Obama's 30 minute Infomercial in Off Topic

ID:49968
 
Oct 30 2008, 10:33 pm (Edited on Oct 30 2008, 10:47 pm)
I'm making a quick post on the Barack Obama Infomercial because god knows if you get your political news from SilkWizard your going to end up voting for Palin 08 and doom the free world to economic turmoil and redundant folksiness at inappropriate times.

Basically Barack Obama has made a very respectful, honest and powerful advertisement which addresses his major priorities of repairing the middle class in America. Also the commercial answers the Republican question: "who is Barack Obama?", giving a quick mini biography of his life. I guess the question is, could John McCain spend 30 minutes talking about his policy stances and platform for president without simply attacking Barack Obama? Im going to hazard a "no" for the uncharismatic geezer. I loved this video, I'm sorry for those who are too bitter to appreciate the message behind it, I understand that the representation of middle America is hokey, but it is important.

Also, I would like to just remind those who believe in the republican party and don't like picking a president based on merit but rather affiliation, that many respected Republicans have endorsed Barack Obama. Those Republicans who see that John McCain has poor judgment and had the courage to cross party lines to make the best decision for America and the free world deserve a pat on the back, meanwhile those who still defend Palin as being competent and capable of being runner up to President of the free world and still believe John McCain is the man for the job considering the economic crisis and his obvious oblivion to how economics work... well shame on you. This isn't a sports team, people from all across the world are waiting for the economy of the world and the pride of democratic nations to return following 8 years of poor judgment. Please make a choice based on the canditates merit and the effectiveness of their proposed changes. Also, for the love of god, stop the smear tactics. This is a presidential campaign not a high school popularity contest. Having a democracy means having the capacity to change what party you vote for based on serious legitimate issues, if you take democracy and treat it like a competition when really the entire world is in this together, then you missed the point.


Good luck America, remember the entire world is actually rooting for you to make the best choice for everybody, and we will all be watching the election coverage.

Here's the Infomercial in case you missed it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtREqAmLsoA


PS: SilkWizard, if you believe that taxing the middle class less and taxing those making over 200,000 a year more is bad for America then you are incorrect. The fact of the matter is that even McCain was against the tax breaks to the very wealthiest originally, he has changed his stance as an obvious act of giving in to the Republican party who obviously have some seriously corrupt affiliations. Retooling your health care industry to be competitive with other developed nations is not a bad thing, spending money on education when the richest country in the world also has some of the worst schools is not bad. I'm certain you have some understanding of economics, surely you dont believe that the government wasting money in Iraq and giving tax breaks to big companies is better than investing it into educating your globally uncompetitive youth and keeping hard working Americans from going bankrupt due to a horribly corrupt medicare system. Talking to hard right wing republicans sometimes seems like a lost cause.

Also your criticisms on the lack of super polished industry film transitions and etc etc is forgetting the fact that the infomercial has to, in order to be effective, be perceived as "not Hollywood" and certainly not over-polished and insincere.

PPS: I have no problem with those who wont be voting for Obama, and you are free to your opinion. Except SilkWizard, who I refuse to agree to disagree with, because he has decided to be far too disagreeable, and illogical, about politics.
#1 Oct 31 2008, 8:33 am
Great post, Dan.

Also, I would like to just remind those who believe in the republican party and don't like picking a president based on merit but rather affiliation, that many respected Republicans have endorsed Barack Obama.

Yes. I read reason.com quite a bit and was surprised at the number of Obama endorsements there. These people are generally libertarian conservatives; I would have expected more Bob Barr endorsements.

The fact of the matter is that even McCain was against the tax breaks to the very wealthiest originally, he has changed his stance as an obvious act of giving in to the Republican party who obviously have some seriously corrupt affiliations.

That is exactly right. There was no way McCain wins the Republican nominations without his "mea maxima culpa" of his tax, immigration, and other non GOP stances. Sure, this is disingenuous, but did this at the hazard of his standing in the Senate; I consider it a very positive attribute of McCain.

Retooling your health care industry to be competitive with other developed nations is not a bad thing,

Would you accept this on a federal level though when even Gov. Romney and Massachussetts can't get it done?

spending money on education when the richest country in the world also has some of the worst schools is not bad.

Wouldn't removing the federal aspect of education put the onus on the states to create competitive programs and curriculum? I mean, you could just let Kansas teach creationism -- the 49 other states would eventually be more competitive in the science job market. If Kansas saw that their state revenue was impacted by a draconian education system, they would be forced to change it.

