Stinger said:
Fine, with you it is fact, and therefore, I don't have to debate it with you anymore.
I have no idea what his 10 point plan is, the School of the Americas doesn't exist anymore, it operates differently under another name, and provides a worthy service, why does he want to disband it? And what are you speaking of concerning the geneva convention, the courts just ruled that the Gitmo detainess do NOT come under the conventions. But if you believe we should not be allowed to interrogate Alqaeda and terrorist, that we must pay them a monthly salary while we hold them, that we must allow them to communicate with their families, that we must provide them education and all the other things afforded by the conventions I'd like to hear you make that case.
I suggest you read his speech on the ten point plan, but I just picked out specifics from it.
I will always say that human beings deserve to be treated as human beings, without abuse, without torture. In his plan, he feels that we should specifically abide by those rules in regards to terrorists.
The Supreme Court ruled last year that detainees at the U.S. naval base in Guantanamo Bay have a right to challenge their imprisonment but left it to lower courts to handle individual appeals. That didn't say that they were not governed by the Geneva convention. That is the contention of the Bush Administration. The administration had claimed that the executive branch has the unilateral, unreviewable constitutional authority to deem any person (even a U.S. citizen here in the U.S) an "enemy combatant" -- and, on that basis, to detain that person indefinitely without access to lawyers or courts. Thanks to a nearly unanimous Court (only Justice Clarence Thomas dissented), this step toward despotism-yes despotism-was avoided.
Oh, and SOA is still up and running, the bill is still in Congress and hasn't been passed. It has 113 co-sponsors and it may finally succeed in being closed.
And this is suppose to do what? Why do you believe the even more ineffectual federal government can do a better job of lending money?
I believe it will cut down on a lot of excess expenditures and thus allow more money to go out to those who need it.
:rofl oh you are not serious, why on earth would he want to get the federal government involved in such a convoluted problem? Teacher make quite enough money to buy houses, I know lots of teachers and they are not lacking in housing. What I do know is that a major report came out this week showing the success of Bush's "No Child Left Behind". Quality education, and getting back to it, are not about federal housing for teachers. But please explain the reasoning behind this theory that giving a teacher a government house will make them a better teacher? What happens if they stop teaching? What if two teachers marry?
They sign a contract for six years. They train for a year and then teach in underpriveledged schools for 5. I don't know about the rest of the country, but California needs this badly. The teachers in the public schools here are horrible, they are underpaid, they don't care about their job, and frankly shouldn't. The housing situation in Los Angeles is grim indeed and teachers would be hard-pressed to find a house in their price range. Plus, the benefit of this program is that they are being paid less than regular teachers (30k) and wouldn't be teaching most likely without it. I think it is great, but go ahead and attack, I just won't listen. For me, like no race is important with you, this is fact.
Sounds to me like you candidate has a lot of no very well thought out plans.
Great for you.
Ahh more people of government assistence is his answer? Why not more people able to provide for themselves?
Ah, the Republican response. I guess I am more socialist in the sense that
I LIKE TO HELP PEOPLE LIVE!!. But anyway, his main focus is on the children of those who cannot provide for them medical care, surely you aren't against helping children?
The nation's or the federal governments? And when did this responsibilty get assigned to the federal government? And since the federal government has no money of it's own what he is really saying is that it is the duty of the federal government to take money from Sam and give it to Peter so he can pay for his health care. The federal government provides nothing for anyone until it takes it from someone else first.
The nation as a people, the government as the organization that can provide it. It is our responsibility as human beings, but in your capitalist mindset, it is a dog eat dog world and we are just living in it tryin to make our way.
Define "fair". A good portion of my retirement money is invested in Drug companies, where does he get off coming after my money to make it "fair" for someone else?
So far all you are offering from him is BIG GOVERNMENT and lots of GOVERNMENT CONTROLS.
Tough *****? Honestly, you should diversify. It is fair for everyone because all drugs will be lower in price and thus the elderly won't have to make the decision...should I eat or get my meds?
I like big government, while you don't. So you are obviously pre-disposed to hating the guy, which is just fine by me.
I frankly live here and see very little. Saw more when I lived in Chicago.
I have seen a lot there as well in my three trips.
I travel Alabama, Mississippi, S. Louisiana. and the Florida pan-handle week in and week out. I work with people or all races who work with people of all races.
The majority of my school was a "minority," trust me I get it. I work now with all races and it doesn't matter to me. But my point is that people have predujices deep down which are really hard to let go of. You are not one of those people obviously, but I personally think that a lot of people are.
For the Democrats yes, but more and more blacks are rejecting that kind of rhetoric.
Agree to disagree. I know plenty of African-Americans who would be laughing on the ground at that comment.
I agree. I don't look to that honestly except in political terms. I feel that it would not be wise to run a woman or black for president because of the predujices of the country-voting blocks and all.
That was the typo I meantioned in my follow, that was actually a quote from you.
Fine, then what do you think of it?
Would you vote for a black woman running for President on a Republican ticket because you believe it is time this country had a black and/or woman President?
No, but I believe that people in this country might vote for that reason or vote to try and make sure that reason (woman/minority) doesn't get into the main office.
Rice perhaps, Hillary no way in h***. She would never run as VP and no one would ever want her to be thier VP candidate. With Hillary it's all ME, she could never subordiate herself.