<p>one - it’s scorching hot (unlike minnesota)
two - good hands-on experience for UTexas
three - if the U.S. sends you there, you’re probably not comin’ back</p>
<p>wowwww this thread moves so fast</p>
<p>i simply CAN’T keep up anymore</p>
<p>it takes up all my time just trying to read</p>
<p>and by the time i want to reply, another topic has started</p>
<p>woah thereeee</p>
<p>SNOW DAY!!</p>
<p>Okay, going back to Hillary for a sec…</p>
<p>illuminar, I can’t think of a single candidate who has accepted no money from lobbyists (how else would they campaign?).</p>
<p>Also, Hillary did not compaign in Michigan for the primaries (I can’t speak for Florida), she just didn’t remove herself from the ballot.</p>
<p>Obama uses just as many personal attacks as she does (his only argument seems to be that she originally voted in favor the Iraq war).</p>
<p>Clapping during the State of the Union Address?? I wouldn’t necessarily base my opinions of a candidate off political niceties like that. The fact is that we are stuck in Iraq. I was against the war from Day 1, but if we were to withdraw now, the Iraqi government would collapse and the country would erupt into sectarian violence. I really can’t see a way to fix the situation. I don’t know what Obama’s plan is for Iraq, or if he even has one.</p>
<p>Hillary has Bill, Obama has Oprah and a bunch of other celebrity supporters. Sounds fair enough.</p>
<p>All of the candidates desperately want to be the next president. I don’t see if/how Hillary has been unethical or overzealous in her campaigns. The mudslinging has gone both ways, and she’s faced a lot of criticism simply for being a woman.</p>
<p>I’m not a Hillary supporter if you’ve read my posts several pages back. I’m just sayin’.</p>
<p>Obama hasn’t accepted money from lobbyists, and even if Hillary didn’t campaign, leaving her name on the ballot when all the candidates agreed not to speaks for her character.</p>
<p>I’m not even American, nor am I a huge Obama fan either, but Clinton as president makes 24 years of two families. I find it hard to believe that anything she says is sincere when looking at her past, her accusatory nature, and the general feeling that she’s a HUGE opportunist who would turn her back on voters in a second to get the seat.</p>
<p>I live in Florida, so no snow day for me, but my sis dropped down from college unexpectedly, so I was able to pull a “Why don’t I just stay home with my sister, mom? It’s just one Friday.” Needless to say, it worked, and I’m getting in as much cc before we’re off to do something.</p>
<p>Speaking on the whole 24 years of two families, she was asked that question during the debates(only question I bothered to listen to), and she said another Clinton will be needed to cleanup the second bush’s mess, just like how the first Clinton had to cleanup the first Bush’s mess. Of course, she smirked as she said it, and the audience clapped enthusiastically for her sassy response, which disgusted me.</p>
<p>I just saw your response, D-yu. Anyway, that was my point, the president should know stuff like that about the country they are essentially the leader of, but I’m pretty sure you were kidding about the whole indian name of the mountain and its founder.</p>
<p>Actually, if you do a bit of digging you’d find that for all his anti-lobbyist rhetoric, Obama has accepted a good chunk of change from PACs. His original Senate campaign funds were largely subsidized by lobbyists as well. Maybe not as much as Hillary’s campaign, but it comes to show that all politicians have some hypocritical tendencies.</p>
<p>I think that a lot of people support Obama because they expect him to bring some sort of radical change to the American political system. I believe that these people will be sorely disappointed when they discover how unlikely such change is, and whoever comes to occupy the White House needs to have a sense of realism.</p>
<p>Many people have faith in Obama because they don’t know him. He is a relative newcomer into politics with youth and fresh ideas. He’s inexperienced. He claims he’s not a “politician” in the sense that the others are. He is an idealist and at the very least has a convincing facade of sincerity. But to me, he is only a step above Hillary.</p>
<p>I gather that there are a lot of classical liberals here.
Are you all against the concept of socialized medicine?</p>
<p>Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism are mostly the same ideology, if my thinking is right. I’ve got more Libertarian leanings so i just say I’m a Republican to people that ask, but I deplore the two-party system we rely on, but that’s another discussion.
