Initial (and sarcastic) reaction: Tell me why Senator John McCain hates the United States of America . . . He must, because he clearly wasn't wearing a flag pin during the last debate. (Though Palin's pin is probably big enough for the both of them. - She would've been a great waitress at that place Jennifer Aniston worked in the movie Office Space, right? Flare and what not.) So, let's take this debate one point at a time so that you can understand my opinions and why I have those opinions without any questions.
First Question: What the frak are you going to do about this financial frak-up!?
John McCain seems to want to buy everyone a house. . . at least, if you defaulted on your mortgage he would like to buy you a house. . . (This is $300-billion of his plan. . . what the rest is, he didn't care to mention.) And, McCain thinks he knows the criticism of this plan. It's not fair to the people who didn't frak up their mortgages. Ok, maybe that is a criticism, but frankly, that's not a compassionate complaint. If you could afford not to mess up your mortgage you don't NEED his help. So there.
BUT, I still have criticism. (Why wouldn't I? I'm an opinionated person.) My problem is that the Republicans are still obsessed with the market even though it has clearly failed, even though there has always been govt. subsidies for various businesses (ie: the railroads when they first got built) that prove laissez-faire capitalism has never been a true tenant of this country, and even though for all their trickle-down-effect ramble the gap b/w rich and poor b/w haves and haves nots is growing not shrinking. (See Paper: One for further details.) So, what is my criticism? WHY ARE YOU GOING TO GIVE THE BANK SO MUCH MONEY!? It's like food stamps or section 8 housing, the only reason these are supported by Republicans is because they put money right back into the private sector allowing all of this pretend laissez-fair capitalism to continue. Tell me why food stamps, which until recently only BIG BUSINESSES (sorry farmers or mom-and-pop stores) could accept, were the best idea for helping the working-class? These were just subsidies that helped the wealthy grocery stores more than anything else. And that's how I feel about McCain's housing plan too. . .
Also, what else is he going to do?
Now Senator Barack Obama, I give him props big time for wanting to give tax credits to companies providing jobs within the U.S. That pretty much spits in the face of the Republican notion that giving tax breaks to companies is good for our economy because it provides jobs. . . Blue collar jobs and now high-tech jobs are being outsourced, and you can no longer even pretend this isn't true. So, yes, give incentives to companies to locate here IF they actually provide jobs here! Point Obama
Where Obama loses me is his 98% of small businesses make less than $250,000 a year so they'll be fine with his tax break plan. Additionally, he said that he wants to give these companies additional tax breaks. I'm unclear. . . ALL small businesses get these additional tax breaks, or just those 98%? Even if it is for all of them, are the tax breaks enough to make up for the fact that they are making > $250,000 annually. Basically, I'm worried that 2% of mom and pop stores will fall through the cracks.
McCain also babbled about Joe the Plumber and whonot. . . And freaked out 'cause Obama told Joe that he would spread the wealth around. . . I know we are a capitalistic society, but much of the Republican base is supposedly Christian. . . And the base has people of the Christian persuasion that believe the bible is the inerrant word of God. . . um. . .
A stranger ran up, and kneeling before him, asked, 'Good Teacher, what must I do to win eternal life?' Jesus said to him, 'Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone. You know the commandments: "Do not murder; do not commit adultery; do not steal; do not give false evidence; do not fraud; honour your father and your mother."' 'But teacher,' he replied, 'I have kept all these since I was a boy.' As Jesus looked at him his heart warmed to him. 'One thing you lack,' he said. 'Go, sell everything you have, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come and follow me.'
-Mark 10: 17-21
Then he said to his host, 'When you are having guests for lunch or supper, do not invite your friends, your brothers or other relations, or your rich neighbours; they will only ask you back again and so you will be repaid. But when you give a party, ask the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind. That is the way to find happiness, because they have no means of repaying you. You will be repaid on the day when the righteous rise from the dead.'
