Are white Americans turning against Barack Obama because of the color of his skin or because of his policies? After lawmaker from South Carolina screamed out "you lie" as Obama delivered a nationally-televised address, former president Carter,suggested its the history of racism that contributed to the congressman's contempt. What do you think? Please post your comments.
"In a time of universal deceipt, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." - George Orwell
Race has something to do with it to the extent that he (Obama) and as well some of his supporters use it in the reverse against those who are opposed to his policies.
Of course they're racist's, and lowly educated, and far from being intelligently enlightened ! For the first time in the history of America, we finally have a president who, is for the people! Yet, so many are violently against whatever he says! Why do so many people, in a so-called christian society, are so against sharing the wealth with their fellow man, and allowing others, less fortunate to at least live with some modicum of humanity, and decency! Only hateful racist's, would be againt such policies, designed for all the people of the nation, they want to remain in the bad old days of racial superiority, hatered for those less fortunate, and perpetuation of a society in which, only a few can live the American dream! These people you can call Republicans, and other off shoot's of their various hateful, separatist ideologies! And yes he is half white, but white folks don't see him that way, all they see is a N__, running their lily white country, and they can't stand it!
Actually I take offense on that one. I am not a racist, nor I am lowly educated, nor unintelligent. Yet I am against Obama. Personal attack, please
Speak for youself. I am not a rascist, I am highly educated, and it's people such as yourself who create racial problems. Actually my skin is not lilly white either - I have freckles.
This is so typical of someone who has no rebuttal with facts, only assumptions. What would your solution be, take 50% of our income and give it to the less fortunate? We already do that with taxes and government projects ie: welfare etc. It is not a republican or democrat, black or white issue. I rarely take offense, but your comments are out of line, uneducated, and racist. Get a grip, go read something.
What he is building is socialism. Socialism failed everywhere. It is evil. Nobody hates poor. Socialists are creating poor giving for not working. Study Marxism and you will find what socialism is.
Every country has a level of socialism in its' makeup. Where they horribly wrong is when they overthrow the system and suspend their constitutions.
Does your community have a police department, a fire department or a public works department? these are all forms of socialism.
That's only if you believe in "public goods", without a belief in public goods then you don't have to have a state controlled police force or fire department. I'd argue that private companies can provide better police and fire protection than government based solutions.
No matter what your belief tells you it is and it does not matter for the state of this argument they are still a form of socialism.
It matters insofar as the arguments for any socialistic arrangement are faulty.
The arguments for socialistic organizations rests on the idea of public goods. In order to make access to these "goods" fair, you need some sort of an outside agency to ensure fairness. That, in essence, is the whole idea behind socialism. "Fair" access to things that "belong to everyone". Without "public goods" that whole rationale goes out the window.
Now I understand where you are coming from. In other words you would rather have an entitlement to such goods and services through a privatly funded or commercial method.
How would that work with the court system when you have a different cop testifying or resonding to a call. Is he there to represent the persons who paid him?
How would that also work if when a fire department responds to a fire call and your fire spreds to the next door neighbors house? Would they put your fire out and let yours burn?
First of all there is nothing that says you and your neighbor can't have the same fire protection service. It would probably be tied in with insurance, with the insurance company offering fire protection in an effort to keep their claims down. Or you could see homeowners associations purchasing fire protection and paying for it as part of the association's dues. Or you could have a landlord offer fire protection to his tenants, same thing with condominium complexes. As to what form those protections would look like, well I'm not sure. It would depend on the practices of the companies involved in fire protection. What you can be sure of is that those companies would have to adopt the best standards in order to stay competitive and in business. Since the best way to do that is lowering your prices, costs would be driven down over time.
Even with none of those situations, a fire protection service would have to act because I'm pretty sure that if they let someone's house burn down just because they weren't "customers", they'd still be liable for negligent practices. At the very least, they'd get a bum rap for not helping and their business would suffer accordingly. Heck by saving your neighbor's house, they just might get a new customer. It would be stupid not to help.
Courts are a little more tricky. I do think we need a division between criminal and civil courts. Now a free market criminal court I'm not too sure of. I'd have to think about that one for a bit. As for a free market civil court system, well that would look very different from what we have today.
I think it would take the form of arbitration. Right now we have two lawyers who duke it out in court, they use their own language and have no incentive to arrive at a mutually agreeable solution. Arbitration would place a greater emphasis on win-win situations. The companies who had practices that enabled the most number of win-win situations would be sought after due to demonstrated impartiality, unlike our current court system which only says they are impartial.
Who would organize such a complex system and make all options available if it were not the Government?
Who organizes an industry as complex as the computer industry? Government by it's very nature limits options. Look at public schools and everything people get their panties in a twist about. Creationism vs evolution. Prayer vs non-prayer. "Unfair" funding where rich districts get more money than poorer districts. Public education is one size fits all and doesn't take people's differences into account. Why do you think we're spending more and more money on education for less and less of a return? It's the nature of a public system.
I think you're confusing organization of industry with accepted standards and practices in a particular industry. Look at the 802.11 b, g, and n standards. The government didn't have to step in and set these standards, the industry itself, realizing that they had to have a standard communications protocol for their wireless routers, got together and set up the standard.
Ever hear about Underwriter's Laboratories? Most people haven't, I didn't until recently. http://mises.org/story/3440
The first is an example of how competitors in a market cooperate so that the market functions better while the second is an example of how competition can make products that are safer for people to use. The market can do this without massive tax increases and other redistributive schemes.
Suggesting that racism is the sole factor for opposition to President Obama and his administration’s policies is as naïve and unhelpful as suggesting it isn’t a factor at all.
Of course it is a factor in some opposition. However, rather than dismiss all opposition as motivated by race Obama has, as far as I can see, shown himself more than willing to engage those who have genuine concerns. Indeed he seems to be of the view that overcoming areas of disagreement, expanding on shared goals, cutting through ideological polarisation and correcting false information is absolutely vital.
He also seems to be of the view that genuine opposition is useful and important. He seems aware that no policy or idea is perfect, even his own. He seems to understand that debate can be useful in improving ideas and policies and that this is exactly what needs to happen.
The President himself shows no interest in stifling genuine debate whatever the subject. Referring to the anger some members of society feel about issues of race and racism, he commented “. . . to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races”.
What do I think? I think the current situation in the U.S calls for a pragmatic, non partisan, problem solving approach which is exactly the kind of approach President Obama seems to be championing. Others, both opposition and supporters alike, don’t seem to be able to follow suite. If that remains the case, then personally I think the U.S will miss what is probably the greatest opportunity it’s had in its recent history to effect real and significant change that will take the country into the future.
That would be nice Don, except that the President has shown that he has no interest in talking with the opposition. Why else do you think he left Washington during the 9/12 rally? Why did he leave? Unlike the 1960's this protest was nonviolent and he really could have made points with the opposition by meeting with them.
Why does he get pissed when he's asked the hard questions? Why does he get mad when he is asked questions that many Americans are asking themselves? Those are hardly the actions of a person who is willing to open a dialogue.
Look at that fiasco with the cop. Not only did he admit that he didn't have all the facts, without all the facts he called the actions of the Cambridge police stupid. He said this without knowing all the facts. This doesn't sound like someone who is very interested in truth. He already knows it, without knowing all the facts, and expects people to believe it just because he said it. The Greeks had a word for this: hubris.
