http://voteronpaul.com/newsDetail.php?1 … -D.C.-2208
there are many other photos across the web showing the numbers that attended the march...some say a million or more
one showed the mile from the capital on Penn. Avenue packed with marchers
Amazing! And how how awesome it is that there are those willing to stand up for America! Stand up for the Constitution!!!! Had I been well enough to attend I would have been there myself.
God Bless America!!!!!
This guy was there and took his own pictures. Take a look.
Madam X, how dare you post those hateful pictures and Insult somebody? I'm offended, no wait, someone else will be offended.
I am so very proud of my countrymen for speaking the truth. My regret is that i could not go myself.
Great pics ... wish i could have been there...Larry
LOL While I share the attitude, I doubt the million estimate very much. It's about the total number of DC population, with suburbs
there is only one million people living in DC area? don't you live in the DC area, Misha?
I am no judge of numbers by visual view...find the pictures...what do you estimate?
Like anyone should believe anything you say. Let's see the source, "Madame."
Heh, that's funny Lita. I'm known as Imperator on some boards. You should see the cheap shots I get for using that name.
It's all good and I like the pic, yet nobody did the count. Again, Washington is a relatively small city, and to fill this square you probably need a couple dozen thousands people. Still huge numbers, but hardly millions.
Ok, Misha, (with your new Avatar) what's your point? It can't be a good march unless it's over 1 million?
Nope, my point was to be polite, and answer you - you posted this like at least half a dozen times, at least once quoting me.
Yes I did Misha, it was for the benefit of those who asked for proof that it was over 6,000, I trust your smart enough not to take offense.
Scroll back a dozen pages and read girly_girl post about press estimating numbers
...for it contains SO much partisan credibility. Especially at the age of 22.
Because nobody under the age of 23 has ever accomplished anything
Lita, attacking a very nice community member for nothing does not add to your credibility, rather diminishes it...
is that self-description based on number of hubs published or number of forum posts?
Are you still here? Shouldn't you be protesting in Crawford?
I actually was talking about girly_girl, and she is not me. I wish I had my 22 back
That's ridiculous, Misha. And this is based on pure amount of experience.
Among this group, because they take me to be a 'liberal' (which also isn't the truth), I have absolutely no credibility, correct? Cannot mention a single professional experience. And yet a 22 year old college girl, because of her conservative views, automatically does?
Ridiculous. And frankly, I would be insane to care what this pack 'thinks.'
No Lita, she is credible not because of her age or education, nobody really cares, you can pretend to be anything on the Internet. She is credible because of the history of her credible posts. She EARNED her credibility. I know it is a hard concept to understand, but try.
Thank you, Misha.
I would like to add to Lita, that essentially calling me a liar because of my age and party affiliation is completely uncalled for.
I have been nothing but respectful and helpful to members on this forum, including you, Lita. I may present viewpoints that vary from yours, but I would never condescend or ridicule you or others. The statement that you made regarding my post is completely uncalled for and I believe you know that to be true.
The D.C. park service has stated that it was between 1.5 and 2 million. Their number are accurate because they are based on how many people the parks, the mall and the streets of D.C. will hold - as they have had to calculate this many times in the past due to a lot of other events, marches and protests.
Says the "woman" on a ridiculous forum post with a BIG X for a name and background.
I did not see the estimate from the park services, but if they did - they did, I am ready to take my estimates back
Democracy in action...mostly ignored by the MSM...unlike the huge media blitz for a so-called million-man march led by a racist anti-American...
He was racist? I have read about him and I do see the pros and cons however why is it o.k. for our white race KKK , White Supremist for example to lash out but it is wrong for him to express his opinions? Is that not a double standard? Both are wrong for there actions and beliefs but Farrakhan lead millions of black men and told the people to take the violence out of there neighborhoods, stop the drugs and crime and take responsibility for there actions. The Klan has worn gowns and hoods, hid there faces and stated that the white race is the only race what did they do to take on responsibility? They chose to spread hate amongst millions and place fear in others. Please! we are not the only race and maybe the Klan (with there hoods off) and Farrahkhan should sit across from one another I wonder then who would spread Peace? I would say hands down Farrahkhan although he has made his comments and just like the hateful Klan he is also entitled to his opinion. So if all of us who stood up to end racism maybe both sides would step down but we know this is not going to happen.
Maven, I hope you're not referring to the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1964 for his efforts to end segregation by non-violent protests, who was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1977 and the Congressional Gold medal in 2004 and in whose name a national holiday was created in 1986.
If you are referring to Dr. King you are a very sick and ignorant man. I feel sorry for you.
No - he is referring to the million man march held on Oct. 16, 1995 led by Louis Farrakhan.
Ralph, you are so full of hate for anything or anyone conservative that you continuously open your trap and assure everyone just how bigoted and ignorant you are, my friend...If you want to defend Farrakhan have at it, but don't come off with this silly holier than thou BS....crawl back into your soft racist hidey hole and commune with your other liberal fascist friends...you not only misread my comment, you have displayed a stupidity I have suspected for some time now....
Oh grow up. Read Ralph's response a few posts back and stop hyperventilating.
Oh grow up. Read Mavens acceptance of Ralph's apology a few posts back and stop hyperventilating!
Misha, I haven't been rude or condescending to you yet, so here goes....Put a smile on that handsome face, will ya!
What? You did not like my picture?
How rude and condescending of you!
Yet I think there is a slight smile there. I can try to look for a different picture, if you really insist
I heard it was more like 6,000...and this has been planned for quite a while. Meanwhile, Obama has filled up another auditorium at a moment's notice...with 15,000 or 20,000.
The detractors are loud, rude and vocal, but they are by far a minority.
Similar to Hubpage vocalizers, ie.
some are loud, rude and vocal...just like every other organized group that has ever been created on the planet
I don't think there will ever be a day when all people will act polite and orderly...but there are many who do now regardless of their affiliations
it was hardly a moments notice here in Minneapolis, and then only because they live in the vicinity... I have been monitoring some of those involved in the gathering here in Mpls. it has been several months since they started to recognize the power of the opposition to Obama through patriot movements
As usual the liberals have a hard time with estimates!
I live near Minneapolis & didn't hear anything about this.
had family there and there were so many that the metro stopped picking people up. There were too many to count and the ones that could not go formed local. Should have gone so you could have counted them.
Reports are that there were almost 2 million that filled the streets far more than what was calculated at the innauguration!
LOL I think it is really funny to look at the videos, and pics of the crowds and then say it was more like uhm, 6000! LOL
This figure was posted on a website source very initially....many hours/days ago. If you read my other posts concerning how events numbers are first calculated and reported (they are quite often off a bit to begin with) you may understand this number better.
But perhaps not, since this is a highly partisan post and concern, .
Anyway, the final numbers are estimated, I have heard now, at 60,000-80,000. (I heard mid-event that it was tens of thousands.)
No interest in counting them, btw. That sounds too much like work & I wouldn't be getting paid. Cute little dig, though.
I'm new here, but I couldn't help but notice your harshness and bitterness. I must say it is a testament to your writing ability. You are definitely able to convey your feelings in your writing. However, I must ask. What's got you so upset?
You certainly seem left leaning in your politics. The left has certainly carried the day so to speak in the most recent elections. Why are you so angry?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldne … ation.html
here's another...looks like more than 6,000 to me
Pics I've seen of the mall and the crowd would indicate about 100,000 news reports are indicating 10's of thousands, so it's a pretty good size crowd no matter how you measure it. Well over 6K. Every Pol knows for every individual that shows up at stuff like this there are 100-150 more in the population that think that way too. Pretty powerful message.
Try this pic of 14th & E street parks and recreation estimating the crowd at 1.2 million.
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/09/12/ce … 2-rallies/
so much for hearing,
I would respond to this myself, but Maureen Dowd puts it much better than I ever could:
"I’ve been loath to admit that the shrieking lunacy of the summer — the frantic efforts to paint our first black president as the Other, a foreigner, socialist, fascist, Marxist, racist, Commie, Nazi; a cad who would snuff old people; a snake who would indoctrinate kids — had much to do with race.
I tended to agree with some Obama advisers that Democratic presidents typically have provoked a frothing response from paranoids — from Father Coughlin against F.D.R. to Joe McCarthy against Truman to the John Birchers against J.F.K. and the vast right-wing conspiracy against Bill Clinton.
But Wilson’s shocking disrespect for the office of the president — no Democrat ever shouted “liar” at W. when he was hawking a fake case for war in Iraq — convinced me: Some people just can’t believe a black man is president and will never accept it."
-NYT September 12
And Maureen Dowd is a fair and balanced source!
one person cannot possibly comprehend what millions of others are thinking and feeling...the question is, why is she interpreting this opposition to socialist seeming actions a racism issue???
psychologically speaking...could it be that she has racist issues...?
well, i was going to read the article but was distracted by a link to the Survival Seed Bank
i did look at the pictures though. wow, that's a lot of protestors all right!
It's funny how many people really miss the point. How many times has Washington been marched on? I can think of only two offhand during the 20th century. The Civil Rights movement and the Veteran's March during the Depression. The number of people don't really matter, it's the impact of marching on the Capitol that really matters. Did the Civil Rights movement not really catch fire after the march on the nation's capitol. Did that not throw the hypocrisy of the Jim Crow laws into the face of those that passed those very laws? Was that not the message sent by that march?
Why do you think the government ordered the Army to break up the Bonus Army thirty years prior to the Civil Right's March? Because to allow such a march and protest would have destroyed the Progressive agenda politicians at the time were trying to implement. So much for taking care of men who fought in the service of this nation. It's interesting to note that both Hoover and Roosevelt vetoed any legislation that would have given relief to these men. Give their policies and what they did while in office, one must ask: Why?
Could it be that the march would have caused people to ask questions? We all know by now that the Progressives hate it when people ask questions and take apart Progressive arguments using logic rather than emotion. Why is that? Could it be that Progressive remedies, in the end, will not work? Why would somebody support something that won't work in the long term? Could it be because of power? Do these so-called public servants want more power over our lives? Could be.
Can you please learn to express yourself without writing paragraphs and paragraphs of meaningless fluff disguised as intellectual arguments? K Thanks.
You can always choose not to read it. But then again seeing as you like to have things spoon fed to you expecting you to be able to think is probably asking too much of you.
Going back to the OP - I think tech makes an excellent point here.
Fun fact about the bonus march he mentioned: that was against Herbert Hoover, i.e. the opposite of what was progressive. It was also Herbert Hoover (no deficit, small government, Herbert Hoover) who called in the army (under Douglas MacArthur) to remove the protesters from Anacostia Flats. It was, incidentally, perhaps the final nail in his coffin, as far as any chance of reelection went.
By the by, the GI Bill was passer under Roosevelt as I recall.
here's another one...shows more of the attendees
Just a quick comment because I haven't read the entire thread. I believe Washington has been marched on a number of times, not just two. I can't think of any specifics right now but I certainly recall a few during the past decade or two.
The second National March on Washington for Lesbian and Gay Rights. The October 11th 1987 event, with estimates by the US Park Police at 200,000.
Farmers had a March on Washington during the 80s.
Just a couple of examples.
I forgot the Million Man March, yet that only makes my point for me. It had far less than the million, but still burst on the consciousness of the nation.
Hmm. I wonder why those didn't make a splash. At least they didn't when compared to the Civil Rights or Bonus Army. Any speculation as to why?
Well, I remember the Gay march being all over the news and I do remember the coverage of the AIDS quilt at the Washington monument. Same with the farmers and the dozens of other large marches that have taken place in Washington.
You do not make one march sound more important by denigrating another. They were well within their rights to march but don't treat it like a revolution...