- Luke 14: 12-14
All the believers agreed to hold everything in common: they began to sell their property and possessions and distribute to everyone according to his need.
-Acts 2: 44-45
The whole company of believers was united in heart and soul. Not one of them claimed any of his possessions as his own; everything was held in common. With great power the apostles bore witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and all were held in esteem. There was never a needy person among them, because those who had property in land or houses would sell it, bring the proceeds of the sale, and lay them at the feet of the apostles, to be distributed to any who were in need.
-Acts 4: 32-35
Correct me if I'm wrong, please, but it sounds like God wants us to spread the wealth around much more radically than Obama does.
Second Question: We've got NO MONEY. . so what programs will you cut?
Obama says he'll cut the programs that don't work. (no shit Sherlock) He also avoided answering the question any further by explaining where we should INVEST money so we can SAVE money in the long run. It's hard to disagree with his list of investments, health insurance, energy policies, education. . . Right, that's all stuff with which I agree, but still, what would you cut? He doesn't answer.
McCain also tried to avoid the question by talking more about buying your house. But got cornered into answering the question by Schieffer at which point he offered the solution of a spending freeze.
Obama came back with an opinion with which I agree. THAT'S A HATCHET AND WE NEED A SCALPEL. He goes on to say how some programs don't work and should be defunded but some work and are underfunded - we need to fund those programs. Right, good, fund programs that work and defund programs that don't work. That sounds so logical and simple and obvious, it's almost disgusting that this needs to be said! However, it worries me on one level. How can you be sure which programs would work if properly funded? Will he cut programs he says don't work because he doesn't know they would work if they were properly funded? Um, since I don't have any specifics on which programs fall into what category that's as far as I can comment.
Third Question (and a ballsy one): Can you balance the budget in your first term?
McCain's solution is creating jobs through energy independence. He goes on to comment on the anger of U.S. Americans. So um, I am confused why it is ok to call the entire country angry, but not certain parts of it. (As when Obama said people in small town U.S.A. get bitter because they are hard-pressed.) Does anyone else see the contradiction? Obama says people get angry because of economic hard times and he gets in trouble because he's an 'elitist.' Well, McCain who can't remember the number of houses he owns but is NOT an 'elitist,' says people get angry because of economic hard times and it'sallgood.
Anyway, McCain started talking about how he fights against special interest groups and has stood up to his party whereas Obama has never stood up to his party (Ok, perhaps that is just a sign the McCain's party is wrong more often than Obama's, but that's just my opinion). . . This leads Obama to his first real strike in my book. Obama brags about how he is for pay-for-performance for teachers where the rest of the democrats are against it. UH NO! NO! NO! Obama shut your mouth. How can he be pay-for-performance? High-stakes testing, which is the only way one would judge the perform ace of the teachers, is not an accurate measure of a teacher's performance! Children with a high amount of cultural capital (more likely than not this means white, middle-class, suburban children) will perform better on those tests independent of the teacher. Additionally, curriculum is often absent of culturally relevant teaching. (see the post Paper: Two for much further details); the curriculum in place is Eurocentric and assumes whiteness is the norm. This gives an advantage to white children over children of color independent of a teacher. Also, teachers and their influence on students do not exist in vacuums; the school district in which a teacher teaches is largely responsible for the outcome of a student as well as the community in which that child grows. Furthermore, teachers who need to worry about gang violence and children who come to school hungry have more pressing issues at hand than making sure a student passes a regents exam. These problems are more likely to show up in low-income communities than in wealthy communities. HOW CAN HE BE FORE PAY-FOR-PERFORMANCE? Ouch, it hurts. (Then again, I was never one of those who thought he was perfect.)
So, this attack McCain made about Obama not standing up to the democrats basically allowed Obama not to answer the question about balancing the budget at all. But Obama did go on to attack McCain for his agreement with Bush on economic policies (while simultaneously giving him props for disliking torture - one positive aspect of McCain I do believe.)