Quite a few things make me wary of President Obama... none of which have anything to do with the color of his skin. His ideas are way Left of center... but he never comes out and says exactly what his real ideas are (there are glimpses into his soul available from his past interviews, speaches and books). His acquaintences are way Left of center... but he denies any and all affiliation with these people when the press gets too hot (i.e. Reverend Wright, Bill Ayers and many others). His appointments are way Left of Center... Van Jones was only the tip of the iceberg as far as Leftist appointees! His fingerprints are all over ACORN. He views The Constitution as a set of "negative rights" that "outline what the Federal Government cannot do to you". Under his "plan" energy costs would necessarily "sky rocket". He was not upset by $4 per gallon gasoline, only that it had risen so quickly. From healthcare or health insurance or something or other reform he constantly laments that government can solve this country's problems, while history has proven that it is the individual American loosed to pursue his happiness that provides the fuel for growth of this country's economy in a free market capitalist economic system. Instead of choosing the word "rebuild" in his inauguration speach he deliberately chose the work "remake" in order to describe what he wanted to do to America. These are not synonymous. President Obama has had the opportunity to do the right thing and he has repeatedly chosen not to do so as I suspect that he will continue to do. I strongly suspect that the most significant accomplishment of his administration will be the firing of his Press Secretary Robert Gibbs... if he ever gets around to doing that.
He is the same candidate as was Al Gore and John Kerry... the only difference is that he actually made it to the White House.
Carter was right on point with that Confederate Flag waving Racist. The man is not a good politician. I will grant you that. But, he's a great judge of people. Givin his age: I think he recognized the racist hate in the Senator because he's seen it so many times in his life. He is from the South. He's a witness to racist acts tens times over.
This is simply an abstraction intended to serve as a distraction. Obama is simply not going after the issues his own supporters thought to be most important. If you can't keep your own crowd happy how could you expect to keep an entire country happy? He has continued and expanded the failed stimulus policy of Bush. He has attempted to shut down GTMO, he said he would withdraw from Iraq and backtracked. Health care was NOT a major concern for Obamas supporters prior to the election. At least not based on the normal pre-election polling. Education was not either, which seems to be the administations next stop on the "Change" train. So far this administration has been stubbing its toe on just about every issue.
In a way it's kind of sad CJ. I think Obama is having some of the same problems as Regan did. I think many of the swing voters voted for Obama, not in the issues but because he wasn't a Republican. That's not quite the same thing as having a majority support you.
Also he has to content with entrenched power blocks and any legislation he proposes will have to be approved by said power brokers in Washington. That being said, I think many of Obama's plans are congruent with the power brokers in Washington, he just has a hard time getting the idealists in his party on the same page as his opposition so he can get something through. I can't say I feel sorry for him because many of his solutions will only work for the short term, maybe a generation or two, maybe.
A politician campaigns on one slate and implements another upon election. You did your job, you pulled a lever, now the people with real power have their say in the lobbies of Washington's hotels. So much for the will of the people.
I don't feel sorry for him either. I am unashamed in stating that I hope his policies fail to get any traction. This is a person who stood on some lofty ideals and empty rhetoric. His obvious lack of preparedness leads me to believe he has been caught off guard by actually winning the election. Now he has to provide substance to his previously poorly defined political ideology.
It was more than just "swing voters" voting for a non Republican. People got caught up in the "History" of his candidacy. In doing so lost site of what was important to them. That is frightening. Are we as a nation more concerned with how things appear versus how they actually are? Did we elect this man to the Presidency because we were afraid of what others would say if we did not?
I'd say that more and more we've become a country that has been more about style, or how things look, as opposed to substance, or how things really are. That's the whole idea behind political correctness. The idea that words have power. It's really a superstitious belief almost akin to the belief in written spells or that writing has magical powers.
This is an intellectual movement that originated in academia. As a result, while people have followed it, it really hasn't become part of the "American" identity like individualism, a frontier mentality or other trappings of American culture. I think we're starting to see a sea change in how people think about PC and the mindset behind it.
Up until now, the PC crowd has been able to make the gains they have because they've taken advantage of the average American's desire to be fair and polite. I'd even go so far as to say that PC has exploited a concept that comes from a traditional Judeo-Christian upbringing, guilt. Granted it's stronger in some traditions than others, Catholicism comes to mind, but it's there in just about every denomination. This is further corroborated by the actions of people who don't come from that background. While they'll take advantage of PC, I'm sure that someone from an Eastern tradition would have a hard time understanding the guilt motivation, for example.
But PC is pretty contrary to what have been traditional American values and I think we're seeing the beginning of a backlash against that sort of thinking. Of course I'm very anti-PC and that could just be wishful thinking on my part. Yet time will tell.
True, but even her own party hated her! Too Polarizing. I think she would have lost badly to even McCain.
The whole Party? Or just the geniuses that had control for the past 8 years?
The neocons hated her. That's not the same thing as the whole party. Look at Obama. People in his own party are taking exception to some of his policies.
I'd say the Republican party needed polarization. The far right had accumulated too much power and were doing to the Republicans exactly what Obama is doing to the Democrats right now. Personally I'd like to see a third party emerge made up of Blue Dog Democrats and non-neocon Republicans on the other. A true third party that could get us past this two party nonsense and reestablish government according to the Constitution of the United States. A party dedicated to limited government and maximum liberty.
I thought both you and Texan were speaking of Hillary. In which case I would say yes, pretty much the whole party hated her, her own party as well as the Republican party. Hillary was unelectable, in my opinion.
We don't elect presidents based on their VP selections. Palin was a NON factor. She was neutralized by the Dems quickly with a negative campaign. Typical. It was also great strategy. The Republicans will turn on their own in a second. Also, if you are needing a "Boost" for your candidate from a VP selection your in a lot of trouble. The idea that Palin was going to be the first female VP paled in comparison to candidacy of Obama, historically speaking.
There is a third party. They have been snubbed. In some part because of their own doing. However, some of their policies are more in line with the Constitution that either of the two parties that run the country now.
I see. I agree that Hillary is a shrill witch but I would rather have her than Obama! McCain was the worst possible candidate and he definitely needed a boost from his VP pick, and that is about the only reason he did as well as he did.
I try not to speak about Hillary, I hate her with a passion that is probably unhealthy. Palin was a good pick to try to woo moderate Republicans back to the fold. And before you start thinking the Democrats don't turn on their own, why do you think Hillary got State? There's supposedly a curse at State that goes back all the way to Henry Clay. If a party wants to neutralize a potential opponent in their own party, they put that person into State. Why do you think Powell got State? Why do you think Rice isn't running for any offices?
Not the same thing. Both parties keep certain members on a short leash. Of course the appointment of Hillary was to eliminate her as an in house opponent. She's harmless to him now. I'm talking about Livingston, Lott, and others. Once a scandal hits, they turn their backs on them. The clinton's were involved in everything from insider trading to death investigations to adultery for goodness sakes!
Heh and these are the people entrusted to make things "better". I'm almost tempted to drink the Kool Aid. Still it will be kind of funny to see what they do when their house of cards starts to come down around their ears. Or maybe not, depending on the actions they take.