It's not a denigration. Even our schools teach about the Bonus Army and the Civil Rights March on Washington. No other march on Washington, and there have been a lot, are treated in the same way. Wondering why that is, is not the same as denigration.
Yet you were educated in Canada, I take it? So I'd not necessarily expect you to know that.
Don't patronize me again, I grew up watching the US networks.
You said before you could only remember a couple.
"How many times has Washington been marched on? I can think of only two offhand during the 20th century. "
By your reasoning then this march will be the same...
Well then that would explain why you hold the views you do. American televisions is just about as bad as our public education. Thank you for quoting me. I could only think of two offhand, but when I dug a bit more I found out it has been marched on many times, I even provided a link. I also asked why did those two marches garner such attention and others didn't.
But hey, who cares about the truth? If you can't wow people with facts, dazzle them with BS.
Well what I find amusing about this are the people calling themselves patriots, but they are in opposition to Obama. He is our president, even if you did not vote for him, so I do not consider them very patriotic. They have a right to march, but I think all of these marches are pretty funny. Remember how back during the Million Man March the participants were mad because it was estimated only several hundred thousand people showed up, and it was no where near a million.
Sweetie, we've been over this before. Just because a guy holds an office doesn't mean that you have to agree with him. I am going to assume that you didn't support President Bush's policies (it's OK, I disagreed with a lot of what he did too), if I'm wrong then please correct me. So if you didn't agree with him, how is that any different from me disagreeing with Obama?
Where does it say we can't march on Washington? Last time I checked this was covered under the first Amendment. It was a peaceable protest, no violence or arrests made.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pr … gton,_D.C.
Apparently Washington has been marched on many times before. Were those people in the wrong too? Being a patriot is expressing a belief in liberty and the ideals that are enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, not to a party or politician. You can still be a good American and disagree with other Americans. In fact, I'd say it's our wide range of opinions and ideas that make us all Americans.
You did not read my message. I said we have had marches, but the ones in recent years seem silly. I thought the Million Man March was, and so is this one. I can have a divergent opinion from yours, and yes that is very American. You have a lack of respect for people that like Obama, plain and simple. Sorry, but that is plain as day.
Your first sentence was "Well what I find amusing is that people are calling themselves patriots, but they are in opposition to Obama." I doubt there has ever been anywhere near a million people marching on Washington at any time. What interests me are the marches which spawned movements which changed things, for better or worse. What was it about the Civil Rights march, for example that made it such a big deal? Was it the wide spectrum of attendants? Was it a march against societal tyranny? Those are the real questions I think.
Marches for Civil Rights and women's rights are good. However, this recent march is steeped in hate and hateful images of Obama. If this group of people has a better answer they should try making signs that are not so disrespectful. Watching this is like watching Comedy Central because even though they are preaching hate, I really cannot take them very seriously. I agree with Lita, this is a vocal and mad minority of people.
I also thought the Million Man March was ridiculous because I do not agree with Farrakahn's tactics. Some of his followers used to come to our university and guilt trip people into donating to their organization. Also, in a larger sense I do not like Farrakahn's violent past. I do not like the ideas of the current Tea Baggers because they preach hate, and none of what they are saying is very appealing. All of their ideology is pretty stereotypical and hateful.
Sorry Sweetie, had to laugh at that one. Under the umbrella of "Civil Rights" is the idea of reparations. Even if you believe in civil rights does that mean you believe in reparations? And the woman's movement has a radical sect that states men, by their very nature, subjugate women. Do you believe that?
Do you know what I see a lack of? White hoods and robes. Real radicals don't compromise for anything. Look at the periodic rallies by white supremacists around the country from time to time. Do they leave their racist accouterments at home? No.
Sweeite, I'm a tea bagger, so in what way do I preach hate? I don't think I do, but if I do let me know.
Your laughing is the height of disrespect. Farrakhan claims to represent Civil Rights, but many African Americans I know are totally against what he stands for. Also, if you are a Tea Bagger that makes disparaging images of Obama, I would think you are full of hate. I am laughing at you because at least I can see how silly both of these marches are, and differentiate between true Civil Rights marches, and Farrakhan, who is a fraud.
Now who is making assumptions. When have I ever in word or deed preached hatred? You never did answer that question. You also never answered the question on supporting reparations or the idea that men, by their very nature, oppress women.
I just find your lack of respect for people in general to be unappealing. You have made the assumption I believe in reparations of any kind, which I do not. I believe in Civil Rights reform in making laws better so women can obtain jobs and vote, and minorities can also have better career opportunities. Do you make hateful pictures of Obama like the ones I saw on this march. Finding the Tea Baggers appeal is rather comical because all of their signs were over the top and yes, stereotypical depictions of Obama as an African man. One had a crown on him and was making him look like Sambo. The lack of minorities at this march also might be a clue. I saw one African American man in crowd.
Those were questions, Sweetie, not statements. You can support something like civil rights, yet not support reparations. So why is it you cannot support the ideas behind the Tea Party and this march and not agree with the (minority) of racists that are among them?
If they want to march that is fine. I am very troubled by the lady posing next to the Sambo depiction of Obama though. Where did she think she was, Disneyland? I did answer the questions anyway, but I wonder why you would even want to be associated with people who make those type of signs. I was no supporter of Bush, but I went out of my way to stay away from rallies where people were marching with hateful signs. I am not much of a crowd person though.
Stupid people will be stupid no matter what they do. I get just as incensed when I see people calling our soldiers baby killers, so I can understand your sentiment. But neither your feelings nor mine towards the radicals of that movement say anything about the qualities of the majority of people in the movement.
The thing about radicals is that they are so desperate for any kind of exposure they are attracted to these sorts of things. Rest assured that I and most of the moderates in anti-Tax group know these people for who they are and don't allow them any influence in swaying our opinions. In effect, she may choose to associate with us, but we do not choose to associate with her. Likewise you choose to associate with people who are for true civil rights and woman's rights, not for those who agitate for reparations or other nonsense like that.
The truth of the matter is often more complex than it might seem at first glance.
Yes you are right about the complexity of the truth. I am just glad a few people in the Tea Bag party realize how ridiculous some are acting. Whereas you may now why you are for these principals, and think some of them just wanted to go on a vacation and act silly. I definitely do not appreciate people who say disrespectful things to the troops.
What really scares me is how long it took the two of us to explain our positions and get to the point where we realize we see eye to eye on more things than might be apparent. It's bad news if more and more people on whatever side of whatever issue have the same problems. Nothing good ever comes from extreme dogmatism and I'm afraid we're becoming more and more dogmatic as time goes on.
Honestly I think our country has always been, to some extent. The polarization is just more on the forefront with the advent of the Internet and 24/7 news/entertainment programs.
We had this sort of thing happen at least three other times in history. The first was the antebellum South and North. The second being Japanese interment. The third being McCarthyism. Those times it went beyond polarization and became something far worse.
The common thread in all of those, I think, is the fear of losing your ability to provide for yourself and your family. For certain that was the great fear of the South. It's that very fear that infects most of the Tea Baggers. We already have our healthcare options limited through insurance companies and government red tape, we fear more of the same.
use of the term Tea Baggers (if you are referring to the derogatory term) is not respectful of the majority of those in those movements that have right conscience at heart by wanting to bring back the correctness of the US Constitution and government by the people...let alone the recognition that we are a Republic, not a democracy.
Um, I called myself a Tea Bagger. If someone wants to take that as derogatory, that's on them. I don't really care what the haters on any side of an issue think. Plus I'm not going to let the Progressives set the tone of the argument. If you play by the enemy's rules, you lose.
You have a right to your fears, but honestly I am much more afraid for Americans who do not have access to health care. I am in favor of health care reform, but I wanted to see something more like single payer. I do not fear losing the ability to take care of myself because I know some times these fears are exaggerated. That is just my take on it.
Most people in favor of federal health care are simply prefer to perpetuate the culture of dependency on the government.
There's a very simple way to ensure access to affordable healthcare to every American. Unfortunately there are people with a vested interest in keeping things the way they are or with as little real change as possible. I just wrote a hub on it, if you want to check it out.
Just so you know I'd be one to benefit right now from a universal healthcare plan of any stripe. So why am I so opposed to it?
You're opposed to it because you understand that the government has no business getting involved in health care, nor can the government run any major program efficiently and humanely.
You are opposed to paying more taxes and government intervention because of your Libertarian view points. I, on the other hand, have a bit more faith in a government monitored health care program than I do in the corporate run structure we have now. Your ideas for improving health care are good, but I still prefer the universal health care model. I am not opposed to government oversight and intervention. Many of us work for the city in some capacity, which is funded by the government. I have taught in the past, and education is also funded and oversaw by the government.
Your faith in government is unfounded. it is true faith in the Biblical sense; government can't even get water bottles to hurricane victims. Medicaid and Medicare are bankrupt.
INCORRECT. Bush's 'government' could not get water bottles to hurricane victims. Note his mother's words, too, on how the disaster, because the people lived in the 9th ward in New Orleans, were mostly black and poor, actually "worked well for them."
Human endeavor is human endeavor. Government is only as good or bad as who we elect; pure capitalism offers no salvation by that token either.
I'd be the first to say that we need to eliminate corporate intervention in healthcare as well. It's crazy to use insurance to pay for a doctor's visit. If that isn't wasteful, I don't know what is.
I've also worked in government and have seen firsthand how politics becomes the overriding concern, not doing the right thing. Looking good rather than doing good in other words. I come by my mistrust of government legitimately. They should not be given control over something so important.
You have the right to legitimately mistrust the government. However, I have also seen the proper management of government funding at many police stations, museums, libraries, and schools supported by the government to some extent. With our large country and population it would be impossible for our infrastructure to function with less government, and where would the funding come from? The argument that rich people could help poor people is not a good one as I prefer a government to keep people in check. Government can be corrupt to some extent, but business can really be more so without regulation. We are no longer a small agrarian country that can get by without proper regulation and infrastructure.
Police stations, museums, and libraries are managed by *local* governments that answer to local voters. They are required by law to run on a balanced budget.
They also receive funding from the state and the federal government. The county certainly does! Several of our local cities are running deficits.
Your local cities are running deficits and you are proud of that?
Many cities and counties through out the nation our. Our economy in general is running a deficit, but unlike you I realize money is a man made invention. I do not let it obsess my every little thought. Eventually I believe we will be okay, and Social Security and health care will work out in the long run. People get way too weird about money, and get scared of the government taxing their man made invention. I would hate to see how people would act about it if they did have less government intervention, which would allow a class of people who want to control all the wealth to truly emerge. Who would keep these people in check without some sort of government regulation?
Funding would come from people. They talked about closing the facility I worked with down the last time we had a downturn. It was in 2004. Tax receipts were falling and the state needed to save money. What we should have been allowed to do was set up a foundation to solicit funding from private organizations and groups. Had we done that, we'd have been golden I think. So you know, we serve mentally ill kids in a residential setting to help them transition between an acute care setting and home.
Since we weren't allowed to do that, we had to apply for JHACO accreditation so we could then bill Medicare. Which we got and that's why we're still open today. I recently found out that the state wants to eliminate any sort of physical restraint used on our residents. This is a very dangerous move. I don't know if you've ever worked with this population before, but they have a bad tendency to test you to see if you mean what yous say. Some of the kids test you by slamming their heads against the wall, punching walls hard enough to break their hands,etc. The thing is that most of them will not stop unless you make them stop. Now we get all sorts of training on how to do it humanely and safely. It's not like COPS, for example, but you have to be free to use physical restraint when the situation demands it. By doing things this way, it's only a matter of time before they have a death. It's happened before.
That is why I'm against just about anything governmental. Politics takes precedence before all other considerations.
