|
On November 09 2008 01:09 fusionsdf wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2008 00:03 1tym wrote:
I think looks play a critical factor in US election. For example, there were hardly any bald men in historical US presidents. Since James A Garfield back in 1881 who was half bald, there's never been a bald president. (Eisenhower is debatable, but the democratic candidate Adlai Stevenson was also bald so voters really had no choice) No wonder Mccain didn't get elected, US citizens do not like someone who's thin on top as president. Obama on the other hand, is reasonably good looking. yep and the fact that obama narrowly won (51% to 49%) means that he essentially only won because of his looks, not in any way because of his policies. And he hypnotizes crowds too, which sounds pretty evil and manipulative to me
52-46
|
Looks like Nebraska's second district, which comprises Omaha, is going for Obama, so assuming Missouri goes for McCain the final tally is 365-173. Clinton won 370 in 1992 and that was getting a lot of southern states because he was from Arkansas.
|
So here's something I found interesting: http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2008/11/new-draft.html
According to this article, Obama's website said that he would require 50 hours of community service for middle and high school students, as well as 100 hours every year for college students. It has since been changed.
Wouldn't that be illegal, considering the whole "no involuntary servitude" thing in our little old Constitution?
Anyway, it currently says that Obama will "set a goal" for middle and high school students to perform 50 hours, and provide a $4,000 tax credit to college students who do 100 hours a year.
|
United States758 Posts
On November 09 2008 03:26 Cobalt wrote:
According to this article, Obama's website said that he would require 50 hours of community service for middle and high school students, as well as 100 hours every year for college students. It has since been changed.
Wouldn't that be illegal, considering the whole "no involuntary servitude" thing in our little old Constitution?
One word, no.
|
On November 09 2008 03:26 Cobalt wrote:So here's something I found interesting: http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2008/11/new-draft.htmlAccording to this article, Obama's website said that he would require 50 hours of community service for middle and high school students, as well as 100 hours every year for college students. It has since been changed. Wouldn't that be illegal, considering the whole "no involuntary servitude" thing in our little old Constitution? Anyway, it currently says that Obama will "set a goal" for middle and high school students to perform 50 hours, and provide a $4,000 tax credit to college students who do 100 hours a year.
As far as I know it has always been voluntary. When I looked at the site months ago it was.
|
On November 09 2008 03:30 aRod wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2008 03:26 Cobalt wrote:
According to this article, Obama's website said that he would require 50 hours of community service for middle and high school students, as well as 100 hours every year for college students. It has since been changed.
Wouldn't that be illegal, considering the whole "no involuntary servitude" thing in our little old Constitution?
One word, no.
Could you elaborate, please? As far as I understand, the threat of legal action for those who don't willingly perform some service (which the word "require" would suggest) falls under the court-supported definition of "involuntary servitude." If you could help explain why it doesn't, I'd appreciate it.
As far as I know it has always been voluntary. When I looked at the site months ago it was.
The article provides a screenshot of the original wording, also I'm talking about change.gov, not Obama's other site.
|
United States22883 Posts
On November 09 2008 02:29 boghat wrote:
Looks like Nebraska's second district, which comprises Omaha, is going for Obama, so assuming Missouri goes for McCain the final tally is 365-173. Clinton won 370 in 1992 and that was getting a lot of southern states because he was from Arkansas.
That was because of Perot.
|
United States758 Posts
It is clearly placed in terms of a condition. For X dollars students are required Y hours of community service. This is not the same as Y hours of community service are required.
|
On November 09 2008 03:41 Cobalt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2008 03:30 aRod wrote:On November 09 2008 03:26 Cobalt wrote:
According to this article, Obama's website said that he would require 50 hours of community service for middle and high school students, as well as 100 hours every year for college students. It has since been changed.
Wouldn't that be illegal, considering the whole "no involuntary servitude" thing in our little old Constitution?