Disagreement does not equal racism. I believe there are racists who exist and oppose Obama and are using the conservative platform to voice their discontent. However, I believe the majority of people who disagree with Obama are simply unhappy with his agenda.
I've said it before that the political system in this country is broken. The slime that is "on the hill" is not to be trusted or believed because of their proven track record of deceitful earmarks and double worded legislation. What can we expect when in the past the slimiest and dirtiest people have gotten to the top?
The fact that he has said that he expects to be held accountable and has even said himself that he will be the most watched blackman in the history of the world gives me some pause to wait and sees how this will all play out.
I know that some are quick to question his moves and double guess his intents but has he been in long enough to be criticized acurately? I am hopeful that time will tell whether of not he is about change and does get the results that the majority of us want.
Again I respectfully request that you all start getting specific. What is in his agenda, what policy, what law, is it you dont like? Should Barack Obama have let us slip into a depression? Should he just let sick people die. Give me some logical reasons for the level of hate too many poeple have for this President. Then explain the real reason behind this insane hate. Come on! we're all friends here! You're all very kind, smart people. I would really like to here all of your intelligent responses to my questions.
Friendly you can't spend yourself to prosperity, so no Obama didn't save us from a depression, he's just made it worse. Give it a year and ask yourself if you were better off a year ago. I'm certain most people will say no.
Paying for healthcare isn't going to solve the problem. Look at another area the government pays people to go: college. Ever wonder why college tuition is rising so much? The same thing is going to happen to healthcare if you simply pay for it. It would be much simpler to ease laws concerning restriction of licensing doctors, but you won't see that happen because there's too much money involved and our so-called representatives work for the people with the money, not the people who "vote them into office".
Why is your precious Obama going to Copenhagen to push for the Olympics? Doesn't a President have more important things to do? When was the last time you've seen a President act as a shill for slumlords. Why is it that some of the Presidents closest advisers are being investigated for their neglect of public housing in the Chicago area while they, themselves, are earning million+ dollar salaries?
I'm sure you railed against Cheney and Haliburton, as well as you should have. Where is your outrage over Obama's slumlords? Or don't the living conditions of poor people matter to you? Or doesn't the theft of public funds by slumlords bother you?
I'd suggest you have some deep thinking to do if you still believe Obama cares at all about the little people.
Thank you for a clear response. I agree completely with you about Chicago Politics. However the trip was a good thing.
As for just letting the country fall into Depression; ARE YOU CRAZY??? How would we survive it, and, come out on the other side of it a better Country? I've heard other people say that with a straight face. You have to tell me more. And I would actually like to hear back from you about that subject.
No, but I do study economics. Letting the "country fall into depression" would be the best thing to do. Easy credit and money cause people to make mistakes and mis-allocate funds. We've been mis-allocating funds for almost 30 years now. A depression will clear all of that junk away. By trying to keep the correction from happening, the federal government is just making it worse.
The problem with explaining it is that I'm unsure of how much you know about economics and if you can tell the difference between good economic theory and bad economic theory. I used to be a total naif when it came to economics, I mean, I had a few classes in school, but most economics (especially macro) was just something you sat through to get credit. It wasn't until I got out of school that the true import of proper economic instruction hit me on the head like a ton of bricks.
If you really want to understand what's going on, you'll have to do a lot of reading. Since we're talking about a new Depression, you might want to start with Murray Rothbard's America's Great Depression[. You can read it for free here: http://mises.org/rothbard/agd.pdf
Most of what people know, they hear from traditional news outlets. But these outlets have their own agenda. I think that's becoming more and more apparent. One of the reasons I say this is because of the effects of distributed mass communication devices like the Internet. You might find the following article interesting: http://mises.org/story/3060
I think that's why Obama and the Progressives are having so much trouble ramming their agenda down our throats. There are sources out there that can disseminate all the crooked tricks and corruption that has always been behind the scenes in Washington and they can't count on traditional media to go along without repercussions anymore.
And no, I don't think the Olympics is a good thing for the US. It's good for Obama's friends in government, but I live in Missouri. How is federal tax money that goes to the Olympic games in any way, shape or form going to help me? Or anyone else that doesn't live in Chicago?
Beware! Ldt is touting you on very right wing libertarian economics, very far from what most economists believe.
Very far from what Keynesian economists believe. There is a difference. Shame on you, Ralph.
Nearly all mainstream economics owes a debt to Keynes. Nearly all orthodox, mainstream economists accept Keynes's basic concepts. Monetarism is another economic theory with a number of adherents among whom Milton Friedman was the most notable. Friedman's monetarism's antecedents are "Austrian school" economists Ludwig Von Mises and Friedrich Hayek seasoned by a dash of Ayn Rand's crackpot objectivism "philosophy.' Former Fed chief Alan Greenspan was a disciple of Ayn Rand and Friedman's monetarism. After the extent of the current crash became apparent, Greenspan acknowledged his error in relying excessively on markets to regulate themselves. About the only valid point in Von Mises and Hayek's work was to point out the now widely recognized flaws inherent in socialism and the superior performance of but not completely unregulated markets which is consistent with Keynesian or neo-Keynesian economics. However, the dogmatic libertarianism spawned by the Austrian school has little support among economists today.
May I suggest, LDT, that you get a copy of Paul Samuelson's text "Economics" and brush up on orthodox economic theory. Samuelson's text is currently in it's 19th edition and is by far the most widely used economics text book in the U.S. if not the world.
Um Ralph Keynesian economists told us back in the 1970's that gold would drop to about $10 an ounce when we severed the last tie to gold. It instead went to $200 an ounce and has never been below that mark. Oops. I might also introduce you to some of the follies of the High Priest of Keynesianism:
You can use loaded words like "orthodox" and "mainstream" all you like, but that doesn't make adherents to Keynesianism correct. It's kind of like how Obama used words like "hope" and "change". I'm not sure what sort of hope we have today, but many people are surprised at the sort of change we're seeing today.
Well, I guess you and Von Mises, Ayn Rand, Friedman and his Chicago boys and the supply siders of voodoo economics fame are right and the other 90 percent of mainstream economists are wrong. Conditions are not the same, obviously, in 2009 as in 2003. Krugman and most economists agree that now is not the time to balance the budget or raise interest rates when unemployment is the highest it's been in 40 years. Doing that would "let them eat cake" for 10 years or so. You are correct that Medicare liability is a problem which of course is one of the things health care reformists are grappling with. You are not correct about Social Security funding. With a few minor adjustments Social Security will be fine for the forseeable future. All that's needed is a consensus decision on which of several perfectly feasible and painless steps are to be taken--raise the income cap, gradually raise the retirement age for full benefits, adjust the COLA formula or a combination of the above. Curbing skyrocketing Medicare and health care costs is going to be much harder.
We don't need to worry about curbing the costs Ralph, those programs are going to be bankrupt in a few years. Long before then, though, we'll be suffering through hyperinflation and you'll see the value of things like Social Security and Medicare dwindle to nothing, along with the purchasing power of the dollar.
Funny how in 1983, Reagan had Paul Volcker, then head of the Fed, raise interest rates to 20% and hold them there for three years after Carter's disastrous term in office. You might want to study the parallels of Carter's administration and the current one, they're remarkable similar in many ways. About the only thing I haven't seen from the Obama administration yet is price ceilings. With advisers like Krugman and other "orthodox" economists, I'd not be surprised to see that within the next year or so.