McCain went on to list his disagreements with the Republican Party and a few questions arose. #1, he stood up to them about Climate change, meanwhile his running mate believes climate change is not the fault of people. - McCain is the top of the ticket (though Palin may act as though their positions were swapped), so that doesn't really matter much, I just found it interesting. #2 WHY IS HE SO PROUD OF STANDING UP TO THE REPUBLICANS IF HE WANTS US TO VOTE REPUBLICAN? Palin seriously is the epitome of the Republican base, and I'm personally not convinced John McCain is going to last four more years. So, I am supposed to vote McCain into office with someone who represents a long list of things with which McCain himself disagrees. . . Not gonna happen buddy. #3 He didn't really point out many economic issues in his long list. . .
Ok, moving on to the Fourth Question: Got the guts to say to his face what you said about him behind his back?
This question just FEELS TEDIOUS TO ME, so I'm not gonna obsess about it too much suffice to say that McCain needs to drop this Town Hall B.S. - Someone telling you 'no' to something is not an excuse to viciously attack them! Seriously, if I ask Tabby to make dinner and he says no, and so we both sit around hungry, because I also am not in the mood to make dinner, I cannot, therefore, walk up to him and stab him through the chest or something psycho. . . Sometimes people tell you 'no.' Civilized people get over it and move on with their lives. Hmm. . . what else? John Lewis said mean things about McCain and Obama didn't refute them immediately enough. Well, tell me why it is Obama's business to correct other people's opinions? (Which, by the way, Obama claims he did refute: letting out a statement that the comparison of McCain to George Wallace WAS inappropriate)
Anyway, all this accomplished was to remind me of the time McCain corrected the crazy lady at one of his rallies who said Obama was an Arab. . . Remember what he said, "No ma'am, Obama is a hardworking family man" or something to that extent. Can we say racist-much? People of Arab decent can be neither hardworking nor family men apparently. Obama's campaign has made a similar mistake in my mind. Everyone accusing him of being Muslim and his campaign freaks the hell out and goes all "no no no he's Christian. 100% Christian. Christian, Christian, Christian." . . . Because Muslims are all evil, right? If I were a Muslim he would've lost my vote right there. How offensive to act like it is an insult to be called a Muslim. People are people and should not be prejudged psycho-presidential nominees. . . but whatever. I guess most of this country hates Arabs and Muslims too or something, because there really was not a large outcry against these intolerant, close-minded, biased statements.
Um so, Obama and McCain both have negative ads; they both attack each other; they both lie about each other; and Obama happens to know a guy who used to be a terrorist. That's all you get out of this back-and-forth. (Seriously, what an annoying question on Schieffer's part.)
So, may I defend Obama's relationship with Bill Ayers in a way he, as a viable politician, would never be able to defend it. Can I tell you the real reason it doesn't matter that Obama associates with someone who was a member of a group who bombed the Pentagon? Ok, so here it goes (and get ready to call me a raging leftist and wish the black plague upon my future grandchildren). So, people are always justifying the violence in war - for a greater good and what not. WW II - The U.S. had to go in stop a genocide. (not that they're following such logic in Darfur, but whatever.) Right? Violence is ok when it's violence towards peace (ha, whatever that means) and sponsored by the government. Ayers was protesting the Vietnam War. Not that I advocate violence, but I seldom advocate wars either. . . and to me, Bill Ayers's actions as a member of the Weathermen is one and the same as the U.S.'s actions as an ally in WWII. Hate me for it, but it's true. If you can justify the violence in wars as for a greater good, you can justify Bill Ayers's actions through the same measures.
Fifth Question: Why would your VP pick make a better President than the other guy's?
Obama brags about Biden's foreign policy experience and says that Biden never forgot where he came from. This is the argument that seems to permeate this campaign from both sides. Who represents the "real [U.S.] America?" Who is more of the common man/woman? Who can relate to people living in dying small towns?