One word, no. Could you elaborate, please? As far as I understand, the threat of legal action for those who don't willingly perform some service (which the word "require" would suggest) falls under the court-supported definition of "involuntary servitude." If you could help explain why it doesn't, I'd appreciate it. Show nested quote +
As far as I know it has always been voluntary. When I looked at the site months ago it was.
The article provides a screenshot of the original wording, also I'm talking about change.gov, not Obama's other site.
if you read it, it says recipients would be required to perform 100hrs or whatever of community service, meaning if you want to get the credit you would have to do community service, not you have to do community service whether you want to or not.
|
actually this is from change.gov i was reading under the issues section
change.gov
blog picture
|
Edit to post above me: Yeah, apparently the bottom picture is what was on the website before the blog posting, and it got changed to the top picture.
Oh, I wasn't talking about the updated "for doing x you get y" version. I was talking about the original "Students will be required to do x hours of community service" version, with no mention of a reward. Here's the exact wording of the original:
The Obama Administration will call on Americans to serve in order to meet the nation’s challenges. President-Elect Obama will expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and Peace Corps and will create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in underserved schools, as well as a new Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, and Veterans Corps. Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year. Obama will encourage retiring Americans to serve by improving programs available for individuals over age 55, while at the same time promoting youth programs such as Youth Build and Head Start.
This is the thing that I'm questioning. Obviously, rewarding students for community service isn't illegal at all.
There's the possibility that this was just poorly-worded, and the "change" was actually just a clarification, but there's also the possibility that the original version was Obama's original intent.
|
possibly poorly worded, best guess i can think of
|
|
|
That's an uncreative and lame comic.
|
On November 09 2008 01:09 fusionsdf wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2008 00:03 1tym wrote:
I think looks play a critical factor in US election. For example, there were hardly any bald men in historical US presidents. Since James A Garfield back in 1881 who was half bald, there's never been a bald president. (Eisenhower is debatable, but the democratic candidate Adlai Stevenson was also bald so voters really had no choice) No wonder Mccain didn't get elected, US citizens do not like someone who's thin on top as president. Obama on the other hand, is reasonably good looking. yep and the fact that obama narrowly won (51% to 49%) means that he essentially only won because of his looks, not in any way because of his policies. And he hypnotizes crowds too, which sounds pretty evil and manipulative to me
You need to chill and get a sense of humor.
Also when you said 51% to 49% you weren't taking Nader and Barr into account. It's 52% to 46%
|
lol I was joking
I GUESS YOU NEED TO CHILL + SENSE OF HUMOR
|
Bush 47.9% Algore 48.4%. I wouldn't really call 52% 46% close in presidential election.
|
United States758 Posts
Yeah if America could go back in time, 75% of us would vote for Al Gore. Thank you Bush for doubling the national debt.
|
It might not be very close, but it's still disgusting how many votes McCain got IMO.
It makes me think if Bush could run for a 3rd term he woulda won or something. I mean fuck, you take away the Palin blunder, the fact that McCain is mysteriously acting like bush for the past 8 years completely in the face of his record, walking around like a retard during the debates (and btw sucking at them anyways), running on hokey "they want to raise taxes" bullshit etc., and I think a decent Republican candidate would have had this shit as much as Bush ever did, which just saddens me. The country is still fucked up and stupid guys. McCain tried his best to dump this and he still was right there.
Also how old McCain is. Bob Dole lost harder on the age thing. I guess being about to die doesn't matter anymore? Bob Dole 2012 guys!
|
On November 09 2008 05:55 1tym wrote:
Bush 47.9% Algore 48.4%. I wouldn't really call 52% 46% close in presidential election.
Does this count as close:
Reagan really was something else. If you want to talk about mandate....
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d56/Gugen/original.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d56/Gugen/blog.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/umedia/20081108/cp.7f1976467f5ac751e84f03cecbb72569.gif)
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ab/ElectoralCollege1984.svg/350px-ElectoralCollege1984.svg.png)