You can try using all the name calling you want, Ralph, but it doesn't change the fact that I can go back through history and find plenty of examples of where tax and spend policies have failed. I certainly can't find any where they have succeeded. Must be why you have to resort to name calling, the final resort of a Progressive.
And our problems have been steadily compounding since the Presidency of Theodore Roosevelt. What are you going to do in a year or so when you can no longer blame the Bush administration?
Name calling? You can cherry pick and misinterpret history all you want. You are still way out in right field. Over the fence actually.
You can name call all you like, yet the fact remains that the economic crisis has unfolded exactly how and why Ludwig von Mises said it would. Have you ever read Mises' Human Action or even Keynes' General Theory?
Name calling? What name calling? I've read Keynes General Theory, but not Von Mises or Hayek. They aren't assigned in undergraduate economics classes. Neither is Ayn Rand, not in philosophy, economics or literature. Friedman's monetarist theories are the closest I came.
Perhaps misstating thing is a better choice of terms than name calling. Mea culpa. So you've never read anything by Hayek or Mises. How can you possibly critique them, then? I've read Friedman and Keynes and they're both incorrect, Keynes more than Friedman. Since all you've read is Friedman, I can see why you labor under the misconceptions you have. You might want to do yourself a favor and read a little more.
I've read critiques of Hayek and Von Mises's discredited theories. That was enough for me to get their drift which was not applicable to the 20th century U.S. economy or its democratic government.
Nice to see you rely on critiques and not actually, you know, reading their works. Doing things that way you get things from the horse's rear end rather than the mouth. Really you should read some of Mises work, it's remarkable how his Theory of the Business Cycle predicted the crash. It also suggests that the stimulus money and bailouts will also fail. Time will tell which of us is right.
I rely on critiques and opinions of people I respect on a lot of things. In the case of economics in which I majored in college and studied a bit in graduate school, I rely on the position of mainstream economists several of whom have received Nobel awards more recently than Hayek or Mises. Actually, I would be interested in reading Hayek and Von Mises but there are so many books and so little time. I have a fair number of books in the bookcases that I've not read or read only parts of. I don't feel compelled to apologise or recant what I said just because I haven't read a couple of early 20th century libertarian economists. I'm familiar enough with Hayek and Mises to agree with their conclusion that capitalism was a superior economic system to socialism, but to disagree with their extreme libertarian conclusions. In other words, I disagree with them and with you over the optimum amount of regulation required in order to realize the benefits of a market economy and avoid having it destroy itself through economic depressions or through political revolution inspired by excessive income disparity and/or inattention to the needs of people in a modern industrial society.
Ralph, I'd really suggest reading two books by Mises, even if you don't have time for any others. Socialism and especially Bureaucracy. Those two alone will explain far better then I ever could why any sort of outside regulation is doomed to fail.
I'd also recommend reading Murray Rothbard and his books on banking and the monetary system. Absent fractional reserve banking, we'd not have the problems associated with banks runs and would have no need for central banks. It's these banks that cause our depressions not allowing free markets to operate.
Also I'm not sure what you mean by extreme income disparity. By letting the market work freely you give people the opportunity to amass wealth and then invest it. By taking from one group and giving to another, all you do is destroy wealth.
At any rate, Ralph, I've found it useful to read the words of those opposed to you as well as those you agree with. By challenging the assumptions I make, I can be sure that I'm always moving closer to the truth rather than far away. Thanks for reminding me that I've spent years studying the Austrian School and sometimes forget that I've invested a lot of time and effort into that study. Still, it may be worthwhile to spend a little time with them. At the very least you'll get an idea of how intellectually honest the sources of your critiques are.
The majority of economists are neo-Keynesians and they support the need for the stimulus package. Many say another is needed.
Are you familiar with the equation C+I+G=GNP? [Consumption expenditures + Investment + Government expenditures= Gross National Product] This equation is central to Keynes' theory and is taught in every freshman economics class in the country.
Slavery is taught in Schools also but no one in the US practices it!
Macroeconomics Ralph, they teach it in macroeconomics. Which totally contradicts what they teach you in microeconomics, also known as classical economics. So why is it, when you look at things on the macro scale, you turn economic law upside down? That's why most people don't progress beyond macroeconomics. It doesn't make sense and only people who want to become economists need to study more.
That's just the way Keynesian economists like it. Personally I can see why most people have a problem with Keynes as he uses "animal spirits" to describe consumer confidence. In that he sounds less like a "scientist" and more like a witch doctor.
Specifically I do not like the Cap and Trade bill it is a tax on the people he said he would not tax! I will include the definition of tax because some are very confused.
1. Tax a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc.
2. a burdensome charge, obligation, duty, or demand.
Obama and his administration knew how much this would cost the American people and lied and said he wouldn't raise taxes on anyone making less than 250,000 a year!
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/09/15 … 4040.shtml
This is just one reason why I disagree with Obama if you need more specifics just ask.
I think it is a combination of both. There's no doubt that there are a lot of people who disagree immensely with Obama's policies and also feel that he is taking on too many issues as opposed to just focusing on a few - one of which is the economy and jobs. But I also think that in some cases, the root of the displeasure and dismay with President Obama is the fact that he is an African American, and with that, it doesn't take much to show general disrespect and lack of overall support for any of his initiatives, without ever really considering the merits or consequences of his policies.
White Americans voted for him in the first place. During the campaign, race was not an issue to my knowlege. Only after Mr. Obama began implimenting his plans did race become an issue. Sad to say I have seen before people of color cry racism when their conduct is called into question. I live in one of the most staunchly conservative areas of Texas where the citizens are passionately against Obama and have wittnessed little or no racism expressed. Sorry, but opposition to Obama's desire to drag this country to the left has nothing to do with race. I never hear people mention it, but he is half white.
Oh brother. Can you please tell me one thing Obama has accomplished as president to warrant praise? Just one thing?
Yes, he is TRYING to do a bunch of things at once but hasn't successfully finished a project.
He is a lot of talk and little action. He's almost a quarter of the way through his presidency. This has nothing to do with race people!
I think it is ridiculous that because people disagree with a black man they are being called racist. Does that mean that anyone that disagrees with Pres Clinton was also a racist. Or what if they disagree with what Mike Tyson says--does that make them racist. I think what Pres Carter did, in his race baiting comment, was unfair and unacceptable for a man of his stature.
I won't play the racist thing. It's a policy thing. Its not a black or white or Asian or American Indian thing it is holding on to our Constitution with all we've got! I wish it was as simple as a racist thing. It's a truth or corruption thing it's a freedom of keeping our Constitution.