I saw the exact same thing happen with the homeless "network" in the SF bay area. All politics, no real care except by a few caring individuals.
It pisses me off is what it does. You can't work with those kids without feeling for how they get screwed around by their parents, the system, etc. Heck we can't even provide a safe place for them anymore to help them get straightened out anymore.
I worked for a private school with students that were thrown out of the public school, but it was highly mismanaged. They received a large amount of funding from school districts and they squandered it on taking the kids out to the county fair and on other field trips. I quit after a month because I am not the type of person that wants to chase kids around a building, which is what they were doing most of the time. I heard from other people that worked there that other schools ran by this company were managed well, but this one was the worst of the worse. You are right to disagree with government funding of any kind, but I overall I still like some regulation. My fear is of what things will become if all regulation were gone.
If they were getting money from school districts, it's not really private. In that case I'm not surprised it was mismanaged. It looks like the owners only ran the school to fleece the school districts of money. It's called moral hazard by some economists.
They also sell other goods I believe, but claim to be a private business. Some how they get away with accepting money from the school districts, and it is all quite a bit corrupt. No one really wants to teach there after a certain point, and some people leave after the first day. The joke is you can make more substitute teaching than being a full time teacher, so who would want to work there.
You're going to get pissed, but because of unions, public teachers are paid far more than they would otherwise. (See, I told you.)
Now I understand that entry level teaching is no great shakes, but once you've been there for a while you can get your MA paid for and then you'll really start making the money. Problem is there is little evidence that getting an MA makes you a better teacher.
Shouldn't compensation be based on how well your students do in school? Wouldn't that put pressure on teaches to make sure their students understood the subject? Isn't that what we do in other places to encourage hard work?
I already have my MA and I am through with teaching. I tried various levels and did not like it. Actually I am glad unions do pay teachers better wages for public schools because no I know likes working in right to work states such as Arizona. Many teachers cross the border to work in California on a daily basis.
Sure, but look at the problems with CA, they're bankrupt. A big part of that is having to pay union scales. The only way CA can get more money is increasing taxes. What happens when you can't increase taxes anymore. What happens when you tax rate is so high, people start leaving the state. What is that going to do to the fabric of society. I can understand why you think paying teachers more is a good thing, but I don't thin you take the unanticipated consequences into account enough.
Unfortunately the types of kids I have taught would not even be allowed in certain private schools. I have taught in areas where children have more issues than the average teacher would want to work with. There are many good teachers out there, but in today's environment many public schools are more about crowd control than even teaching the content. Private school is a good option if you can afford to send your kids, but they would throw out many kids who attend public schools because they get away with more there. Kids who have really bad behavioral problems may even get thrown out of the public schools, and sent to one of those private schools funded by the school districts. Those kids are a minority of the population, but no one is holding them accountable for their actions.
This might be heretical, but here goes. You can't force kids to learn. If they are totally opposed to it, they won't do it. I know, I've dealt with the type before. So we let them go. Go to work, go home, whatever. What we as a people need to do is see that opportunities exist for people to get the education they feel like getting when they choose to get it.
There would be other benefits as well. I was bored in school because I breezed through most of my classes in school. I never did homework, but aced my tests. Homework was a waste of time for me. Unfortunately it made me lazy and that bit me on the rear end later. Since I thought I knew it all, I didn't get in the habit of studying, and boy did I pay for that.
If I'd had the option of taking accelerated classes in elementary and secondary school, I'd have been challenged more and probably developed better study habits. Of course I might not have either. Hindsight is always 20/20. At the very least I'd not have been held back to the level of the weakest student. Likewise the weakest student would get the extra time and help they need to better understand a particular subject. Some people learn some things quicker than others and others need more time. One size fits all rarely works.
That was not really my point. What I was trying to say is the private schools really have no interest in teaching or accepting the majority of students. Public school is flawed, but at least we accept everyone. However, if I had a child and could afford to send them to a private school, I probably would.
Yet even you, yourself, were forced to teach kids who obviously didn't want to be there. No matter how good a teacher, how do you teach kids who don't want to learn? Don't think that there would not be schools that catered to middle or lower class kids in a society without public education. Much like my old job, foundations would spring up to make sure these schools would stay open. Of course there is no room for unions in such a scheme, so I don't expect it to ever happen.
Private schools don't have to accept problem students, they are in the business of teaching not babysitting someones brat. Public schools very seldom tolerate problem kids and get rid of them all the time, that does not make them better or worse in that regard!
Actually public education is more inclusive, and they do keep kids in the system. If you get expelled from one school you go to a continuation school. If you are way too hard to handle to a private school for students with behavioral problems, but this is a small minority of students. I worked in education, so I can tell you all about the corruption of all the school systems. Private school is good for kids who can afford it, or who are lucky enough to get vouchers and scholarships. Actually public schools in good communities are better than some of the private schools around, which is why so many people used to move to the mountains when I was growing up, and even now.
That may be so in California, in Texas if you are a problem and refuse to obey rules you go! That may not be true in your experience but we have a different way of dealing with people who can't or won't control themselves!
Statistically speaking no child left behind was not as successful as it appears on the surface. Many of these kids ended up dropping out or just applying to GED programs.
I lived in Texas for a while (after CA) and I loved how parents kept their kids in line - made them behave in public and mind their manners. CA is like a zoo the way parents let their kids run wild.
That is simply not true. Many parts of California have public schools that outrank the private ones. I grew up in a community with extraordinary public schools. Also, Texas does not have the diverse population California has, so it is easier for parents to keep their kids in line when they are not working two or three jobs.
How would you know what Texas has for a population? Have you lived here? Ever been to Houston,Dallas? Lots of people from all over the world in Texas!
You do not have the level of crime and poverty that bigger cities such as LA has. Texas has it problems like the rest of the US too, and I am sure there are rowdy kids there too. I do not believe Texas is the golden pagoda, and California is the lowly one.
I did not say it did, again how do you know about crime or poverty in Texas?
When it comes to manners CA is indeed the "lowly one". I've lived in a number of states and have traveled to most of them. Nowhere are kids a rude and bad mannered as in CA. But it's not just the kids. The adults are even worse. So why do I live here? Glutton for punishment I guess.
If you believe that propaganda I feel sorry for you. My mom was afraid to move to California because people used to feel that way out in Kansas, but when she got here she realized there are good and bad people, just like everyone. California has many wonderful things, and is not lowly. No state is above any other, and all states have rude kids and nice kids.
Why do you assume that I am basing my points on propaganda? I live in the bay area and watch these brats right in front of me, and I also watch the parents do nothing. These are not parents who are working two or three jobs. They are affluent. And yes, there are nice kids here too, but they are the exception, unfortunately.
I wouldn't live in CA if I didn't love it here. But I'm not going to pretend it's not a loony bin either.
Granted I haven't lived there in decades and I lived on a military base to boot, but I can still remember the culture shock I got once I started to go to school off base. Most of the kids were cool, but we did have some loonies out there. Good times, good times.
Well yes there are affluent parents that spoil their children also. However, it is just plain wrong to act like children are more well behaved in other states, and California is no a loony bin. That type of thinking is very divisive and archaic really. Go to a Walmart or Target in any part of the nation and people complain about poorly behaved children. A few people even wrote hubs on this subject.
Keeping kids in line and teaching them manners is not a "class" issue.
Not really, my dear. My mother is Mexican and my father American. I can tell you if I acted anywhere near like some of the kids you see today, I'd have caught hell from both of them. Have you ever seen an angry Hispanic mother? shudder Still it was good for me. They're the reason I act in a (mostly) civilized manner these days.
I can assure you I held my kids to the same standards, heck I even had kids telling their therapists that they needed someone to keep them on the straight and narrow, God bless them.
Yes but you are talking about you, and I am talking about how there are good communities here, and bad ones. Even the best of mothers in LA might not have as much time to supervise their kids because they literally have to work several jobs to pay the bills. My theory is people should wait until later in life to have kids and not have as many, just to share. Several people are demonizing California and putting her down. State snobbery is just that, I know there are some big problems in their state that they are not seeing.
Well at least you know that your theory on childbearing is just that a theory. I suppose I see things differently than you because I lived in several different areas of the country growing up. We started in Camp Pendelton when I was a kid, moved to Massachusetts when I was a teen and finished high school in Missouri. I wouldn't go so far as to say CA kids are the worst, personally, I blame Dr. Spock and his nonsense on raising kids for our current problems with kids. Getting spanked as a child didn't warp me or turn me into a mass murderer. What it did was give me firm boundaries that I really didn't want to cross and taught me that if I kept pushing the envelope in that direction things would only get worse.
I have visited several other states, and I love California the most because of the natural beauty on the climate. Actually there are kids everywhere that act out, and good kids too. Also, yes it is a theory to have less children and to have them older in life, but it is also good common sense. The Octomom and other women that want to be like her cannot exactly take care of their broods.
She is not symbolic of all of California, and a lot of people really hate her here. Some even picketed the hospital where she gave birth, but I find that those people are very cruel to be honest. I do not support her actions, but most people in California are not acting like her. Even people in Texas want to have lots of kids and not supervise them.
Where did I say Texas had a monopoly on raising perfect children? You keep bringing Texas in to this as if you have knowledge of Texas, you assume we all have 3 teeth and ride horses everywhere! I'll have you know I don't ride my horses everywhere, unless the truck won't start!
Everyone in Arkansas has teeth, just that they carry them in their pockets!
I do not think we should be poking fun at any state. There are people even here that do not have teeth, but they are usually meth addicts, especially the younger ones.
Sweetie, all humor is a little cruel. If you haven't noticed I can poke fun even at myself. It helps you keep your sanity. Sometimes black humor is exactly what you need to get through to someone, been there done that too.
It is fine. I got it was humor, I just find all of these type of jokes a bit irking to people that are from those states.
Why get irked? If you don't like what people say, treat them like trolls. Another sanity saving tip.
Well I guess if you are having fun, carry on. It is probably a good idea for dealing with some comments here.
It's a weakness in current academic thought that you have to have perfect consensus. A doubt very much you get that even in the ivory tower of academia. People have opinions, let them have those opinions. They'll accept truth or they won't. In any event, how does that materially affect you? Are they hindering you living your life in any way? If not, then don't worry about it.
I don't think you are ready for a Black President or a speed freak!
Don't go there man, a speed freak in the Oval Office, can you imagine?
I think we can agree that getting things done for the sake of doing things is rarely the best policy.
I'm starting to feel like speedy Gonzales, every day I wake up and ask "Who moved my cheese?"
I like a certain kinda girl! "Some girls like boys like me but some girls don't"
I chalk up racism to envy. Those people just wish they could be Mexican. I really think they're Meixican't.
That "Mexican't" is a common phrase in Texas! It is used in a pejorative manner
Figures. I first came across it in Once Upon a Time in Mexico. Found it hilarious, so I'm taking it back.
I just thought you should know with all the sensitive types on here!
The Director or Producer of those films is from Austin
Once Upon a Time In Mexico may be an entertaining movie for some, but I did not like all the bloodshed. It is easier to read about it in books than see it on the screen, which is why I rarely watch movies with violence.
Robert Rodrigues, I think lives in Austin, I know he was born in San Antonio. I've always liked his movies.
Yeah, they need all their teeth to look good on camera.
You deigned to tell me how much better Texas is than California, that is why. All states have their problems and strengths.
Making stuff up again, I never said Texas was better than anything to you, what exactly did you read that you think I said that?
Well saying people in Texas have better manners. This is a blanket statement, and then Madame X saying California is a loony bin. Well you are both going to feel that way for years, but I do not go around having these blanket feelings about particular states myself.