I guess this is an important point of departure (from actual ISSUES) for a lot of U.S. citizens, but I don't see why we would desire a President who is the same as everyone else. Pardon me for saying so, but I don't WANT a President with whom I feel like I can sit back and have a beer. . . No, I want someone SMARTER than the average U.S. American. I want a President, no matter where they're from, to be able to relate to the ENTIRE country, not someone who can only understand small town U.S.A., or a global city. Am I the only one who sees things this way? Why would you want someone as intelligent as you are running the nation when you could elect someone MORE intelligent than you? Why would you want someone as cultured as you are when you could have someone more cultured? Why would you want someone who understands as much as you do about the dynamics in differing communities when you could have someone who understands the vastness of this country better than you? Need I go on? You get it, right? So, basically I don't care that Joe Biden "remembers where he came from," but it is important to me that he has always fought "on behalf of working families." I don't care that this is because he watched his own father lose his job. . . Nope, I don't care at all WHY he is fighting on behalf of the middle and lower classes, just that he is. Biden agrees with Obama's tax cut plan: give the cuts to the people who need them most. . . So yes, I believe Obama when he says Biden is "fighting for the little guy." (Ha, politicians have to say the WEIRDEST things!) So in this way, I agree with Obama that Biden would make a decent President.
Of course, McCain refuted Obama's point about Biden's foreign policy experience, saying he was wrong on National Security. But he really has no room to talk here when Palin's Foreign Policy experience consists of being able to see Russia from her state. . . right. . .
Ok, but whatever, before McCain got to that, he bragged about what a great role model Palin is for women and reformers. (Why women in particular?. . . I'm sorry, that just struck me as a bit sexist.) But basically McCain bragged about Palin's reforms as governor: cutting the size of government, resigning from an unethical board, understanding special needs families. That's all well and good except when I remember that I don't mind big government as long as it is a government not brimming with corruption. . . Yet Palin herself, with that whole 'Troopergate' business, was found to have done nothing ILLEGAL PER SE, but she did violate some ethics law. . . So, is she ethical or is she not? And that "bridge to nowhere" bit - she said no to the bridge only after it became a national scandal, and then SHE KEPT THE MONEY!
Ok, so McCain concludes by talking about what a breath of fresh air Palin will be to Washington. . .Excuse me Senator McCain, but if you are such a strong advocate of "fresh air" in Washington, why are YOU running for President? Seriously, he's been in the U.S. congress since 1983.
So, Schieffer flat out ASKS Obama if Palin is qualified to be President.
Now, Obama is trapped like a rat. If he says yes that's an endorsement and if he says no he is an elitist or a sexist or a small-town hater. . . So, what does he do. . . "That will be up to the [U.S.] American people." Ok Obama, I know you had to avoid answering the question because you were cornered, but that's just a stupid response. It is not UP to anyone to DECIDE if someone is qualified for a position. . . the U.S. American people can decide whether or not to GIVE Palin a position, but that has nothing to do with her qualifications. . . Whatever, politicians have to weasel their way out of awkward situations anyway they can I suppose. He then comments on her "special-needs" platform and throws a zinger at McCain, "[S]pecial needs will require some additional funding, if we're going to get serious in terms of research. That is something that every family that advocates on behalf of disabled children talks about. And if we have an across-the-board spending freeze, we're not going to be able to do it." Now, that was smart - catch McCain in a contradiction: He supports Palin's ideas about special-needs families (or at the very least brags about them during debates), yet, has no plan to fund them. . .
OK, so HERE is where McCain says Biden is qualified in some respects but that he screws up national security. I don't know his voting record, so I can't comment. . . But if national security is your #1, 2, or 3 issue, this is probably important for you to note and research.
Additionally, McCain takes this time to ask Obama why we have to spend more. . . and my thought was "duh McCain, the special needs children!" I agree with funding for special needs. . . but this debate confused me as to whose side I should be on. . . Palin is the one who talks about it, but Obama was the one who mentioned funding it and the McCain said "why spend more." So. . . you sort this out.