OK, maybe (being from the BIBLE BELT MYSELF) maybe he was/is a racist, who knows, who cares, the POINT is WHAT the hell is OBAMA doing? HE obviously did lie. Where the hell are the changes? When the hell does the "YES WE CAN" officially begin? cause as far as I can see , NO WE CANT, but YES THEY can. They being those who already could. As far as I can see, he's only "rewarding" or helping those who coulda already helped themselves.. AT LEAST BUSH SEEMED TO BE GIVING TO EVERYONE WITH THAT STIMULUS. AT LEAST HE TRIED TO ACT LIKE HE CARED ABOUT THE LITTLE PEOPLE (*yeah operative word being acted) anyway, the new admonistration seems to not know that there are people who have lost their jobs, credit, etc,and cant go out and buy a new car , a foreclosed upon home, etc.) seems to me like these would be the people who need the help the most, not those who can go buy a 30K car just to get the 4K rebate. There are 15 out of 20 homes empty on most of the blocks in Cape Coral and Ft Myers. Why not find a way to put some homesless families in these homes, maybe some Vietnam, or Gulf Vets? Fill a need where there seems to be an abundance? Anyway, I thik RACISM is really the last thing we need to be worried about right now, what about "CLASS-ism"??
You wrote this in another forum, so where do you stand?
I truly believe we should have some respect. It should really be required. How are the leaders of other countried (iran for example) going to respect us, If we dont even respect ourselves?) yeah,yeah, I know, I can say whatever I want about my brother, but dont you say anything) well, that just isnt gonna work, OK.
Respect for our leaders should be a LAW. and the Leaders of the "SUPERPOWER"
I think its commpletely OK to express ones openion. Even in Iran(that you mentioned) people stood with all their might against the dictator.
Respect for our leaders should be a law? Are you serious? I have no respect for Bill Clinton who shook his finger at me and lied! I have no respect for Jimmy Carter who said I was racist because I disagree with Barack Obama! I have no respect for George HW Bush who told me to read his lips and then taxed me! I respect only those worthy of respect.
Mitch, I respect my parents, the elderly, my pastor, but Obama will never own my respect. His shady background, and his shaady associations, and his arrogance and disrespect for the people of this country gets no respect.
So you don't think respect should be a law? I hope not it might make the United States a strange Orwellian place.
I'm sorry I am a little new to this comment thing and thought you said respect should be mandatory, i see now it was someone else. Sorry!
It is not opposition against the person of Barrack Obama or the position of the presidency, but the degradation of the US Constitution through the policies he and his cronies are perpetrating against the vision of the United States of America
Pretty much his entire plan. He's a Progressive, through and through. It's been an aim of the Progressives to dismantle the Constitutional protections bequeathed on us by our Founders so that they could control the political apparatus and accrue power. Nobody can be trusted with that much power. That's whey the Constitution specifically limits the powers of government.
The very fact that the President doesn't understand this is a major reason as to why so many are turning against him.
Hurray. Did you know that now our school children have to sing a son about Obama to the tune of The Battle Hymn of The Republic???
Wow! Iam going to go up to the school and hear the children sing it. What time do they sing it?
I found another one that we learned when I was a kid. Perhaps you know it.
John Brown's Body
John Brown's body lies a-mouldering in the grave; (3X)
His soul's marching on!
Glory, glory, hallelujah! Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah! his soul's marching on!
Is this one of the verses they use?
Apparently not: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Battle … lic#Lyrics
While I didn't find the John Brown verses I did find the following:
What does it say about a people who are singing about dying to make men free as they march off to battle?
Try this one:
Wikipedia doesn't have a page on John Brown's Body. Still seeing as white supremacists have come up with this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Battle … blic#Media
It just goes to show that evil really isn't that creative, all they can do is copy their betters.
Policy! Anyone who says other wise is a racist and is using that as an argument to further their personal agenda. Carter is out of touch and has failed miserably at being a politician!
Here is a link to a female black columnist discussing how many black Anericans are beginning to view bama boy.
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Perspectives/ … ?id=681210
Thanks for the link. Followed it, read the text, gave it a 5 star rating, left a comment.
For Real? You think Michelle Malkin is a Black Woman? And do you really think alot of people, Black or White, thought it was a bad thing for President Barack Obama to address school children, just like every other President before him. And Like it or not, he is a hero to the Black People of this country and to alot of other people in this country, of all colors, who are proud of how far we have all come as a nation.
Did you see me write anywhere that I "think Michelle Malkin is a Black Woman?" I don't care if she's a black woman or a purple Plutonian. I've been against Oh Bummer since LONG before he was elected and have a home lost to foreclosure in Colorado for which to thank him DIRECTLY.
No, I'm not talking out of my tail end. I was working as a truck driver in a very solid section of the gasfield drilling economy in western Colorado. Had McCain-Palin been elected, I'd still be there, working my 60 to 70 hours of straight night shift per week, and my disabled wife would still have a doctor. Why does she not have a doctor now? Only INDIRECTLY because of Oh Bummer's election: When we bailed out of Colorado and back to her native Arizona because of cutbacks that forced my employer to "relieve" us of 12 hours of overtime per week--in my case that was at $34.50 per hour--we got a shock and a half: No doctor we consulted would take her on as a patient, not even the SAME M.D. who had helped set up her regimen years ago.
And yes, I'm REALLY against compulsory health insurance.
As far as I'm concerned, the election of ANY liberal--black, white, or spotted--is the epitome of horror incarnate. I've been month to month for most of my 65 years and STILL can't stand Big Government, and it's not because I can't or won't think, either. It's because I DO think.
I vote for the man, not the party, always have, always will. My "fear and loathing" are equal opportunity when it comes to politics: The last time (prior to last November) was when Bobby Kennedy was shot. That shook me hard.
But not as hard as the dangerous, dangerous, DANGEROUS man now in office.
Liberal? Or just left winger... Dangerous like one who would send us to war for WMDs that don't exist? Dangerous like a man who would sign bills into law and say 'I won't enforce this'? Dangerous like a man who pushes checks and balances to the limits? Hypocrisy, the hallmark of conservatives.
Thousands of times as dangerous as that one. Darth Vader compared to Pee Wee Herman in a movie theater.
Stalin compared to Hitler! Weed compared to alcohol!
Interesting. Never would have thought a supporter of the current White House would have tagged its occupant as being like either Stalin or weed....
By the way, I'm not a "conservative" in the currently accepted, stereotypical sense, seeing as how (for one thing) I'm strongly pro choice on abortion and (for another) don't for one second see why gays should not be allowed to marry. Conservative on fiscal issues and deeply against big government in all its forms, yes.
As to hypocrisy, perhaps. According to Samuel Johnson:
"Nothing is more unjust, however common, than to charge with hypocrisy him that expresses zeal for those virtues which he neglects to practice; since he may be sincerely convinced of the advantages of conquering his passions, without having yet obtained the victory, as a man may be confident of the advantages of a voyage, or a journey, without having courage or industry to undertake it, and may honestly recommend to others, those attempts which he neglects himself."
I do believe I believe, which according to Dr. Johnson should clear me of the charge, but who am I to say?
I was joking....
Anyways, I support the white house, but I am not blind. Obama is a politician. I think he is trying to work in the right direction, and trying to better the country. That is why I like him MUCH more than I liked Bush. I also realize that he, like every other president (except MAYBE George Washington), is a politician. They all have flaws. They all have 'dangerous' elements. In my opinion Bush was WAY more dangerous than Obama. I think he proved it multiple times. Obama has yet to prove it. We'll see how I feel in 3 years. No matter how I feel, I will be happy that Cheney and Palin weren't in office.
If Obama's agenda was that of Ronald Reagan, the democrats would be saying the same things they said about Bush, and conservatives would love him. The color of his skin is a non issue, except to the liberals who keep bringing it up, over and over.
