Quote from the piece; " Goals are general aims"

M-W.com Merriam-Webster Definition of Goal; "the end toward which effort is directed : aim"

As for "objective" I used the word in the behavioral sense as my piece was mostly about the psychology of intentions or I used "objective" for short, meaning (formally) behavioral objective for long.

I said that "Objectives are things one will do or say"

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/behavioral+objective = a specific behavior or pattern of BEHAVIOR.

 A behavior is something observable, or something we do or say.

 I hope that now that I've broke out medical dictionaries, that this is good enough for you.

I don't mind your comments, but your stoopid insults piled on top of ingnorance drive me nuts.

"So please try to be correct and when someone takes the time to read your stuff and then goes beyond and offers constructive correction please do a little research before you  spout off." 

Funny, in my line of work I've been using the two words "goal" and "objective" daily for about 15 years and was trained in what they EXACT meaning are.   For your information, words can have more than one meaning and in my piece, I defined how it was that I was using the the two words mentioned.  So, despite what any singular meaning of the word, I told you how I used the words as I defined them.  They were NOT used wrong. 

Oh yeah, and by the way.  Seems like Merriam Webster sees it my way too... 

 http://www.m-w.com

Goal : the end toward which effort is directed : aim

That's exactly how I used the word in the piece, to mean aim.

 So, bite-me.

Hi Steve,

You are welcome for the read. Are we going to go by dictionary definitions or personal speculation with regard to what words mean? I personally chose the dictionary. Here is, right from an online dictionary the second noun definition of objective:

 "2. Something worked toward or striven for; a goal. See Synonyms at intention."

Link for definition:   http://www.thefreedictionary.com/objective">link text

This is not to pick nits because I believe that if we cannot be precise in the language we use, communication will fail. The failure of communication is the failure of the movement. So please try to be correct and when someone takes the time to read your stuff and then goes beyond and offers constructive correction please do a little research before you  spout off.

 Dan

I hate to disagree, but goals are not the same as objectives.  Goals are broad and general desired aims (like world peace)  and objectives are the things (observable and measureable) that will be done to achieve them.

But, thanks for giving me a read and an open mind.

I almost did not read this article because  the author appeared illiterate. In an early paragraph he claimed goals and objectives were something other than synonyms. It was difficult to get by that obvious flaw. I did though and do agree with the what is said. I will not send this out to any Obama supporters with that flaw. They with do what I started to do and never get to the meat of the meaning. Please let us not make these kind of glaring mistakes in the future.

Dan

Ya, I loved that part too, "Socialism (as if it were a bad thing)"  Under the name of socialism Mao and Stalin killed about 100 million, but as Mao said, China could afford to lose about 2 or 3 hundred million.  And, I always love the garbage about the difference between socialism and communism.  That is just a hoot.  In my opinion, socialism is the theory, and communism is the theory applied in the real word.  And the point of my piece was that less government and the more freedom, the better, and this is not to be expected from bailouts, Pelosi-Care or Obamunism. 

Yer in luck, Red;

While sitting around with a few of my toothless friends at the Mensa clubhouse, a discussion came up about this very subject.  Each of us (all Ivy, I believe) had studied social political models in depth at University.  In my case, it was the Soviet Union. 

It truly deserved the attribute of "Evil Empire".  Take it from one who had plenty of on-the-ground experience in the land that even put the "S" word in its title (USSR in case you were under a rock).

You obviously have no clue whatsoever, as to what you are saying when you say Socialism is not so bad.  Socialism is the 'socializing' of  the costs of "the public needs" (as defined by politicians) among all the populace.  It has accurately been been refined to; "the re-distribution of wealth with the requirement of mandatory participation".  Get it?

Yes, yer boy, the novelty president has kept to his campaign pledge to, "Stay the Course (because I'll only offer you [false] Hope that I'll Change any little Thing.)"  That was it, wasn't it?  (Cuz if it wuz, he wuz tellin' the Truff!)

You go ahead and stand by your man, Red, but all us toothless, sleepy-eyed hicks already know the Republicans ARE the Democrats and don't want either of them.

Please forgive my not bowing before your 'superior' intellect.

As always, I remain at your service--

                                                                Barry

It's obvious that those who criticized the article never read it (and then they call you illiterate!)  If they would have actually read it they would have found that even though I started out saying Obama was a socialist, I later said that "communist" was a more accurate term.

Communism can be described as "the abolition of both private land ownership and of the right to inheritance, a progressive income tax, universal education, centralization of the means of communication and transport under state management, and the expansion of the means of production owned by the state."

Obama, as well as most people today, support the majority of these things.  I think my assessment of Obama's political postition stands fairly correct as he generally believes that the Federal government should be in control the means of production.  If you wanted to argue he's a fascist, that has some merit but how the war disqualifies him from being a commie is beyond me, Stalin loved wars and all the bailouts just reaffirm that he believes government should be in control of the means of production.  

 If you are gonna criticize, read the article first, before you call me illiterate.   Are all people you disagree with illiterate, or maybe you need to look up that word yourself?

I admit that I hate criticism, but I especially hate criticism from people who've only read the teaser and not the whole piece.  

 Obama is a radical socialist, eh?  What gave him away?  Was it the bank bailout?  The upcoming bailout of the insurance industry?  The war escalation in Afghanistan? 

I'd love to hear from just one of you, morons, who open their toothless mouths to make those claims of Socialism (as if it were a bad thing) the explanation of what Socialism is and exactly Obama has done that qualifies him as such.  Hint:  look up "The Communist Manifesto" by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.

Illiterate idiots!

This is pretty silly.  Obama isn't even a liberal.  He is a centerist corporatist who is making small adjustments to the Bush game plan.

You miss the point. It's now clear to everyone that the war was such as mistake it would be insane not to keep making it.