Sixth Question: How are you gonna reduce our dependence on foreign oil during your first term? (And somehow this was under the heading of climate change. . . though reducing dependence on foreign oil guarantees nothing about reducing carbon emissions if all we do is offshore drilling here.)
McCain doesn't even try to answer this question on any level. He says in 7-10 years (not his first term), if we start to depend more heavily on Canada (still foreign oil), we can eliminate our dependence on oil from places that threaten our security. Good job not answering the question McCain, but making it seem like you did. He also mentioned briefly nuclear (which scares me) and other alternative energy sources, but didn't go into details about how, with a spending freeze, investing in any of that would be possible.
Obama's turn to not answer the question: We can accomplish this in ten years. (Yeah buddy, also not your first NOR second term. . . ) Obama says we'll look at offshore drilling and that he's invested in alternative energy sources. (Once again, not going into details. . . Maybe that's because most of the nation is sold when the candidates talk about drilling.) He also says we need to design and build fuel efficient cars in the U.S.
NEWS FLASH: Ever hear of the EV1? Ya know, the electric car that General Motors built TWELVE YEARS AGO! Yeah, but with such pressure from big oil companies the cars were discontinued, customers wanting to renew leases were refused, and the cars were literally destroyed, except for the few in museums and whatnot. OK, right, so what does this teach us? GET OUT OF BED WITH BIG OIL AND WE WOULD'VE HAD THIS CAR CRISIS SOLVED BY NOW.
Also, McCain points out that Obama wants to "look at" offshore drilling while he wants to drill baby drill. . . As a cautious human being who doesn't want to see my island under water due to climate change anytime soon (or anytime at all for that matter), I PREFER the idea of looking at something before jumping to the conclusion that it's a good idea. But that's just me.
Free Trade also got mixed up in this question and I, personally, don't like Free Trade (Ha! how "UNamerican" do you think I am?. . . Well, it is true that I don't live in the 'real America.' But that's ok, because in my fake America we recognize that America is not a country but two whole continents and then some islands.) Ok, so, basically, to summarize, McCain believes in any and all Free Trade as long as it helps out U.S. Americans in some way or another. Obama only believes in Free Trade as long as there are no human rights violations in the process. . . I agree with Obama. I buy fair trade products whenever possible to ensure just that.
Seventh Question (and it's a big one!): HEALTH CARE- Would you favor controlling health care costs over expanding coverage?
Obama plays the optimist here and says, "we've got to do both." But seriously, I don't mind Obama's plan. I personally would prefer a plan like the one the U.K. has, but Obama's plan is better than nothing, for sure! First thing first, he has to cut the average family’s premium by $2,500 annually (who can argue with that) and allow people who don't have health insurance to buy into the federal pool that gov. people get to use.
Furthermore, Obama promises that insurance companies will no longer be able to discriminate based on pre-existing conditions. He promises preventative care for chronic illnesses. And he promises negotiations for the cheapest available drugs. I don't know how anyone with a heart who understands the dire state in which our healthcare system is, who knows that currently 46 million U.S. Americans are uninsured, who gets that filing for bankruptcy because you got sick is NOT ok, and who believes that health care should be a right and not a privilege can disagree with this.
McCain's plan doesn't make sense to me, and perhaps he is just not good at explaining it. But all I gather is I get $5000 to go to any state I want and get healthcare or something. Once again, he is calling for a plan that helps people who already have money and don't need help: the insurance companies. He basically wants to give insurance companies $5000 for every family in the U.S. Somehow this doesn't sit well with me. Also, I want the system to be simpler, not so complex it forces me to shop around in various states so I can figure out to which wealthy company I will give the government's money. (WEIRDNESS)
McCain also tried to call Obama out on forcing small businesses to pay for health insurance for their employees.