Oh, Texas isn't better than CA, they just have better manners. (sorry Tex, but my state's better than yours)
It's a little known fact that the Republicans poll about 45% of the vote, just shy of a majority to have a say in government. It's kind of the same in Missouri. We tried for years to get a conceal carry measure passed. Guess who blocked it? The cities. Which party was the largest in the cities in Missouri? The Dems. We finally managed to ram it through, but it just goes to show how a minority can muck up the process to have things done "their way". California is no different.
Oh I don't know, the Northeast has a lot to recommend it, at least in the fall. Dear Lord was that an adjustment to make. I do miss the ocean though. I don't even disagree with you on the having kids later thing, but that is an individual decision. What I find horrific about the whole octomom thing was that people were actually lining up to provide services for this loon. Let people be loons but let them do it on their own dime, not mine.
Octomom knew how to exploit the system because she worked for a hospital. It is scary how so many people want to support her, but often these people back out because she does not like their control. She fired many nannies. I think her dad went back to Iraq to get a job because he was like I do not want to supervise eight more kids!
You just put your finger right on it tech - boundaries. The parents don't enforce boundaries because they don't have any themselves.
Its all that it takes a village crap, sometimes it takes real discipline!
Inclusion for inclusion's sake is not really the point. Kids who don't want to be somewhere will make your life hell until they get out. I know, I've seen it happen. Lord did I see it happen. The fact still remains that you can't force someone to learn if they don't want to. Now that's not to say they won't change their mind later after all the popularity of GED programs is growing by the year.
The big problem with forcing those kids to stay in school is that they will invariably start to act out because they're bored or don't want to be there. How is that fair to the kids who are there to actually learn? Another heretical statement, but education is not a right, it's a choice. The best we can do is make education available when someone wants it and not to force them into it when they don't want to be there.
I actually agree with you that it would be easier to tell kids to go home if they are acting out. Unfortunately in some communities school is the only safety net a child may have, and they can learn a little bit more there than hanging out on the streets and joining a gang.
Those are choices Sweetie. Just before I lost my job, one of my kids came by to visit us. He had just gotten out of jail for the third time. All of us told him while he was there that if he didn't watch it, he'd wind up in jail. He didn't listen. Just by the way he acted, I was certain the lesson hadn't sunk in. Sometimes you have to let someone hit rock bottom before helping them up. By then, at least, they'll know beyond that shadow of a doubt that you really do know what you're talking about.
Ledefensetech, it's not enough to make teachers responsible for what students do. A good teacher can teach a good student well, but to hold the teacher solely accountable for a not so good student's performance will merely make all teachers help all students cram for the test -- and this will not cause anyone to learn anything.
Private schools maintain quality by limiting admissions as well hiring only excellent teachers. Parents try to get their children into the best schools, but even with private tutoring, not every applicant gets in.
I understand that, but when talking to people who have had "the state can do no wrong" hammered into them since elementary school (yes, I was one of those), you often times have to craft your arguments slowly. It's hard to wean yourself off government propaganda. I still wince when I think about how much of a naif I used to be.
But your side has propaganda too. Even if Ron Paul became president I doubt he would be able to implement the reforms that you are talking about. Also, as someone who has taught in the public schools I have seen things first hand you have not. I know for a fact half of the private schools would kick out the students I was asked to deal with on a daily basis.
Do you honestly believe people wouldn't pay more attention to what was being done with their money if the actually paid for a service? Right now people don't pay attention because it doesn't feel like their paying for anything. Often times our money is taken from us in taxes before we even see it. Since that is the case, we really don't have any say in how our money will be used. On the other hand, if we pay for things, we can choose how our money is spent.
I wouldn't worry too much about regulations and lack of them. Google Underwriter's Laboratories and you'll see an example of a private company that issues standards manufacturing companies strive to meet. JHACO is public/private, but there is no reason why there can't be other private accreditation companies out there that specialize in healthcare quality. JHACO would become ever so much better with competition to shake them from their complacency.
You are wrong. The American people are fed up with out of control spending. health care reform that won't work and cap and trade which by the way is just a tax on us. I am a patriot. I love this country, but I will not follow blindly a president and congress who will not lissen to my concerns I just wish I could have been in DC with the 1.5 million other patriots. I think you need to sit down and read the health care bill H.R.3200. read the cap and trade bill. I did.
I read it and support something more aggressive. I would like to see something similar to NHS in the United States. Many people I know feel the same way as I do. We have friends without health care and some of us do not even buy health insurance because it is way too expensive. I myself can live without going to the doctor, but adequate and affordable health care for all is a human right. I am definitely not wrong, but I stand for things that you highly oppose.
Food is a human right. Where do I get my government supper?
You are so outlandish, and yes there are food stamp programs for people with low incomes. I am not opposed to social safety nets for less advantaged Americans. Most people in the world recognize health care as a human right. I really do not enjoy your exaggerations.
You misunderstand me. Food is a human right so the government should provide food to everyone. Food is more important than health care. I can live without health care for quite a while but I think most people need food every day.
The government has programs such as food stamps and food banks for those who are low income. People who make below a certain amount of money do need more help than others who are earning a full time wage. You are still exaggerating, and I am not playing along. Government supervised health care is not giving it away for free, just helping to keep the industry a bit more fair and honest. In the UK people still pay taxes that goes towards their care, which is overall more accessible and affordable.
The government also has insurance and health care for low income. Free eye care, free dental, free well baby care, free clinic visits, free transportation to and from the doctor's office, free baby food, free pre-school, free education from kindergarten through 12th grade. It's all in place now.
However, if everyone should have free health care, I want my free food and transportation as well. Food and transportation are human rights as well. I need those more than free health care.
We need a change in health care, but not this way. Put tort reforms for malpractis and caps on insurance companies. Get rid of all the wast in our government run medicare and medicade. Stop spending money we tax payers don't have.
As a whole, the insurance companies only earn about 3.3% profit. They are capped by the market.
I do not want some government offical to tell me what kind of care I can get, thats taking away my rights.
Dead right. Taking over 16% of the free market is a further erosion of our human right to self-determination.
The young people of this country better start taking an intrest in whats going on, because if they don't they will loose what rights they have.
Their rights are being chipped away by each succeeding administration. George Washington would throw up on George Bush and Hussein Obama.
I don't know. Washington was a bit sympathetic to Hamilton and his Federalists. Jefferson? He would more than puke I think.
We do not even know what George Washington would think. I believe the founding fathers would actually be proud of the progress we have made. We have to keep in mind they lived in a time when we were a smaller country and had less people. Life continuously evolves and changes.
No, we do know what they would think. Do a little reading.
No, do a lot of reading.
You can get a clear picture of what their intentions were.
Washington and Jefferson would puke on the social programs imposed by our leaders at the federal level. No doubt.
Washington was not a career politician. When he left Mt. Vernon to serve his first term he wrote "I feel like a prisoner being led to he execution."
He understood the intent of the founding fathers to create a government let by citizens, not politicians.
So basically the election does not matter and Obama should do what his opponents want over those who voted for him.
According to the news report I heard on Canadian network television an estimated 79,000 people marched. Which is still a large number why pump up the numbers?
Everyone pumps up their numbers. As for the election, well many people voted for Obama because he wasn't a Republican. They did the same thing in 1932 with FDR. He ran on a platform of cutting the spending programs Hoover put into place. He did the exact opposite of what he said he was going to do, once in office. Hmmm. Kind of like today. The Great Depression was magnified in the US like it was nowhere else in the world due to FDR's policies. People today trust the government much less than they did back then. That's why we're marching today whereas our grandparents and great-grandparents stood still.
check it out. GOOOH = Get Out of Our House. For those who are tired of the same old tactics by ALL the politicians, dems and rebubs, who are career politicians and have forgotten WE elected them and they need to listen. It is the government for the people by the people.
Transportation is also a human right. I need transportation more than I need free health care. If I can't get to work tomorrow I will be fired I won't be able to make my mortgage payment.
The federal government needs to give me a ride to work tomorrow.
Once again you are exaggerating. In countries with nationalized health care people pay taxes for public transportation, just like they do in the US. Taking the bus is a cheaper way to get to work. Many work places promote ride sharing and carpooling. People still pay taxes towards these things, and they do not exaggerate. If you pay taxes towards public transportation and decide not to use it that is your choice. Walking to work is free too!
I feel a little tired and sleepy today, but I don't plan to go to the doctor. However, if I can't get a ride to work tomorrow I will lose my job. I need the federal government to take me to work. I work at different locations all over the city on a varying schedule and the bus doesn't pass by my house anyway. I need a free car before I need free health care.
My experience with NHS is nothing but a LONG waiting list. The government is messing everything up with the idea they know what's best for us. We elected them to work for us.
As far as human rights:
Now we will hear curses against the UN from the contingent...
I like the Declaration of Independence better. I never even liked the Declaration of the Right of Man the French gave us. This UN document is more of the same sort of nonsense.
I'm pretty sure Obama is serious about this health care thing.
I saw a picture of him with shirt sleeves rolled up and pointing his finger at us again!
It could be worse, he could be giving us the "look".
Yes you did and we can't let him have the last word on our health care its ours.
And he wasn't wearing a tie.
Just like the guys on the Weather Channel. When they are in the studio covering a hurricane they take off their suit jackets.
Vote them all out in ten months. vote for recall if your state has it. I wish illinois had it.
California has it. About 15 years ago we recalled Grey Davis, the governor. But it'll never happen now. Californians voted Pelosi in. That says it all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_Davis#Recall Sorry 2003!
Dang - I swore it was before I moved to another state. I guess I was still very caught up in CA stuff that I remembered it as if I was there. Oh well. Mea culpa.
That was only in 2003. I see you really do not live in California or know much about our state.
Ok, so I made a mistake - Why are you being so rude?
I was not being rude, but you are mocking people who lived in Calfornia and who might have voted for Pelosi. I actually like her you know.
Haven't read through this entire thread...
But....back to number estimates, I'd like to contribute that I've worked on many well-attended political events where we have known for CERTAIN how many people were in attendance (whether it was from official Secret Service calculations) or by looking at lists where people's names have been checked off as they enter. I cannot even begin to tell you how many times I have read incredibly low media estimates on turn-out, even if the media was provided with official, hard numbers. For some reason, the media doesn't always accurately report event turnout....weird! I can also personally attest to the media reporting exaggerated numbers for protest groups outside of candidate events. Truly irresponsible, inaccurate reporting. (I'm assuming most people can count to 10?) One newspaper published 50 protesters when there were CLEARLY 10. Photographic evidence and all. Oh, well - if it is published in the newspaper or anywhere else, it must be true!
One case in particular was very interesting as two candidates used the same venue two weeks apart. Our candidate had people overflowing out of the venue, the other candidate did not. Guess what? The other candidate magically had a much higher turnout estimate than the event I had worked with. Strange...
Anyways, I don't care if it was 100 people or 10 million people in attendance, the thing that IRKS me is that the media tends to inaccurately report event turnouts all the time. I think it is truly ridiculous. I never trust the numbers I see, no matter the media outlet, unless I was actually at an event myself. They are seldom accurate. Either over-exaggerated or minimized, depending on the slant of the report.
Well, then some reporters should be without jobs, certainly.
Truth is always a little more complex, and estimating it is also complex, speaking as someone who works in both the capacity of organizing events and estimating the numbers, as well, for publication.
...AND speaking as someone whose professional event planning and writing carries no partisanship whatsoever...
Can you honestly say there isn't any bias in the news world? Who determines what is newsworthy?
I look at the news world through the lens of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle - your observation of the data, by definition, alters the data.
in other words, your point of view skews the reporting.
As I state, it is actually a little complex, LDT, and not to be torn apart by partisanship in the getting-sillier-by-the-minute forums.