I'm certain you have some understanding of economics, surely you dont believe that the government wasting money in Iraq and giving tax breaks to big companies is better than investing it into educating your globally uncompetitive youth and keeping hard working Americans from going bankrupt due to a horribly corrupt medicare system.

I agree with you here. If the government is going to be a statist spendfest, well I guess I'd want it to be invested in infrastructure.

Talking to hard right wing republicans sometimes seems like a lost cause.

Some of them are. Some people do not have good coping mechanisms for cognitive dissonance. Some talk louder; some try to cling to irrelevant and strawman explanations...

All you can do is be open and honest about your own thought process.
#2 Oct 31 2008, 9:20 am
Bootyboy wrote:
Wouldn't removing the federal aspect of education put the onus on the states to create competitive programs and curriculum? I mean, you could just let Kansas teach creationism -- the 49 other states would eventually be more competitive in the science job market. If Kansas saw that their state revenue was impacted by a draconian education system, they would be forced to change it.

I don't know if that would be the case. In the end, someone would have to step in(namely the Feds). This is like saying that the Taliban would have eventually figured out that holding on to an extreme(and fallible) form of Islam is not the best solution.

I don't like the idea of states being solely in charge of education, because if that system had been in place, my last three years of High School would have been significantly different than my first 10(K to 12=13). And since people move to where the jobs are, millions of people would be negatively impacted by the complete shift in what they're taught.
#3 Oct 31 2008, 12:36 pm
Disturbed Puppy wrote:
I don't know if that would be the case. In the end, someone would have to step in(namely the Feds). This is like saying that the Taliban would have eventually figured out that holding on to an extreme(and fallible) form of Islam is not the best solution.

Let's use that line of thought. Let's say that you are a US citizen of Afghani decent and you have relatives, or perhaps share some beliefs of the Taliban. You have the right to home school your children, go to a "coop" style school based on radical Islam, et. al.

Sure there are risky side effects; but it's encompassed within a shell of individual liberties. It has to be the responsibility of the parents to "educate" their children -- make them competitive in the open market when they are 18-22. If they are being taught to strap a bomb on their waist, there's nothing on a federal level that would be able to detect it nor stop it.

I don't like the idea of states being solely in charge of education, because if that system had been in place, my last three years of High School would have been significantly different than my first 10(K to 12=13).

But who's to say that the federal government would do a better job?

And since people move to where the jobs are, millions of people would be negatively impacted by the complete shift in what they're taught.

Wouldn't you agree though that you are personally more influenced by your desire to learn than your curriculum? Wouldn't you rather have an open market of educational philosophies to choose what you and your eventual wife believe is the right method (see. Harbor, Montessori, IB, etc...)
#4 Oct 31 2008, 12:45 pm
Wow I had to join your guild to make a post, thats really annoying but okay, SilkWizard already made a post about it and you're just somewhat repeating him...
#5 Oct 31 2008, 1:22 pm
Bootyboy wrote:

Let's use that line of thought. Let's say that you are a US citizen of Afghani decent and you have relatives, or perhaps share some beliefs of the Taliban. You have the right to home school your children, go to a "coop" style school based on radical Islam, et. al.

I don't think I was clear with my example, so I'll be a bit more blunt. Let's say that States are in charge of education, and the Federal Government has no say in it. Now, most states would teach their students evolution, modern physics, Geology, etc. However, there are some states that would fall back to teaching Evolution. Not everyone is blessed with the ability to be educated outside of school, especially those in the lower class. If all someone learned for the better part of 10 years was "God created the Earth in 6 days," then they aren't likely to just change their view, and a snowballing ensues.

Sure there are risky side effects; but it's encompassed within a shell of individual liberties. It has to be the responsibility of the parents to "educate" their children -- make them competitive in the open market when they are 18-22. If they are being taught to strap a bomb on their waist, there's nothing on a federal level that would be able to detect it nor stop it.

Again, I'll use lower class citizens to make my point. Someone who dropped out of high school at 14, and became a mechanic, then had kids, etc. is not going to be able to educate their child. Let's assume that this child is raised in AK, which chose to teach creationism in the curriculum. The parents aren't smart enough to know that something oustide of creationism is anything but heresy, and the child is taught from day one that Creationism is the way it happened. He is still doomed to mediocrity, at best.