Well, Obama says these companies are exempt from paying into a kitty and only companies that can afford to pay will have to pay. (My concern is how he knows where to draw the line.) But this point really hurt McCain in that it allowed Obama to explain the flaws in McCain's healthcare plan. They're worth citing here.
Now, what we haven't talked about is Senator McCain's plan. He says he's going to give you all a $5,000 tax credit. That sounds pretty good. And you can go out and buy your own insurance.
Here's the problem -- that for about 20 million people, you may find yourselves no longer having employer-based health insurance. This is because younger people might be able to get health insurance for $5,000, young and healthy folks.
Older folks, less healthy folks, what's going to end up happening is that you're going to be the only ones left in your employer-based system, your employers won't be able to afford it.
And once you're out on your own with this $5,000 credit, Senator McCain, for the first time, is going to be taxing the health care benefits that you have from your employer.
And this is your plan, John. For the first time in history, you will be taxing people's health care benefits.
See the flaws? The most important one, I believe, is the point about how young healthy people will be the only ones able to go out and get insurance. There are people who can't get insured now because they are too old, or have a preexisting condition, not because they can't afford it. Those people are still out in the cold under McCain's plan. So not cool!
Now McCain freaks out about big government. The government has grown 40% in the past 8 years. . . We can't afford Obama, or it will grow even more Correct me if I'm wrong: The Republicans have had the white house for the past 8 years. During 6 of those 8 years, they also controlled the senate. Right? So, how are the Republicans still running on this B.S. idea of small government? McCain has been pandering to the Republicans ever since he started running for President (Maverick image sold and gone), essentially promising more of the same. So how is he going to say we can't afford a democrat in the white house when the republicans are the ones who fraked everything up? I don't get this logic. Do you get this logic? Please explain.
Eighth Question: Would you nominate anyone to the Supreme Court who disagrees with your stance on Roe v. Wade? (OK, honestly, who's gonna say 'no' to this if they're trying to appear non-partisan?)
McCain promises not to impose a litmus test. . . He would support anyone who was qualified and not judge their ideology, though Obama would judge their ideology. But then he says this weird statement "I would consider anyone in their qualifications. I do not believe that someone who has supported Roe v. Wade that would be part of those qualifications. But I certainly would not impose any litmus test." What does that mean!? It sounds to me like you are automatically less qualified if you support Roe v. Wade. However, he does not consider this a litmus test.
Obama has a similar answer, but on the other side. . . no litmus test, but it's important that a judge stands up for women's rights including Roe v. Wade.
Now it's McCain's turn to go for the gold. He attempts to appeal to the moral senses of all U.S. Americans, pro-life and pro-choice alike. Obama voted AGAINST life saving procedures for a child born as the result of a failed abortion. Even my sister, who is very pro-Obama, hated him during the primaries for this bit. . . That just looks BAD. And it was strategically intelligent of McCain to bring it up. He also accuses Obama of being for partial-birth abortions.
Unfortunately for McCain, Obama came back strong. And here is where he won me over. Here is where I went from a person who would vote for Obama 'cause, OHMYGOODNESS HE IS A BETTER CHOICE THAN MCCAIN, to actually wanting Obama to be my President. And it seems silly, but abortion is a wedge issue for so many people, I don't see why it can't be an influential factor in my opinion.
OK, OK, ready!? Firstly, Obama explains WHY he, and the Illinois medical society, voted against that bill that makes him seem like the devil: There was already a law on the books requiring doctors to provide life saving treatment to all infants - products of botched-abortions or otherwise. There was no point in voting for a law that would undermine Roe v. Wade, 'cause there was already a law in place doing what this bill was going to do. OK, but that's not the exciting part. Obama is also against late-term abortions of any kind as long as any law contains provisions for the life of the mother. - The bill against which he voted didn't contain such provisions. That's still not the exciting part. . . ready for it? READY!?