I’m against socialized medicine because someone would have to run the program, which would be the government, which is a no-no. As well, in America at least, socialized medicine would be unfair because even though everyone would pay, mainly the obese would receive the money, so it would be more like a national foundation for obesity that you’re required to donate to.</p>
<p>Yeah, socialized medicine sucks. I live close to Canada, and I know a lot of Canadians have to wait a really long time for health care because of their system. I might support tax cuts for those without insurance, so they can save money themselves, or sponsoring more free clinics for vaccinations/check-ups etc for children. Or you could just hike the business tax rate and give tax cuts to those who subsidize insurance for their employees. But then again, small businesses… They can form business union-things and buy their insurance in bulk, right?</p>
<p>Earilmadith, you definitely know about your taxes! I was with ya until you started talking about hiking the business tax rate and giving tax cuts to those who subsidize insurance for their employees. My knowledge on these issues are sketchy at best, so I’m not even going to try pretending to know what I’m talking about. I’m kinda embarrassed…</p>
<p>Heh, I don’t know what I’m talking about either, believe me. It’s just a thought, I don’t know how it would work in practice…</p>
<p>Interesting. I live close to Canada too (actually, I was born in Canada and lived there for much of my life). Most Canadians I know can’t imagine functioning with America’s healthcare system, (a system that is just plain awful and in dire need of reform). They see American health care as a very-profit mongering system. For example, drugs here often cost two or three times as much as they do there. Based on medical experiences within my own family, we’ve actually gotten treatment much more quickly and effectively in Canada than in America. Doctors are there to help more than to make a profit; we don’t constantly have to wait (sometimes hours) for insurance to go through or work out a payment plan before treatment…</p>
<p>I’m very confused about my own economic policies. It seems I flip back and forth every other day between capitalism and socialism, and I really don’t know where I lie. The health care and insurance industries are undeniably two of the most corrupt systems in our country, but they’re protected by their lobbyists in Washington.</p>
<p>Well, that’s just what I’ve heard in my experience. You probably know more than I do if you’ve actually lived there. Obviously there are a lot of problems with the healthcare system, but I don’t think socializing it, especially a system sick as ours, will help. </p>
<p>I’m a pretty stout capitalist, being a classical liberal and all.</p>
<p>I agree, the government is too big as it is. I’m kind of “states’ rights” advocate. The state government has a better understanding of the needs of its own citizens than the national government.</p>
<p>As a classical liberal, do you support abolishing the income tax and relying solely on an increased sales tax? Or are you slightly more moderate?</p>
<p>Maybe for most states, but not NY. All Albany thinks about is NYC, so us upstaters are a little disgruntled about it. What might work best is if NYC was its own city-state, because it is so different than the rest of the state- but that would never happen. So the farmers and the urbanites have to just hate each other a little.</p>
<p>No, a higher sales tax would suppress the economy, if only because of the sticker shock of paying twice as much for taxes as usual (They’re high here, so a 20% would really not be far from twice. It sucks). I vote instead we slim down government, cut agencies and have a flat 15% tax rate. No Medicare or Medicaid, because they’re basically taxes.</p>
<p>Well, in Michigan at least, our economy is very messed up. More than almost any other state. There’s one of the downfalls of capitalism: our state once relied on the big 3 auto companies, but now that they’re shrinking in the face of foreign competition, there are thousands left without jobs, health care, and security. If it weren’t for the UAW, there would be even more issues with job security and insurance. The federal government thinks it knows how to handle the economy, but, honestly, it doesn’t, and has only succeeded in making the situation worse for us.</p>
<p>Haha, I don’t like the flat tax rate. There are few things that I have strong convictions about, but this is one of them. I guess we’ll have to disagree there :)</p>
<p>I understand where you’re coming from- my town is littered with old broken down factories, and the past two years have been filled with scares about closing the largest employer in the area, which makes auto parts. I feel, though, that it might just be the workers bringing it upon themselves because of the unions having too much power. My mom has a two-year business administration degree, the workers there have a high school education. They make over three times an hour that she does. It really doesn’t make sense. They literally pay them ridiculous amounts of money to screw a nut onto a bolt.</p>
<p>Yeah, it’s tough for a lot of people to lose their jobs, especially good unionized factory jobs. However, it’s really just a progression of the global market. It’s a huge world out there, and someone, somewhere can screw nuts onto a bolt for less money. Americans have to learn jobs that are un-outsourceable, which in the traditional trades are stuff like waitressing, plumbing, construction, education. They could do things very well on a small, local scale- have the best produce, be the best butcher or restauranteer. They could use tourism, like people are in my area with Niagara Falls, or the wine region here. Or they could be really specialized in some area- computers, design, information services, anything that they are one of the very best and most accessible people anywhere at doing whatever it is they do.</p>
<p>Have you read The World Is Flat, by any chance? It’s a really interesting read, and it’s why Cornell II with its globalization theme was my number one choice.</p>
<p>I wouldn’t exactly be the greatest waitress or plumber 
Even jobs that require high education (like radiology and engineering) are being outsourced, or handed off to recent immigrants at less expense.</p>
<p>I’m a bit of a protectionist and am strongly against unmoderated free trade. There is a time for that kind of policy, but I don’t think that time is now. And I agree that some unions are too powerful. The teacher’s union comes to mind.</p>
<p>wow…I just discovered this thread. I think it might have helped if I looked at it before I submitted my stuff. lol</p>
<p>Anyway, I wrote about Utopia for the first essay, and then my struggle with Christianity and religion on the second one (I hope everyone didn’t write about religion), then for the future job thing i said i wanted to be a writer because then i have freedom to roam subjects. I ranked Cornell II, Mich, Cornell I, then UT. I only listed around 15 or so books, because it said list “Some” books, and i thought it’d be a stretch to say you read 40 books in a year, because you’d be reading about 1 book per week, and if those were “quality” novels or classicals, they’d never believe you. lol</p>
<p>I hope I didn’t completely fail.</p>