I was saying there that I work in an entirely nonpartisan field...planning events like books signing parties and concerts, dinners & the like. I'm also the writer responsible for estimating the #'s for reporting, if need be, in our own material or to the media... Got to go by first count, ticket count, cash count, etc... So the numbers are never definite at first, really. Similar to what they have to contend with in reporting.
There are some books I could dig up and recommend you read as far as journalistic 'newsworthiness' and bias, but I'm not going to go into long paragraphs on the subject just to promote and/or disprove a partisan argument among the moronic trolls today. I'm not in the mood.
In a way these people are held up to an impossible standard. It would help if some of those people in the field would admit to it so we could all get on with the business of rational discussion. At any rate, if you want to shoot me a link or email for the names of those books, feel free. I'll have a copious amount of time to read them, after all.
Why do you have a lot of time, LDT?
And I hope to God you at least see what I'm saying about the state of the forums?
Yeah, bloody amazing...I have had a career...geez. And a degree in journalism. Double geez.
And it isn't about admitting standards. It's about knowing standards. It's a profession...like anything else. Anyway, there is no rational discussion here among the bored and/or whatever they are retiree trolls/what have you.
But remember... I'm really a man (that incumbent sex change operation), and about 30 years older than you.
Do please feel so sorry for me!
well then, you should post a more "manly" photo.
But none that fan her ego as much as she does herself.
I wonder if she has a boyfriend. She never mentions anything about it...
Actually, TK, I have a girlfriend who is also undergoing a sex change operation... A "He" into a "Her." And me, a "She" into a "He." A very complicated, so follow me???
It's been really, really tough. You know? With so many people out there hating people who make these kinds of decisions. They tend to see them as a little different than themselves. That's why I keep talking about it, especially sincerely to you, so much.
I hope you understand.
Oh, Tex, I've explained my sex change operation to you over and over again. Still, we keep meeting like this.
Said very tongue-in-cheek, you troll. Like it's supposed to be some big unusual deal or something to have a work life/experience? Get it? Don't you even pick up on that sort of tone in writing?
Hopeless, just hopeless...and pathetic.
ldt, with a couple of exceptions, you are clearly in the wrong forum if you're looking for rational discussion. but then, i know that you knew.
Why should it matter that my professional event experience is political? Actually, I think this gives me even more reason to speak on the matter as to how the media loves to minimize or over-exaggerate numbers to fit their story when it comes to politics. Political events are a whole different ball game.
I can personally attest to many examples of the press inaccurately reporting crowd numbers, as stated in my post above. Including times where we provided official S.S. estimates to media outlets. I have also had several conversations with SS agents that said they have seen inaccurate crowd reporting by the media, all the time. It does happen.
To me, personally, I find the inaccuracies quite disappointing.
I understand that with an event like this (no metal detectors, guest list, etc.) that it is more difficult to estimate crowds. However, the numbers coming from various sources are enough to make anyone raise their eyebrows - anywhere from 10,000 to 2 million - huge discrepancies, anywhere you read.
Hey Jib, that 6000 came from a credible source! Just ask her.
Tex, I keep posting it to show some 'proof', but even when they see it with their own eyes....they just can't admit they're wrong.
No sh, er duh! I thought you misunderstood me, my bad!
Admit what??? That they're . . . gasp . . . WRONG! You can't be serious.
Like it's not enough he's has his hands in everything already, here is what's next on the agenda:
President Barack Obama to push banking overhaul
President Barack Obama is to call for a series of sweeping regulatory changes to the framework governing the world's largest banks in a bid to prevent a collapse like that of Lehman Brothers.
And yet another brilliant move:
Trade relations between two of the world’s biggest economies deteriorated after Barack Obama, US president, signed an order late on Friday to impose a new duty of 35 per cent on Chinese tyre imports on top of an existing 4 per cent tariff.
And Yet another:
White House economists in recent days have warned that the economic recovery won't be swift. Lawrence Summers, director of the National Economic Council, said last week that unemployment will "remain unacceptably high for a number years."
Ok, I've proved my point.
Does Obama know that if he wants to beat Bush's record, the numbers have to go down? 9.7% to date.
Only 4 more hours before the Monday "Rush to do something new by Obama Day!"
Obama has made 263 speeches in 235 days in office. When does he have time to think of all these "new" things to do?
In Obamaland, all the trees are covered in chocolate, and the sky is cotton candy.
"Think" He is told what to think by George Soros!
He's cloned ..... or actually, he's not human after all but from a UFO.
Great its the woman with an X in her name! All things should automatically be discredited because you have an X! Not my rules just trying to obey the hall monitor!
E.T is cute, but he was teachable .... Madame, we love your X!!
hey - if the current admin gets their way no one will even have an X. Just a number tattoo . . .
Once again imply Obama is Hilter and sending people to concentration camps. That is a rather ridiculous and rude insinuation.
Oh I'm not implying - I'm stating it outright. ALL of Obama's actions are IDENTICAL with Hitler's pre-WWII Germany. But don't take my word for it. It's not my opinion anyway. It is history.
Obama stands for racial equality and equal opportunities for all. He is a decent man, and some one I admire quite a bit. Occasionally we do elect presidents I can admire as people, and Carter and Obama are both of those types. You may not like their political stances, but men such as these are very respectful and even listen to their opposition.
Ol Lady made me pause true blood! Carter? Did you say Carter? Sweetie, you can admire him for showing up on a jobsite and swinging a hammer for a 1o minute Photo op, but to admire the worst President in the history of this Country is crazy!
I hope that she isn't admiring that he is an anti-Semite.
He builds home for the poor and since his presidency he has also worked towards humanitarian efforts in the Middle East. Carter is not a anti-Semite, but slander is popular on the net.
But he won't send his brother in Kenya $50 - which in Kenya, would get him out of that mud hut he's living in.
This is Carter, not Obama. As for Obama we do not have all the details about that situation. Sometimes things are slanted to look worse if you know what I mean.
One wears a sweater, one rolls up his sleeves and takes off his suit jacket. One is true to his religion, one threw his pastor of 20 years under the bus.
One has a degree in engineering and the other won't release his transcripts. I wonder if he actually graduated.
Weren't those the conditions of a foreign student scholarship?
And the birth info... that issue isn't resolved yet. He's been reported to have been born in two different hosipitals in Hawaii and his grandmother or aunt, ( have to go check my info) said she was there at the birth in Kenya. Plus, Hawaii only released the short copy of the BC, where's the long one?? This is so far from being over.
www.goooh.com is a new organization on the horizon.
You would make a great citizen of North Korea, but of the US - not so much.
It is very rude to Obama and anyone of African-American ancestry. Honestly no one would be saying Hitler like comments to Clinton, and they were very critical of him.
It is an outrage to say that about anyone - unless it's true. Race has absolutely nothing to do with it and your statement is racist in itself.
Well people were not making these comments about Clinton, and they were very critical of him. I saw several of you speak down to Laringo the other day when she shared this point about how Obama is getting weirder attacks because of his ethnicity, and yes this is true to some extent. There is still prejudice to some degree in this country, and we should not be comparing Obama to Hitler. I never did that with Bush, and I definitely did not like his policies.
I for one will continue to compare him to Hitler, and I will do it without being prejudice.
For crying out loud people, most of us who don't like bama do so because he has a socialistic agenda. The color of his skin is a non-issue!! Why don't people get it???????
Its easier to marginalize racists! Its called tactics
I understand that, but it is REALLY annoying!! Some of my black friends voted for him because of his color so we agree to disagree, while other black friends did not vote for him for the same reasons - his agenda.
Pretty darn pathetic.
You will never be ready to hear that someone likes Obama. Just uttering these words sends this entire thread into a fit of hysterics.
Actually no it comes from you,Lita,Blue Duck and every one else who constantly whines about people not listening or hanging on their every word!
I'm happy you like him. I like his pedigree; Harvard, graduate degree, community organizer, family man, faithful husband. His policies are depressing.
Yeah - because liking Obama means you don't want anyone but an elite few to be free. I can get hysterical over that - yeah
This distortion of reality is really odd indeed. Maybe it is time to realize that we are pretty free and always will be. I am not sure what you think is going to happen, but reading too many scary novels used to make me queasy too.
If simply do not agree with your interpretation of the Constitution. Everyone keeps saying what would the founding fathers do, but guess what, they lived in a different time than you. If you think Obama is a socialist, I am sure you would have had panic attacks living through the Roosevelt administration. Remember how he ran and was elected to four terms, which prompted Eishenhower to support the two term amendment to the Constitution? Republicans were very scared of a Democratic candidate being as popular as Roosevelt again.
My interpretation is that of the founding fathers. Your interpretation is clueless pablum.
The Constitution is a living document that has been reassessed over time. Written loosely so it will have lasting resonance.
Disrespectful, close minded, and pack mentality are some of your favorite things.
With all due respect, the living part is called amending it. Adding socialized medicine is a direct violation of the limited powers of the Federal Government.
If you want to amend it, go for it. I support that.
I do not see it that way. We regulate cell phones and telephone services, and did not amend the Constitution to do that. We regulate food and drugs under the FDA, and did not amend the Constitution to do that either. Regulating food was not a concern in Washington's time because most people grew their own or shopped more locally. Regulating cell phones was not possible in Jefferson's time either. See things do change in our country, and health care reform is more about monitoring the industry a bit more closely.
No she isn't I think you have been out in the sun too long!
perhaps you should consider the meaning of "amend"
her def is textbook to anyone with experience in constitutional law
You would be happy glued to a document written by people who existed within the mindset of a society that didnt allow suffrage to women, had never seen an electric light, driven a car, oh yeah, slavery ..systematic extermination of the american indian. ???
...Private Cowboy. And you don't look much like a steer to me so that kinda narrows it down
We are not "glued" to it article 5 gives us all we need to know about amendments! The Constitution can be amended and it tells us how! As far as slavery, the limit on amending the Constitution for or against it expired 201 years ago so they weren't exactly glued to it either! Private Cowboy? Never mind I get it!
I have trouble seeing how one could disagree with "living document" and yet be able to quote the amendment process.
sure there were a few crazy liberals yelling about equality, but economics won out..201 years ago? one can scribble anything they like but..no amendments allowing enforcement were created until the 1860s ..actually enforcement of equal rights was non existent until the 1960's
the details dont matter anyway ..How could one have any real interest in the thoughts of such people - slaveholders, zealots, murderers (dualists), war profiteers ...
god, i really hope its a living document
Living only as it is detailed in its text not on the whim of any court or President! The limits were relieved 201 years ago Its not my fault nothing was done until 1865. I do not care what came before me regarding enforcement of Civil Rights, and these men at least thought that far ahead! Probably time for you to get over all that injustice I know I have!
Past injustice doesnt bother me at all..just trying to point out the most extreme examples...strictly interpreting the words of such a significantly different culture and attempting to reconcile those words with the modern world is ..is..well damn silly
So the original quote that I defended, i continue to defend, the document must be living, amendable..Presidents dont change the constitution on whim they appoint judges to do it for them...for years after they are gone, unless your Bush..then you somehow pass all sorts of shit that countermands constitutional rights while conservatives scream that mexicans are taking their jobs and terrorists are going to bomb their walmarts...i think i must be tired, i hate politics and people and americans and conservatives, and I think Im really starting to dislike obama...usually i like Texans, I have a good freind who is a coyote, lol..well, no joke
..hopefully you realized private cowboy was a joke, not trying to piss off any marines, figured you get a kick out of it
I realized it was a joke after I thought about it, it sorta fell flat! It can be living with a shot of adrenaline and paddles to jumpstart it
Um, not exactly. Judges interpret the law - it's the legislature that writes them and therefore amends the Constitution.