But there surely is some common ground when both those who believe in choice and those who are opposed to abortion can come together and say, "We should try to prevent unintended pregnancies by providing appropriate education to our youth, communicating that sexuality is sacred and that they should not be engaged in cavalier activity, and providing options for adoption, and helping single mothers if they want to choose to keep the baby."
Those are all things that we put in the Democratic platform for the first time this year, and I think that's where we can find some common ground, because nobody's pro-abortion. I think it's always a tragic situation.
AHH I love it! Do you know that this is what I have been saying since I was fourteen years old!? Educate people about birth control, provide free contraceptives, crack-down on child support payments, make it easier for single mothers to obtain welfare, give everyone health insurance so if they give birth in a hospital they're not in debt the rest of their lives, provide easy adoptions, free day-care, actual options for parenting students, refine maternity leave laws, crack down on coercive abortions, and GUESS THE FRAK WHAT! You have drastically reduced the number of abortions.
Abortions happen more often because women feel they don't have a choice. "If I have this baby I can't finish school." "If I carry out this pregnancy, I'll lose my job." "I have no way to provide for a child." "I can't afford it." Do you see this? People need to HAVE a choice. They need to have a choice that allows them to keep a child as easily as kill one. NO ONE HAS PROVIDED THIS.
The Republicans (beyond the group Feminists for Life, which isn't actually a Republican group, but does have more conservatives than liberals in it) have never taken the steps needed to reduce abortions. They rally behind overturning Roe v. Wade instead. (while never actually doing anything TO overturn it. Look at Bush's six years with a Republican Congress. . . Nothing changed anyway. Overturning Roe v. Wade is an empty promise at best, so why people still vote on it is beyond me.)
Say someone did have the balls to overturn Roe v. Wade. . . what would happen? Without social programs in place to prevent unintended pregnancies, and to aid needy mothers, people will do one of three things when faced with an unwanted pregnancy. One: give birth and then throw the child in a dumpster like those melodramatic prom queens you always hear about on the news (yuck and a half!). Two: Travel to a state where abortion is legal, thus disadvantaging the lower-socio-economic classes as they will be forced to carry out pregnancies and have NO MONEY to provide for their newborns. (Why not disadvantage one group more though, right? It's been working so well thus far!) Three: BACK - ALLEY ABORTIONS. . . because this way a baby can die AND potentially a woman as well!
OK, this sounds bad, correct? So, what we NEED to do, as a society that cares for each other, is systematically reduce the number of abortions through social programs and SEX EDUCATION. (Abstinence only programs don't work. Kids who take those vows are more likely to contract STDs because they still engage in oral sex without protection. . . Additionally, they engage in sexual intercourse, on average, about half a year after kids who DIDN'T take that pledge.) OK, so that's my rant. SAVE THE BABIES PLEASE. Don't just talk about overturning some court case that won't actually do anything to prevent bloodshed. . . Seriously, use you mind and develop strategies that actually work to prevent abortions. Obama is the only presidential candidate who has ever talked this way. . . and he won my support (though he already had my vote) because of it.
Final Question: What are you going to do about this country's LOUSY education system?
It's Obama's turn first and the only thing he says which is not already both painfully obvious and vague is about funding college educations. $40,000 tuition credit every year for every student in turn for community service. This still disadvantages the lower-income-groups as rich kids won't be forced to better their world. . . Wait! That's a good thing to force people to do! Get people involved in their communities or broader society AND pay for college all in one swoop. Genius.
McCain then advocates for vouchers and charter schools. All vouchers do, in my opinion, is allow everyone to ignore failing public schools. It's a way to ignore the actual problems! (The same way abortion is the way we ignore lack of affordable day care, child support, maternity leave, etc.) He wants competition b/w schools because McCain apparently thinks schools should be treated in the same manner as the free market (which is a FAKE CONCEPT ie: railroads!).
Ok, well, you get the picture. They argue about vouchers for a while, and now I'm bored of writing cause this is OH SO LONG.
No comments:
Post a Comment