Some people won't like him because of his policies, some people won't like him because of his race. The majority who don't like him is because of his policies. As far as racial history in this country contributing to the ones who don't like him because of his race, sure. But that is not the majority, and I think it is an assumption to call "Race!"
Oh, boy, we're all gonna get into it now. The country is divided more than ever along party lines. The Republicans believe in the Great White Way. They actually think free enterprise systems are equitable. They don't see the vastly bigger picture of what's happening in this country to people who don't have large cash resources and are living paycheck to paycheck. The Repulicans are afraid to lose the privileges they've had; they're disgusted with Obama for not being able to maintain the status quo.
They are very against Obama as president. I don't believe they're racially motivated but they will use any weapon that works.
The Democrats, unfortunately for our President Obama, aren't too happy, either. Not too much of what the President has tried has worked the way it was supposed to, but that was more because of the unrelenting greed of top people in business. I was shocked when the auto industry moguls awarded themselves million dollar bonuses with the bailout money; I was shocked when the bailout money to the banks got spent without being properly accounted for.
I don't think Obama expected this. I think he expected more cooperation from the captains of industry and from the people in high places in banking. I think he expected better of them.
And so the situation continues. Obama's remedies haven't exactly failed completely; but they haven't lived up to anyone's expectations, either.
The pro-Obama Democrats are disappointed, too...mainly over the failures of the health-care reform program and the still-dire situation with the American auto industry.
So this poor guy can't make anyone happy.
I've heard suggestions that there's some racial slamming going on. That's sick, in my humble opinion. The man is a graduate of law school and has a good track record in his political career. I think he's trying, hard, to help us all out and needs our patience and cooperation.
I believe his motives are altruistic and he's probably the most idealistic President we've had for a long time.
We need to get behind him and pull together. The house that's divided against itself cannot stand.
Well the bonuses were in the contracts that the Obama administration wrote so how is it that he didn't know about them?
Um, you don't seem to have heard about a little thing called inflation have you? If you want to really understand why people are getting poorer, you need to understand the evil that is inflation. Why in God's name would you support anyone who is going to make it harder for people to make a living?
No, we certainly don't need to "get behind him and pull together." Obama is a danger to this country and to all that we hold dear. If you want to get behind him. . .hey, knock yourself out. Me? I will never, ever support socialism in this country.
As for the race issue: have you forgotten that the man was gestated in the womb of a white woman and deliverd through a white woman's legs? Have you forgotten that he was NOT raised as a black man. . .but as a white man. President Obama is no more a black man than I am.
Finally some sanity! Your like a breath of fresh air. Thank you for the first really clear headed response I've heard on the these blogs. Come help me out sometime.
How can we get behind him. You are saying we should just support him only because he is the president, even though he will destroy the country. That makes no sense at all. Did you feel that way when Bush was president?
I think Carter was and still may be a racist. He is from the South and he is of that generation where black people were treated as second class citizens. If he right away lumps people together and accuses people of racism because they disagree with a president who is black and can't think of any other reason why they would disagree, you know he only sees color and therefore I think he's a racist.
Some people are racists, and some aren't. People are going to hate others for various reasons. I think there are people out there who hate Obama because he is black. But, if he is objected to for valid reasons, then it doesn't matter what color his skin is. His presidency shouldn't be more difficult because he is black, but it shouldn't be easier either. He should be judged on the content of his character... Should I have put the last part in quotes?
Much as Dr. King at the time lamented that the heirs of the Declaration of Independence had defaulted on their promissory note to people of color, so have the heirs of Dr. King defaulted on the promissory note he bequeathed to them.
I've not the words to describe so I'll let Dr. King explain the dream of America:
We still have a long way to go on the road to freedom.
It is from Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech.
Don't worry. You only have to worry if Hubtight is lurking.
I had a feeling you were pulling my leg!
I don't care what color he is, I disagree with his policies and Going on a campaign trail every day makes him look less presidential to me. Every one of his policies is flawed, none of them are for the betterment of this country, I don't understand why some can't see this.
We may not see the race issue because we didn't grow up with it as an issue, and it shouldn't be an issue, but for some people who grew up with racism, they are afraid to speak out due to fear of being called a racist. Star Parker wrote a great article on how many black Americans are now deeply dissapointed with bama. Hope that made sense.
where have you been BJC? LOL
I have been wondering.
Miss our chats
still looking for that spokesperson?
And yes you are so right and it did make a lot of sense.
Been pretty busy with my job...............but, I'm glad I have one. Check out www.GOOOH.com great site for activist and we may be talking contact me
I think it's because a lot of people are bitterly disappointed. They wanted a big change from Bush, but not this. So they don't want to admit that Obama isn't working out.
Prime example of growing opposition against the Obamas. Michelle had several streets closed during rush hour so that she, and a small crew of 100, including roof top gun men, could jot down to the market to buy eggs and some herbs. Then while she was there, preached about how healthy you could be eating veggies, and how great it is that they accept food stamps at the market.
What about his health care plan? Do you think the generalized healthcare system will work in a capitalistic world? Many give example of UK, while supporting his health care plan, but the fact is, many non-British go back to their own countries when they become sick and avoid going to doctor in UK.
A President or Prime Minister will always have some sort of opposition. It comes with the Territory. I'm just remembering the opposition the last 2 UK Prime Ministers had/have to put up with. There are people who always run their mouths and oppose vehemently.(Tony Blair and Gordon Brown)
As for Obama and Racism - People need to be reminded that Obama is 50% African American and 50% English Descent. A lot of people just capitalise on His African American Descent which is sad. I just hope for his peace of mind and safety, he steps down after the first Term or they'll have his head on a Platter.
Even President Obama has said it's not a racist "thing", ust people who disagree with policy.
I yearn for the time when you could disagree with a person's words and not be a racist, hater, or against America.
And not call the person who disagrees with you stupid or uneducated, etc.
Oh, my goodnes, I have finally figured it all out!! We're hated because of the following:
Jberish - you're a blond
Tex - well, your from Texas
Me I have freckles
If only we could all be like me, we'd get along just fine
I doubt it, the tall would still have a problem with the short, and unless we give everything we earn to the poor, we are just useless.
come now jiberish, that would depend on your definition of poor or short. To someone who is 5'8' short or tall is different than for someone who is 6'5".
I'm just teasing, but it felt like I was waaaaaaaaaay left there for a moment, lost my head!
YAY - long week this was.......... check out www.goooh.com
it's a way for the folks like us, normal people, to get involved and vote out the house of representatives.
enjoy the weekend - it's sort of cloudy and rainy here today.
I just loled
These comments caught my eye. Are you apposed to the President’s policies? Are you apposed to him and his family personally? Or is it both?
He may be a fine person, his family looks wonderful and they seem very loving towards their children.
His policies are way to left for me. His campaign ended in January, he should calm down and start facing the problems of this country with an educated, calculated method, not random babblings writen to make him sound like he knows what he's talking about. His foreign policies, especially what he did in Poland, and Isreal are setting us back years. His push or should I say nudge towards socialism, or what ever you want to call it, makes me unsettled. The indoctrination of grade school children is over the top, his past associations and his present cabinet is filled with those who want to stifle free speech, capitalism, and his economic mess will take us years to regroup. Yes, I disagree with what he's doing, the only thing I may agree with is his stance to pull out of Afganistan.