Loosely? The powers of the Federal Government are narrow and specific. Everything else is specifically given over to the states.
Loosely in that the founding fathers did not set in black in white every single issue that would be presented to the American people.
No actually it is not. Insult, after insult. It is popular to trash anyone who is liberal on here. Plain and simple.
Roosevelt was a piece of shit who destroyed America with his welfare state. I would most emphatically be scared to death of him if he were alive today. I like Ike.
Tk you really seem obsessed with me. Do you like me lots and lots .
don't flatter yourself, he's a whole lot more obsessed with "manly" poetry.
No, but I have heard that you are really, really smart...
They never were. It just looks good on their "resume"
Oh so all the liberals are getting together to write a resume. Yes I forgot under communism we are all going to do everything together lol.
Conservatives also have a lot of group think going on, example this forum. I am the only one on here actually challenging your view points at the moment.
Yes, it seems the conservatives here think alike. But they do so because they each came to their conclusions independently. Unlike liberals who "check with the group" to make sure they are thinking correctly.
Oh no. We all check with Glenn Beck before we post anything.
No I do not check with any group. I just happen to come to liberal conclusions. Do not accuse others of group think when you yourselves are also guilty to some degree. Everyone seems pretty individual here actually, but your group likes people to agree with them.
Roger that! Oh was I supposed to write that? Where is the script!!!
That's a fun assumption. Of course all conservatives have arrived at their conclusions independently whilst all liberals must be the puppets of some master plan.
Is that not self-evident lunacy? As much as I think conservatives tend to be wrong I will never claim that they lack their own mind (however defunct it may be).
Of course, those illustrious founding fathers, that homogeneous group in which every man thought alike, all possessed of identical opinions, all, in fact, in favor of the Constitution in the first place, I'd forgotten all about them.
Incidentally, they didn't exist. The "founding fathers" as a cohesive group is a popular myth with absolutely no historical backing, oft called upon for political capital by those claiming to be close to "their views" or "their intentions." Which is ridiculous because, as said, such a group did not exist. Sure, there were a bunch of guys important in the founding of this nation, but to claim that they were all of one mind is utter lunacy and willful ignorance of historical fact.
It goes under "Community Service"
"Voted for a black guy"
Those of us who are ready for a black president already get it.
Were you in a coma for the past 8 years? Legions of libs did exactly that over and over again, and worse. Being president has never been a job for the thin skinned (*ahem*) or the faint of heart, and all your worship of the current holder of that office won't change that.
And yes, I know you are really, really smart...
I did not agree with it with Bush either, but Obama is being scrutinized on a weirder level, and you know it.
You're just not ready for a black president. You hold his detractors to a different standard because he's black.
You are just not ready to be respectful. Unlike you I do not have to think along the lines of Glenn Beck to get through my day.
You need to be more tolerant and understanding of BHO detractors. Accept them, embrace them.
I am also opposed to speed freaks holding higher office!
Before you tell me what I know you should at least be able to logically express what YOU know.
Yes there is a lot of racism towards Obama. I do not worship him, but the truth is you do not like anyone who voted for him tk. If you were so much for free speech you would allow it more, and not try to disparage everyone that does not think like you.
We've spoken about your problems with logic, haven't we? Are you not even trying to improve?
Did you find that synonym for 'pithy'?
Notice how it is popular to pick on some people. Get a new hobby .
Er, where does it imply being rude to an African American??? Clinton wasn't like Hitler.
That is a true statement Bet Hefner has more money tho.
I posted this earlier, just goes to show how effective he is.
This is exactly the sort of thing that made our last Depression Great. Doesn't anyone in Washington read history anymore or are they all too busy getting as much cash out of the till as they can?
Tex I know, I was talking about the ones who are extremely offended, even though they are over educated.
I would never be interested in becoming friends with someone who spews hate (IMHO) 95% of the time, sorry.
At last count, I had a few more fans than did you, as well. Just a fact.
And have more fans.. Tex, she has you on that one.
Are all those people and signs from the SAME march? That's quite an angry mob -- but their anger seems to be all over the place. Usually when people march like that it's behind a single issue like end the war or abortion (either pro life or pro choice). This just looks like a bunch of crazed people with signs, most of which don't even make any sense.
I am not offended, btw. Just scratching my head. Who ARE these people???
Yes - all from the same march - yesterday - in D.C. The man who took these photos was there as he states in the first sentence.
They are protesting a single thing - Obama.
LOL @ "angry mob"! Probably all racists too, huh?
a short portion of the message from the TEA Party Patriots organizers:
"You Are the Heart and Soul of Tea Party Patriots
Continue to keep up the incredible work you do to further our core values: fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government, and free markets. You are the heart and soul of this movement. Please let us know if there is anything we can do to help you!"
they are all on an undescribable high from the march...very heart warming to patriots that feel the soul of America rising to a more justly run government by the people and for the people
it really is a mystery to me how anyone cannot understand the opposition to the current administration's actions. It's pretty darn clear what socialism is and how the actions of the administration can be perceived as socialism...
why is it that socialism is not being perceived by Obama supporters?
i really have my perceptions, but I would like to hear from those that are not perceiving socialism
They can't/won't see or admit it because they really do see the hell that is coming down on us and it's all their fault. They voted for this guy and taking responsibility for their actions is not something they "do".
We already have socialism in this country to some degree. Medicare, Social Security, and even libraries are a form of socialism because anyone in a community can check out books, for free. Not all socialist ideals are evil, and I would prefer a health care system similar to NHS.
As I said once before my concern with that march were the racist depictions of Obama on posters and signs. However, I guess going to that rally was like going to Disneyland for some people. That lady standing by the Sambo like depiction of Obama seemed to think so anyway.
yes, that is why I ask...already recognizing socialism is present to a degree, should make it easier to see how far is too far for it to continue...
what I am hoping to hear from someone else is the recognition that dependency on government has gone too far...citizens don't take care of themselves anymore...that is a disrespect for one's own soul evolution...we must stop ourselves from falling deeper into the lethargy and blindness and corruption of our souls...
as far as it being like disneyland for some...there are people in the world that have never found the feeling within themselves to rise up and complain about anything...even when needed...but now they have found that sense of soul self and are like children that will grow now that they have a sense of the way to go
I completely disagree with you on that point. I think this was very serious for everyone there. They are looking at the complete destruction of our way of life as we live it under our Constitution. It doesn't get any worse.
I said that, not Sparkling Jewel. Sometimes with quoting the html gets mixed. Yes the lady with the Sambo like depiction of Obama was acting sort of silly, and if she is serious I would be very surprised.
that wasn't my quote...don't loose my words in the shuffle, please
here is that portion of the thread...please don't put someone elses words in my mouth, thx
"because they take me to be a 'liberal' (which also isn't the truth)"
I never ridiculed you GG, nor called you a liar. I stated what I stated concerning sources of information and what I know of the journalistic field. That this pack has turned it into something else, and you...by association, did too, tells me something.
And I hope you are happy with that.
You did ridicule me. However, my limited interaction with you on the forums is not what I base my self-worth off of, so no worries.
Other than that, all I have to say is that it's truly too bad that you seek to judge me based upon my age, education, political party affiliation, etc. Again, I have been nothing but respectful and polite when offering my viewpoints into the conversations taking place.
I may only be 22, but I do know that respecting others' viewpoints is something entirely different than agreeing with them. Respectful, I am. 22? Yes. Republican? Yes. Unqualified to share my viewpoints? Not any less qualified than you or anyone else.
I certainly did not attack you. But based on my limited interaction with you, and what you post, I hope that you are able to take a couple journalism classes and perhaps are able understand the profession better. Or maybe talk to someone you do not perceive as 'a liberal'...so that you have a better understanding of what I am talking about as far as truth, estimations, and the field.
It is good to share viewpoints. However, using language and the crowd mentality around you in such a way that I have seen here is not something I much respect. And it is not about age, political affiliation, experience or anything else, but what is core to an understanding of integrity.
The use of superior verbal ability is a powerful thing. And with it comes with some responsibility, I believe. That you have certainly NOT used.
I'm getting very tired of this, Misha... Please include the whole post. Taking things out of context like this either means you are an idiot, or very disingenuous.
You absolutely do not have my respect at this point.
It's truly interesting how we all view things in different ways. You claim that I present my viewpoints irresponsibly and have limited integrity. That is simply not true. But again, we've had limited interaction. I know I'm respectful, kind and accepting of others' viewpoints. I appreciate your sentiments, but feel quite confident in the manner in which I present myself and my viewpoints to others. I do not resort to condescending, disrespectful remarks on an internet forum. I present things the way I see them, based upon facts, based upon experience, etc. They may not be facts or ideas that you are able to agree with, but that does not make them 'irresponsible'.
Verbal ability is a powerful thing. We can agree on this, for certain.
Look, I was going to post more about events, which I am responsible for, and how an estimation of a head count is done. Also how I am responsible for the number count and reporting that I representative to the press. How an initial estimation of count is done(similar to how an initial story comes out with a number). But we also go by ticket count, and ultimately $$ for a concert or an event. ALL entirely bipartisan, as this is just hospitality/entertainment. So that the number changes when reporting, and is not necessarily about 'truth.'
Which is what I was talking about in my post on reporting. Which I see you took as quite partisan...by the way you handled 'the crowd' around you and the fact you openly stated that I am a "liar." I also saw something of this dishonesty in the use of language in the way you wrote your Obama's lesson plans for kids vs. JFK's speech post.
That IS disingenuous in the way I look at things. And cloaking that sort of thing in a nice manner of 'respect' is something many of us truly disliked about Sarah Palin, just FYI. I would rather have things said straight up, as would most.
Anyway, we do not have to agree. And we can agree to disagree...better, though, would be the actual exchange of ideas. I would expect, however, that someone of your ability would take a little higher ground...truly higher ground than some of the others here.
I would say I am disappointed. But as you said, , I suppose none of this actually matters...except maybe to those of us who are writer or speakers.
Some people say things like that but that's not what they really want.
Remember that post in the sand pit that didn't show up in hubtivity and exactly what I said there? It stands.
You are so common.
Please take that as a compliment, .
Nope. Can't say as anything you have to say is all that memorable.
Then I'm sure you will stop following, yeah?
Anyway, when you've heard it from everyone all over the internet, I'm sure you get confused.
If Obama would just slow down long enough to understand what he read on the teleprompter, he could see what a mess he's making.
Obama to call for sweeping overhaul of regulations on world's largest banks...
World being a keyword here.
If someone tells you our Constitution is a Living Document, turn and run. They're about to trample on it.
They don't like what is says and they need an excuse to circumvent it without actually amending it.
Two primary arguments against socialized medicine.
If health care is so important and so personal, why aren't people willing to take responsibility for it? Why do they want the Federal Government to confiscate someone else's money to buy it for them?
If health care is so important and has to be fixed *now*, why isn't the populace willing to amend the constitution?
If healthcare reform is so important, why is NO ONE willing to look at the alternate Bill 3400 proposed by the GOP that pelosi won't let out of committee?
To the first, because no one should die because they are poor. There are more reasons, but that is by far the most succinct.
To the second, because it is not thought to be necessary, because of Article 1 Section 8, which has been ruled to give the federal government (the legislative branch anyways) a large amount of power.
Now, before you go bashing those liberal justices trying to bend the constitution, you may wish to recall that the ruling of which I speak was McCulloch vs. Maryland, in 1819.
You have probably noticed that anything that mentions facts that haven't been discussed on Fox or right-wing blogs will be ignored...
I'm weaning myself off of paying this group any attention
I got my talking points from Glenn Beck right before I came in..