But who's to say that the federal government would do a better job?

Because of it's size, it encompasses more ways of thinking, and as a result, a more general way to rule. I'm not saying the Federal Government should solely be in charge, only that they make sure a state doesn't fly off the deep end and teach something like Creationism or Intelligent Design.

Wouldn't you agree though that you are personally more influenced by your desire to learn than your curriculum? Wouldn't you rather have an open market of educational philosophies to choose what you and your eventual wife believe is the right method.

Not at all. Your desire to learn has no impact on what it is you are learning. It affects how much you learn, yes, but not the subject. Using a privatized system, the lower class would not go anywhere, and parts of the south would just....implode. Isn't the purpose of public schooling to give everyone a fair chance at an honest education? Privatized schooling would have kept me out of college. My parents just didn't have the money to send me to a private school. I may be jumping off a cliff here, but saying I don't deserve a quality education because of my parents income doesn't seem rational.
#6 Oct 31 2008, 8:03 pm
Disturbed Puppy wrote:
I don't think I was clear with my example, so I'll be a bit more blunt. Let's say that States are in charge of education, and the Federal Government has no say in it. Now, most states would teach their students evolution, modern physics, Geology, etc. However, there are some states that would fall back to teaching Evolution. Not everyone is blessed with the ability to be educated outside of school, especially those in the lower class. If all someone learned for the better part of 10 years was "God created the Earth in 6 days," then they aren't likely to just change their view, and a snowballing ensues.

You are assuming that federalization of the schools remedy this:

1) People still believe their religious beliefs regardless of public education standards.

2) Curriculum is created on an individual level, not on a broad based level; sure your school can offer geology, or even theology for that matter, but there is no federal system that will ensure complete uniformity in curriculum, let alone teaching ability and style.

Again, I'll use lower class citizens to make my point. Someone who dropped out of high school at 14, and became a mechanic, then had kids, etc. is not going to be able to educate their child. Let's assume that this child is raised in AK, which chose to teach creationism in the curriculum. The parents aren't smart enough to know that something oustide of creationism is anything but heresy, and the child is taught from day one that Creationism is the way it happened. He is still doomed to mediocrity, at best.

He is doomed not because Creationism is being taught; he's doomed because his parents aren't smart enough to educate him. There is nothing a federalized education system can do to cure parental apathy.

Because of it's size, it encompasses more ways of thinking, and as a result, a more general way to rule. I'm not saying the Federal Government should solely be in charge, only that they make sure a state doesn't fly off the deep end and teach something like Creationism or Intelligent Design.

I understand where you're coming from. Consider this, we have a Department of Education... this department was unable to stop Kansas from teaching Creationism in the classroom.

Even the size of the department of education what is ultimately a natural "bottom up" approach to education.

Not at all. Your desire to learn has no impact on what it is you are learning. It affects how much you learn, yes, but not the subject.

I will have to respectfully disagree here. I'm usually not a guy to "agrees to disagree", but here I will have to.

Using a privatized system, the lower class would not go anywhere, and parts of the south would just....implode. Isn't the purpose of public schooling to give everyone a fair chance at an honest education?

Yes, and the states can dictate what "honest" education is. Each state's leaders are basically elected democratically (e.g. State Superintendent). Hence, the will of the people within that state can determine the path of their public education system.

Privatized schooling would have kept me out of college. My parents just didn't have the money to send me to a private school. I may be jumping off a cliff here, but saying I don't deserve a quality education because of my parents income doesn't seem rational.

I understand what you are saying. But, given what I know from your writings, you still would have gone to college whether your compulsory education had the Department of Education over it or not. You're intelligence would have triumphed over misinformation. _That_ is the reason why you are pursuing and deserving of a higher education, not because of federal education standards.
#7 Oct 31 2008, 9:20 pm
I believe that if Obama get's in, he'll probably get assassinated, and if McCain get' in, he'll have an heart attack, for he's already been having heart problems, I'm canadian so I don't have to care.
#8 Nov 3 2008, 12:38 pm
KershiVelix wrote:
I believe that if Obama get's in, he'll probably get assassinated, and if McCain get' in, he'll have an heart attack, for he's already been having heart problems, I'm canadian so I don't have to care.

You should care, this effects all of us.

and to Yash, yes silkwizard made a post on this, however he put such a hard right wing slant to it that I wanted to make a new one.