Sorry can't write too much ....still laughing too hard
I have seen President Obama firmly state he has no time for those who want to maintain the status quo for their own gain. I have seen him express discontent with those who would kill reform at any cost, while offering no useful solutions themselves. I have seen him describe the problems in the U.S as a "collective failure" that the whole country needs to address. I have seen him going out to talk personally with the U.S public about issues like health care reform, taking criticism, listening to concerns, allowing people to express their anger, ideas and worries to his face.
But I've not seen or heard the President "get pissed" by someone asking him a hard question that is a genuine attempt to understand his position, and help work towards a solution. If you have, then please show me where, so I can see or hear it also. If not how have you arrived at the conclusion that the President is mad with you or anyone else for asking questions?
He calls it killing reform, but I don't buy it. He's stifling debate. And there is no "collective failure". If there is a failure it's been in the various governmental policies to make things "better". If he were really interested in healthcare reform, he'd be looking at ways to get more people providing healthcare services. He's not. He just wants to take from the most productive members of society and give to the least productive, just so he can buy votes.
And if he really wants to talk to people and explain himself,why did he leave Washington during the rallies?
As far as I can see, the President is a pragmatist. He seems to want solutions to the problems the country faces, irrespective of whether those solutions come from the “left” or “right”. He seems more than happy to invite everyone whatever their political persuasion to contribute to those solutions.
It’s his lack of the very thing you are accusing him of (ideological dogmatism) that makes his presidency so important. He seems to have an idealism that goes beyond traditional political ideology. He is the first President I’ve ever seen that seems to understand that no ideology has all the answers. That there are solutions (from left and right) that work and don’t work, criticisms (from left and right) that are helpful and unhelpful. That making the best choices is about listening to the criticism that’s useful and finding the solutions that work, rather than the persuit of a political ideology.
I think President Obama would be the first to say he understands that people feel unsettled. Change is unsettling, unnerving, disturbing and difficult. But change is important. I think he'd ask since when did the American people not do something on the grounds that it was too difficult or unsettling?
What has he said that would give you the idea he is Bipartisan? He has told those on the right to shut up and wont even appear on a network that most of the opposition watches. Sounds like he has the votes to do whatever he wants and will do just that!
He has continually reached across the aisle, even as far back as on the campaign trail. ie, his rhetoric on abortion in 2008. He stated (in part):
"While this is a sensitive and often divisive issue, no matter what our views, we are united in our determination to prevent unintended pregnancies, reduce the need for abortion, and support women and families in the choices they make. To accomplish these goals, we must work to find common ground to expand access to affordable contraception, accurate health information, and preventative services."
This statement is undeniably inclusive of people of all views.
To be honest, this severe dichotomy of view is something you see reflected on Hubpage forums--most of those labeled "liberals" here are really not interested in the mud slinging and name calling...the stark, basically, hatred (you once told me you hated me and I should go kill myself, ie) that the so-called conservatives (Glenn Beck Neo-cons) would prefer they engage in. They are instead interested in substantive debate with others who can bring up valid points.
Fox News, sincerely, for anyone in the know (and, sure, go ahead and disagree, but nonetheless it is a fact) is not a valid format or serious news source. It is an well-funded opinion/infotainment source. Those who get their 'news' from this source also, as Don W. stated, are not interested, usually, in pragmatic concerns of government, but instead, polarization, exaggerated and incorrect information (I could name so many instances, ie, buildings are 'communist.'), divisiveness and discontent. So tell me, what good would President Obama appearing on that network serve? It would serve nothing.
He does have the country to run, and it is a serious job. Fox News is not a serious network, and its' viewers, on the whole, are not serious people. And although Obama acknowledges all people's feelings of unease, it is not in his interest politically, or indeed befitting of his job to further stoke up ridiculous so-called lib/con food fights. That's all Fox would present.
Lita, "reaching across the isle" and not putting anything his opposition wants in the bills is not bipartisanship. Plus Obama continually gives interviews and shows up to soft pedaled questions. I'd be more than happy to go on Fox News and take them on in their own turf. Win a victory there and you'd not have to worry about them ever again. Unless, of course, I had something to hide. This is just another example of how the President ducks the hard issues. It doesn't exactly inspire confidence in his leadership abilities.
It does inspire confidence in his leadership abilities for me, LDT. One needs to have the necessary critical thinking skills to be able to sort the wheat from the chaff, and this is what he has done. Also, it isn't about 'winning' anything, as among this crowd, nothing basically, can be won. They are not interested in that...and to say he'd never have to worry again about misrepresentation of the media is seriously naive, no matter what political views you express.
Again, anyone in the business...and about 3/4 of those out of the business with any knowledge at all KNOW Fox News is not a valid news source. Their 'facts' are inflammatory and inaccurate. So are Michael Moore's, frankly, to keep this nonpartisan.
The far right, the 'base,' (and make no mistake, this is what Fox represents) is actually a small group. They are just the ones making all the noise here, and elsewhere. They are the Sarah Palin followers, basically, who was the very scary reason, frankly, that McCain lost any hope of winning the presidency. Essentially, the Republican party has become its own enemy...and who knows if they will be able to dig themselves out.
I'd have more inspiration about his leadership abilities if he demonstrated that he knew fact one about economics. Not that he and his advisers are the only ones who are ignorant, most of America is. But he's supposed to be better than the average American. What I've seen from him so far does not say much for his powers of critical thinking. We're in for a tough time of it, yet he continues his spend, spend, spend policies like we can afford any of that stuff. We can't.
Lita, I think you're deliberately ignoring facts. If Fox News is such a marginal producer of news then why are their ratings increasing? Why are their sponsors not abandoning them? Those two things alone would demonstrate the fact that Fox is a marginal news source, yet neither event has happened. I still don't know what exactly you have against Sarah Palin. I find it kind of funny that feminist or feminist-leaning people hate Palin but go all ga-ga over someone like Hilary Clinton. But then again that could be because I have a strange sense of humor.
Still, we'll have to see. The next few years should be pretty interesting.
Fox news ratings increases by virtue of the controversy they stoke. That does not equal valid news source...not at all. Popular infotainment does not equal valid news, just as pulp fiction does not equal literary fiction. THAT is a fact, LDT. I understand the interplay of genres, market segments and what sells advertising.
Suggesting I go 'ga ga' over someone like Hillary Clinton is setting up a strawman...and, sigh, there is too much US vs. THEM lib/con ridiculousness going on here at Hubpages and all over the country. My opinion of Hillary is that...I did not vote for her. Too old school in her approach to politics. But then again, she certainly wasn't incompetent like Palin, either.
What I have against Palin: She is absolutely everything I despise. I researched her well, because frankly, it was such a shock when she was chosen McCain's running mate, and clearly she lost any hope of him being elected if you watched the election as closely as I did (doesn't appear as if you did). She was/is an extremely divisive figure. Clearly, she was not vetted at all; she had so many scandals stacked up against her it was laughable, she could not speak, she was less qualified than me academically, as well as 50% of the population out there, she "could see Russia from her house," she once planned to ban books from a public library, she believed dinosaurs and human beings coexisted, her church sanctions speaking in tongues and witches, and she resigned from her office in disgrace to pursue $. That's about the size of it. It isn't about 'feminism,' it is about incompetence. Clearly.