As evidenced by your inability to actually argue or debate. You're much better at pointless verbal sparring. Although to be fair, I do doubt you actually get your talking points straight from FOX, you do have your own brain of course. That does make me curious though, is there a reason you refuse to actually argue or debate?
I argue and debate when it's warranted. I haven't heard anything worth arguing over.
So you take it as self-evident that people should die because they are poor and you also dispute the validity of McCulloch vs. Maryland? (I may here remind you that Chief Justice Marshall, who pretty much controlled the court at the time of McCulloch, was appointed by John Adams, and so was likely implementing the will of the founding fathers (one of them anyways)).
Just out of curiosity, how many poor people you personally saved?
Saved? I couldn't say. Helped? A fair few, plenty of hours in soup kitchens, aiding shelters and similar. And some money, admittedly not as much as I'd like (though I don't have a whole lot either), given to various causes and organization. Also each year 20 miles walked against hunger, raising money in the doing of it.
Cool. You have something real behind your claims.
Not nesso - he's also an "atheist" who gives sermons at his church.
I'm really curious as to how that is relevant here, or ever really. It's not as if I'm an atheist who kills children or some other similar moral outrage. I give sermons at my church in the summer when they request lay preachers. I've never been dishonest with the congregation or the ministers about my beliefs. I've never claimed to be any other than what I am. If they are happy to hear me speak, then that is their business, not yours.
I tend to believe people, until proven wrong. What's the deal with sermons?
Didn't see any lying there. His views are different from yours, and from mine, but this is definitely not the reason not to believe him.
If you're going to smear me, could you at least bother to read my response, it rather handily refutes you. I'd rather not have you going about tossing 'insults' about with no regard for rationality or reason.
Misha, if you read my reply to her attack you'll find what the deal with sermons is. Basically it comes down to, I like public speaking, I also like my church, I happen to still go to that church because I love singing and the people there, they ask for lay preachers in the summer, they are okay with my atheism, so I speak.
As soon as "facts" are mentioned we will all respond with same.
I don't know, my response seemed pretty factual to me. Unless you'd like to dispute McCulloch vs. Maryland, which you can feel free to do, but if your dispute is claiming it is not a fact then... the only proper response I can think of would be pity, because you would clearly uncomprehending of what facts are.
I'm not an attorney, but if this has something to do with the banks ..what's your point exactly? MBNA now Bank of America, I worked for both.
Only that the major implication of the decision was to take a very wide interpretation of Article 1 Section 8, also known as the Necessary and Proper Clause, which, combined with a wide reading of the Commerce Clause (established in Gibbons vs. Ogden 1824, also under Chief Justice Marshall), gives a huge amount of power into the hands of Congress (i.e. the kinds of power you and your lot seem to despise so much).
In simple terms: several fairly early Supreme Court decisions, made by courts very close to the founders (most justices having been appointed by such), gave to Congress the kinds of powers you are so vehemently arguing against. This is not a recent aberration, if it is one at all it is an old one, which is endorsed by the founders (some of them anyways) by proxy.
Why the need to state one old case, which is still in controversy? I am not in favor of giving Congress powers they don't deserve, although I'm sure by your post, you don't have an issue with that.
I've actually stated two "old cases," neither of which is in controversy. As to why, it's rather simple: because of precedent, which is a rather important part of law. Also, because it is good proof that at least some of the founders were in favor of increased powers for congress. If you respect the founders, you'd respect this (or you'd admit that the founders were in no way a homogeneous group, but that would raise a whole host of other problems for you).
All right, you've shown that you're a student of early American history so now you have to identify yourself. Jeffersonian or Hamiltonian? For the record I'm a dyed in the wool, Jeffersonian.
It was Hamilton who argued for more broad congressional powers - but the case he mentions only empowers congress to aid the furtherance of the Constitution's list of express powers, nothing more.
Not exactly. What Hamilton wanted was a re-creation of the British monarch on American soil. He just wanted to be one of the movers and shakers and figured he had a better chance with a new monarch in America than he did getting influence in the Court of the Mad King George III. There's a reason he called Washington, Your Majesty. In addition he wanted to use debt to fund internal improvements....hey that sounds like the Democrats and Republicans today. Who'd a thunk it?
My point was that Hamilton argued "for" in this case, rather than against. But the ruling didn't go as far as he would have liked, in that it only allowed congress' powers to expand "to aid the furtherance of the Constitution's list of express powers" as outlined in Article 1, Section 8.
But yeah, I think we agree here.
Oh goody, we have scholars of early American history here. Hamilton was playing a long game. Good thing for him because Aaron Burr put paid to him before he could pursue Presidential ambitions. Yet if you notice, though his Federalists lost power after the fiasco of Adams and his Alien and Sedition Act, his ideals lived on in some from from the Whigs to the Republicans, to the Progressives and well we don't currently have the Jeffersonian/Hamiltonian rivalry between the parties anymore, they're both very Hamiltonian in character.
You have no idea how weird it is to agree with that statement.
Oh yes I do. Did you ever notice how hard it is to find a "complete" version of the Anti-federalist papers? You can find lots of versions of the federalist papers - unedited - but anti-federalist? You're lucky to find an abridged version.
Yes, but I want a bound version - and a nice one too (I really love beautifully designed books - a side point, I know)
Sigh. Not asking for much are you. I did manage to find a set at Amazon, not beautifully designed but functional.
http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Anti-Fed … =sid_dp_dp
I might have to look around the antique stores around here and see if there's anything interesting.
That's an interesting question. I'd likely tend towards a Jeffersonian, simply because Hamilton was a dick, but in the current climate the states rights Jefferson stance will see policies I otherwise like defeated. If we could see an honest to god return to strong state level government, I'd be for it, but at current we mostly just see "states' rights" and "big government" trotted out whenever the Democrats attempt to pass a progressive bill. In other words, I'd be a Jeffersonian, if it meant going the whole nine yards. As it stand politically at the moment, since nine yards Jeffersonianism is rather unlikely, I'm willing to take a more federalist approach for the sake of issues I agree with.
Interesting question? Jefferson vs Hamilton has been a battle fought at all levels since this nation's founding. Sounds like you're a Progressive at heart. Sigh. Ah well, seeing as the Progressives were a later iteration of the Hamiltonians, I have to wonder how you can support state's rights.
Supporting states rights in no way negates the idea of progressive programs, they would simply be implemented on a state level, not a federal one. The ultimate idea behind states' rights, for me at least, is that the states, being closer to the people, will more effectively and more truly see out their will. Besides which, it's important to keep in mind that states' rights is not the only issue up for debate, not even between Jefferson and Hamilton.
Why is it you believe that government is better at solving societal problems than your average citizen?
Well, there is one very good argument there, that the government is the only organization with sufficient scope to accurately and adequately comprehend and combat truly societal problems.
The question isn't even that so much though. I'm very strongly a democrat (that is to say, one man one vote... one everything) and thus any programs enacted by such a government would in point of fact be the aggregate action of the average citizens. At current, I'm forced to fight a two front battle: on the one hand towards a more democratic society, and on the other hand towards those programs and ideal in which I believe.
And God bless Aaron Burr indeed. Which brings to mind another issue, which is that in those times the culture and character of this nation and its ills stood much more in the realm where the average citizen had some sway. Currently, not only is the culture in state such that plenty of people just don't care, but those that do are consistently at each others' throats.
Aren't you ignoring the problems the Soviets had in comprehending and combating their societal problems?
Ah, here we come to a point of disagreement. I'm all in favor of restricting the vote to those who hold property. Otherwise how do you keep the dispossessed from stripping the property from it's rightful owners? Of course you'd have to build in protections to keep the property owners from keeping non-property owners from accumulating property, but that could easily be done.
The Soviets were never interested in combating their societal problems (at least not those with power); they were only ever guided by a nigh fascistic lust for power, such the Russia could once again stand against all comers.
As for "keep[ing] the dispossessed from stripping the property from it's [sic] rightful owners," you don't. You don't have to. See Athens. There was essentially no property requirement for citizenship in Athens and yet, plenty of wealthy people. This is the biggest straw man argument against democracy ever raised.
I think you will benefit from studying Soviet history, and from better understanding how state works at all.
Those in power cannot be not interested in combating societal problems, their very existence depends on keeping those problems in check. Another question is how they do it, and the soviet answer to this was iron curtain and concentration camps, among other things. You are heading in the same direction btw.
No, see, the Soviets had concentration camps, secret police, the iron curtain, etc. precisely because they were uninterested in combating societal problems. They didn't care about societal problems as long as they thought they had everything under control, so they could focus on the acquisition of power and standing (i.e. the Cold War). My ideas are totally unrelated. I actually am interested in attempting to solve societal problems, concentration camps solve no problems, they are a problem in themselves.
Thanks Misha. Let's look at a Progressive example from our own history. Prohibition. It's little known now, but prior to the amending of the Constitution, about half the counties in the US were dry. This was due to the Progressives lobbying state and local government to prohibit the sale of alcohol. They, however, got greedy and impatient, so the 18th amendment was passed. What were the societal problems create from such a move? Let's see the rise of the Mafia. Citizens being thrown in jail where they were made into better criminals. Gang wars over turf. You know the 1920's sound a heck of a lot like the drug wars we're in now.
You're correct, government gives you the power to get things done, but what right do you have to force people to obey your diktats? Because you will have to force people. One size fits all is a poor way to attempt to engineer a society.
My response is two fold: first, it appears that prohibition was working decently well before it was applied across the country. That is to say, by being implemented on a low enough level that it was implemented only where the population agreed with it, it was effective and caused few problems. (i.e. this is the main idea behind decentralization of power)
Second, part of the government's job is to deal with externalities, i.e. I get drunk, you get hit with my car. The idea behind prohibition was that by preventing drinking they would prevent all its attendant ills. Clearly it did not work at all this way, but the reasoning was valid. Externalities must be dealt with, in some fashion.
And Misha, I chose "combat" because it is a word describing a strong attempt at solving the problem. It describes strength and resolve but not success, so I do not overstep my bounds by saying "solving societal problems" or sound weak in my convictions by saying "trying to solve." The relation of that word, as I use it, to concentration camps is nonexistent.
Heh, of course it was. If they didn't sell hooch where you lived, the next county over probably did. Second, the only thing that government is supposed to do is make sure contracts are enforced and defend the territorial integrity of the US.
The one thing Progressives never have an answer to is how do you keep government power from creeping. We've seen it with Prohibition. Also your state-level progressive government has a rather large hole in the argument to support it. Why does a state progressive level government work better than a national one?
No, I'm afraid your idea of government is rather off. With nothing controlling externalities we run into rather a lot of problems. "It is profitable for me to build a air and water pollution producing plant right here next to this river. Shame for those folks down the way." That my friend is an externality, and that, my friend, needs to not be able to happen. Short of an extended mandate for government, it will and far too often.
As for stopping creep, that is easily solved in two steps: a truly democratic government and a civic minded populace. Although there is a certain question as to whether a truly democratic government can creep.
And a state progressive level government works better because it deals with a smaller population and is more responsive to the needs of that population.
Progressives tend to ignore the fact that if government calls the shots, the rich and powerful will endeavor to control the government. Um your take on business is skewed. If someone were to build a air and water polluting plant near someone, they'd throw a fit. Once the customers of said company find out that the people they buy from are gratuitously polluting, guess what, their customers will take their business elsewhere. Goodwill is a factor that businesspeople take into account. It's not a hard asset like a factory but it does materially affect the way a company does business.
Again look at communist countries. Their governments controlled everything. Yet they polluted far more than any capitalist or pseudo-capitalist country ever dreamed. Ask a former West German how much they had to pay to clean up the former East Germany.
