back at the posts, and see the ones who typically disagree with the minority opinions always coming back and being on the defensive about the minority opinion, on whatever subject it may be.

As far as I'm concerned... if they feel THAT threatened by a different opinion, then perhaps the realization that there might be something to it is what's bringing out the claws? I don't know, I don't care. My opinions are not an attack on anyone, but those who assume I have intent to attack...can click the "back" button.

(you is general. But if you feel targeted, take it up with me in pm, unless you don't have the cohones to have a chat with me one on one without the others stepping in for backup)