Why should a populace be civic minded when special interests control the legislature? Surely you don't believe that our politicians serve out of the goodness of their hearts.
So, if the government has power the rich and powerful will endeavor to control it, but if there are no rules and regulations even attempting to hold them in check the rich and powerful will be on their best behavior and remain within the bounds of good conduct?
The issue with your take on business is that the outrage and resultant loss of profits is unlikely to happen. I can think of at least three reasons: poor dissemination of information (i.e. the people who can influence the company don't end up with the information), lack of immediacy (i.e. people hear about it but, not being close enough to see the effects, can write it off with ease and impunity (see sweatshops)), and the fact that it doesn't (see A Civil Action).
Your continuous attack on so-called communist countries remains invalid and inapplicable. The communist countries you talk about weren't progressive in either their goals or the methods, but in name only. The brand of communism (i.e. oppressive state socialism) practiced by the U.S.S.R. and China (among others) was not aiming at the goals of legitimate communism but at the goals of fascism. Industrial output and the global power it could provide were emphasized at any cost (just ask anyone who lived through a five year plan).
A population should be civic minded when special interests control the legislature precisely so that special interests will not control the legislature. Our current system sucks, but it would be a lot better if people were less apathetic and were more aware (i.e. civic minded). Besides, given a truly democratic system, as I posited, special interests can't control the legislature as there's no separate legislature to control, just the populace. Thus, unless special interests can control the entire population, which they can't given a populace with half a care (i.e. even the smallest inklings of civic mindedness), they are not an issue.
Oh, you definitely are free to use any words you want to, I just pointed out that I understood it differently than you intended.
Well, both of Strophios's post were ignored completely.
No health care will save all people. It's curious that if this plan will be mandatory, how will some afford it when it's not going to be free???? It's suppossed to be affordable, but only medicare is free to the poor.
Yes, the democrats of so democratic that they even manage to get dead people to vote. That's the trick they use in Cook (a/k/a Crook) County, home of our community-organizer-in-chief.
So, you saw it too, lol, I imagine, Cole? Such class. And that from the picture of a dog!
I just want to know how he does the rolleyes thing.
If you saw it, and you felt it was appropriate, then I have lost respect for you as well.
My dear, it would be awesome for showing sarcasm. Of course he's a nasty mean spirited little troll, that goes without saying. Nor do I really agree with him in much of anything. I just like the rollyeyes emoticon.
All I know is this thread is weird. Obama has been compared to Hitler. I have been called all sorts of names like clueless, dangerous, and told to sit in the corner. Is this for real? Some of the things said on here just tell me that there is quite a bit of hate going on.
They've just let in a lower class of 'writer,' , SP.
Just because they think it does not mean they should write it. Seriously it just is getting odder, and odder.
You've never seen people when they're scared and confused? This is it.
You give them too much credit, LDT.. A good quality, I suppose, though.
Not scared and confused. Annoyed and defensive. I was sure learning to ignore people was a skill we learned as children...
It's a generational thing I think. My parents were taught in a different manner than I was and our kids are being taught in a different manner than we were, etc. For whatever reason we seem to be living in a declining age. Rome in the third century, say.
Well I'm 22. And I was taught it. No decline here.
And the second American Revolution is coming, right?
Well, you know that business arrangement I was talking about? Yeah...
We shouldn't fool ourselves into thinking it's anything other than that.
It's emotion rather than hate. Machiavelli wrote about it centuries ago. He warned his readers that any prince who attempted to interfere with the lives of his subjects courted insurrection and revolution.
It is rather childish though. Machiavelli is quoted quite a bit, and I am sure he would chuckle at how ridiculous people are. There is no excuse for comparing Obama to Hitler, and the white face painted on Obama. That is a really racist symbol for old fashioned African-American entertainers that used to have to paint their faces "white" to please their audience. It scares me that people have not realized we can evolve pass these boorish behaviors. I think many things too, but I do not shout just to shout.
Your extrapolating from a minority of people. Remember radicals are almost never popular so they take any advantage to get in front of the camera and spew their nonsense. Remember when Jessee Jackson got involved with those teens who started a riot at a high school football game? He attempted to deflect all wrongdoing from the kids and blame it on the school. All radicals do that sort of nonsense.
Now if everyone were marching with whiteface or Obama as Sambo placards then I'd put more credence into the racist theory. You can't hold the majority accountable for what the minority do. You'll note I hope that I don't castigate the civil rights movement or the women's movement do I? I take exception with the radicals, but I don't consider everyone affiliated with those movements to be radicals. Same thing holds for the Tea Baggers.
I am very troubled by the imagery of this minority. If they want Ron Paul to campaign for president in 2012 I would like to see him speak to people about this issue. It is very powerful imagery by the way, and they say a picture paints a thousand words. I am not saying everyone agrees with them, but it certainly needs to be addressed by some one higher up that they look to and respect.
That's just silly. What would you say about one of Obama's aides saying something like "white polluters steering pollution into brown neighborhoods". Would you want the President to speak on something like that? Would you be concerned about that issue as well?
No my concern is not silly considering that recently many people were concerned by Van Jones resigning, and imply all sorts of not so accurate things about the appointees of Obama. The white polluters, really, where are you getting that? Yes Ron Paul or some one higher up really needs to talk about the inappropriateness of comparing your opposition to Hitler. It makes people take the Tea Baggers much less seriously, and I can guarantee many minorities will never join your cause because of the imagery at this march. If it bothered me I can tell you it has also bothered others.
Van Jones said exactly that: http://www.breitbart.tv/green-jobs-czar … mmunities/
Is that not a racist comment? Should Obama investigate such things. Why was this guy allowed into the White House holding such views?
My dear, I'm a second generation American, my mother is Mexican and I support Ron Paul. In some cases ideals are thicker than color or race or whatever you want to call it.
You may support Ron Paul, but are others going to when some of his supporters are parading around with these signs? The answer is no most definitely. Obama and the White House have distanced themselves from Jones, and probably did not know everything he did before being appointed.
What irks me is all the implication about how Obama is surrounded by dangerous and sinister people, but then his opposition is parading around with these signs. I believe this is pertinent as we are discussing the Washington march. I do not even care how many people were there or not there, I still think that vocal minority needs to learn a few lessons about what is appropriate.
Now you're just making excuses and setting a double standard.
http://inspiredeconomist.com/2009/03/10 … reen-czar/
Look especially at the last bit where it lists all of his "accomplishments". What about Reverend Wright. All of these people have been with Obama or known Obama for years. Do you really expect me to believe that he doesn't know any of the things they've been saying? Even if I give you the benefit of the doubt and Obama's people didn't know everything about Van Jones, that doesn't really say much about the vetting process he puts his czars though does it?
What about Pat Caddell. This guy is a long term Democrat, he goes all the way back to the Carter administration and he is uncomfortable with Obmama's policies: http://video.google.com/videosearch?sou … ;resnum=4#
It's not just the right who is worried, there are those on the left who are as well.
No double standard on my part. Reverend Wright was not participating in a political march, and he is a reverend that is free of political association. Once again Obama has distanced himself for Wright, and I do not see his supporters walking around with racist imagery. Even in the race against McCain I never saw people parading around with signs pointing fun at his looks or physique. I do not agree with Wright, but what the marchers were doing was much worse. By the way I listened to the Van Jones clip and that does not sound racist. It is true that through the history of our country regulation and sanitation has favored more affluent communities first as opposed to low income communities. Exaggeration can be a powerful thing.
Doesn't it bother you that the President has had to distance himself from people he's known for years and years. What does it say about him that he is so easily able to throw people under the bus once they become a liability.
Oh dear God, the fact that you don't see Van Jones comments as racist is amazing. So what you're saying is that because Van Jones is a black man he can say racist things like that because we have had a history of things like Jim Crow laws in this country and other discriminatory practices that have been against the law for over forty years now? It's time to stop living in the 1960's.
And the good Reverend uses his pulpit to spew racist hate. You don't have a problem with that either? Would you have a problem with him doing that if he were white?
No because what he is saying is true. I happened to have seen the way white people treated African-Americans in Kansas in 1995, 1995, and they were still talking about keeping the blacks in the bad part of town. When we drove over to that part of Topeka there are a few poor whites and Mexicans living there too, but it was mostly black people in this particular neighborhood. The roads were not as well maintained as certain parts of town. Yes less affluent communities do get less, and that is what Van Jones was talking about.
Caddell sounds like he has a grudge, and anyone who can commiserate with and go on the Glenn Beck show really is not someone I respect. Beck is the same man who believes their is Communist and drug imagery in the art at Rockerfeller Center, and quite a few of us do not take him or anyone on his show very seriously. Obama is better organized and has hired smarter people than Carter, that is all I am getting from his comments. Of course he has resurrected himself for his fifteen minutes of fame, but doing it on the Beck show is pretty amusing.
No it wasn't Van Jones intimated there was a deliberate policy by whites to steer pollution into colored neighborhoods. That is not the same thing as saying less affluent areas get less.
The Beck show is not the only place he works. But if you consider that source prejudiced, so be it. I had hopes that you might be a little more open minded than that, but hey, the future will show which of us is more correct. At any rate it's getting late and I think I'm out of here for today. Have a good evening.
My open mindedness has shown me what a jerk Caddell is. He says towards the end that the Democratic party is now elitist and talks about only the scary elements of our party, but yet he is going on shows with a man that is very, very extremist. I find you not so open minded about a few things too, just to share. How can you find the Glenn Beck forum to be even appropriate as I see him a fueling much of the hate against Obama.
He's talked about how Democrats are calling him on the phone and telling him that they're not sure about the direction Obama is taking the party. You do understand that Obama is a man and he's fallible like the rest of us, right?
Why do you equate hating Obama with his skin color. I dislike him because of his policies. I could care less about his color, gender, what have you. It's his actions that I take exception to.
Caddell holds a grudge and he does not sound like a very nice guy. To be frank I am glad to see the direction the Democrat party is going in, and Obama was and is an inspiration for many of us. Caddell goes on the Beck show, pals around with Ann Coulter, and is not exactly what I would consider the typical Democrat. In many ways the Democratic party is actually more conservative than it was thirty years ago, so I find his statements to be disingenuous. He can get book deals and speaking opportunities out of his criticism of course.
That's exactly what Carter's people said were HIS strengths!
I really must take this opportunity to make something of a public service announcement: I happen to love beautifully designed books too. This is important for no other reason than that it gives me an opportunity to remind everyone that we all tend to be more similar than we are different and that almost everyone here, regardless of their political opinions, is probably a pretty decent person. The point: that the vast majority of insults etc. slung on these boards are irrelevant and undeserved, aside from being things you would never say in person. See: http://xkcd.com/438/ (especially the alt-text: "It's easier to be an asshole to words than to people")
This seems particularly relevant given the most recent interchanges here. Also, I make no claim to being above this myself, although I do try.
So before ya'll take it further and start using words (like tk has already used) may I suggest you just ignore each other?
O, Lita already asked me to leave her fan club. Read the thread, you'll have some giggles along the road
Because you can't see the big smile on my face while I'm typing?
You can smile and be angry. You are angry and get satisfaction when you think you are being witty.
Can you cry and be happy? Can you juxtapose any two words and pretend to be making a point?
Sure I've done it. And it did prove my point. I asked why you were angry. You said I couldn't see you smile. I said that you could smile and still be angry. Proving that your smile doesn't mean that you're happy.
Hmmm, need more help? ME HAPPY HERE, GOOD FEEL, HAPPY. HAPPY, HAPPY.
Well it doesn't make me happy to think someone is unhappy. And the smiley face was for a "cute" effect, not a happy one.
Then you should think that people are happy, then you will be happy.