We differ in opinion about Obama. I believe he will prove to be one of the best leaders we have yet had. The economic situation is complicated...and I'm not going to go into it. From what I have read, I believe he is pursuing the right thing. And I believe the market is showing signs of recovery. I was just reading that Arizona's jobless rate is a bit down this quarter.
Her Church sanctioned speaking in tongues and witches? I thought that speaking in tongues was an uncontrollable act that comes over somebody when they were filled with the Holy Spirit so I am confused how it could be sanctioned or not sanctioned. Are you saying they sanction witchcraft?
Her Church sanctioned speaking in tongues and witches? I thought that speaking in tongues was an uncontrollable act that comes over somebody when they were filled with the Holy Spirit so I am confused how it could be sanctioned or not sanctioned. Are you saying they sanction witchcraft?
Her Church sanctioned speaking in tongues and witches? I thought that speaking in tongues was an uncontrollable act that comes over somebody when they were filled with the Holy Spirit so I am confused how it could be sanctioned or not sanctioned. Are you saying they sanction witchcraft?
Van Jones was not vetted, Pentecostals speak in tongues, the path of our economy is well documented by Soros, and the jobless rate is up in most states, but the numbers are altered no to include those who are looking for a job.
So you're suggesting that people only watch Fox because they're engaged in yellow journalism? While you do have to take the herd mentality into effect, I think you're missing the fact that people who have never had anything to do with the political process before. They're comprised of the other 50% of the population that don't vote. Their participation in the political process is going to throw off all current models of political calculation.
Come on Lita, do you really think that you can spend your way to prosperity? If you consider Palin incompetent, then how can you possibly think that Obama's economic plan so far has been anything other than disastrous? Still we'll see. I'm consistently surprised at how resilient the economy tends to be, but sooner or later it's going to be broken. Heck it took almost $5 a gallon gas to change people's driving habits, but it got there and people did change their habits.
Stimulus spending always creates a boom that disappears right after the stimulus goes away. Since the Feds have stopped spending, we're going to see the effects of that within the next few months. And we haven't even gotten to the bad part of price inflation yet. Next year is going to look very different from this year. You can expect the same thing to happen every succeeding year as long as we run deficits in the future. You, personally might be OK, seeing as you own physical stuff like real estate. I'd start diversifying into gold a little, if I were you. But again, we'll see.
I'll be glad to sell off about 300 acres in Hondo Texas if anyone wants it,4000 an acre but you got to take it all!
You'd be better off waiting. When inflation hits, you're going to see people flee the dollar for anything. Look at what Zimbabwe has gone through lately to get an idea of what is going to happen.
I'm in no hurry, I hunt on it and on the other side approx 900 acres I lease to Deer Hunters at 1500 a rifle.
You'll be wanting that sort of cash flow next year. People really pay that much to hunt on your land?
Not only my land but most of the hunting ranches in Texas. I get 100 dollars a day for Dove hunters, there may be as many as 10 a day sometimes, but I think I have more people hunting on it that I don't know about, I don't really care!
Heh, I'm sure. About how many hunters do you get a year that take advantage of your offer? And would you say that applies to hunting land elsewhere?
I have 5 deer hunters who have been coming for about 6 years, they bring their families every weekend and make a big party out of it. The dove hunters usually hit it hard for about 2 weeks at the beginning of the season then they trickle in and out for the rest. My prices are in line with the ranches around mine, I have a friend in West Texas that charges about 2500 a rifle and gets a lot of business, I'm happy with my deal.
I've always believed everyone should have a little bit of land to call their own. Of course, Texas always seems to be bigger than most for some reason. I'm putting my money on some kind of an inferiority complex.
I wouldn't even call the programming on Fox "yellow journalism," lol, LDT. Yellow Journalism actually has some positive traits associated with it, in reality. Like truth sometimes is attached. Fox News is infotainment. That's all. And as far as those who don't vote, are disengaged, etc., etc. I've never known what to think of them. I kinda don't get them...and some are members of my own family. I guess I believe their non involvement to be a personal choice, , only they can change. And quite frankly, I'm certain their lack of interest has more to do with their own proclivities than any perceived dissatisfaction in any political process (those are your thoughts, after all...not verified truth).
I think that your take on the "spending your way to prosperity" thing is kinda low level, lol. (Don't worry...I told this to my own sister who is so tight she squeaks with her $, and oh, woe is me, is turning into a conservative...so don't feel bad.) I think that the bail outs, etc. (started on Bush's watch, I'd point out...as did the root of the problems, which go back years, of course) were put in place to stem off certain disaster. And hopefully, new regulations will be enacted to make sure this situation will never happen again...then things will return to normal. ...also, I was reading, that contrary to Michael Moore's claims that the bail out money had not been reimbursed...many companies (not all) have paid the government back.
Necessity is absolutely the mother of invention. The weird thing is, I think most people (and the economy) are pretty resilient, and that far from being necessarily a bad thing, this period in history will help to move us forward, perhaps, in directions we SHOULD move forward. Solar power...even nuclear power, if what I have read concerning the Scandinavian countries and their safe usage of it is true. We need to go there.
As for me...I'm no more worried than I usually am. I believe, lol, growing up not exactly wealthy gives you advantages some others' often don't have, , including that creativity and resilience I was talking about. And also how to live well without a lot and still be happy... Gold? Conservative types always say that. I don't really like it. To me, it is along the same principle as diamonds (ooo, preetty rocks). Even as a commodity, I don't fancy it. Real estate is real, and I think more and more people are going to realize the real value of innovation and information....plus, currency and its changing value among nations will always exist as long as nations exist.
I can understand why people don't get involved. I didn't for a long time because between the two of them, the political parties had things pretty much sewn up between them. What's the point in participating in the game if the rules are slanted against you?
The bailouts are an example I use to show how the political parties work to benefit their power base and that is at the expense of everyone else. Not exactly the sort of thing the government is supposed to do. The problem with your idea about regulation is that the regulations don't have anything to do with the formation of the housing or stock bubble that preceded it. You still have the same banking structure in place, so sooner or later, there will be another meltdown. Fun fact, proponents of the Fed said that adoption of a central bank would eliminate the business cycle. It's had the exact opposite effect. The depressions have been longer and more severe under central banks than they were before its creation. something to think about.
As for the economy, I'm continually surprised at how resilient it is. I'd have expected things to go to pot long before now. That's a cause for concern however, because since the economy is so resilient, people don't see the dangers of their actions today, but we're sure to feel it tomorrow. I mean we'll always have a market, it may wind up being a black one, but it will be a market nonetheless.
It's strange to me how many people freak out about oil and the cost. Sooner or later it will become expensive. At that time alternatives (wind, solar, nuclear, etc.) will become more affordable. As you said necessity is the mother of invention and people will be scrambling to get the "killer app" that's going to replace the internal combustion engine, power generation, and other facts of our economy. Now companies that rely on the old tech are probably going to die, but that's the nature of the game. Adapt or perish. If they can't adapt, they can't serve their customers and they deserve to go away,don't you think?
Yeah, growing up poor can suck, but once you see how bad things really can be, not much bothers you later. Heck I've seen how the really poor people live, like in the shanties around Mexico City. Once you see that, you realize that the US is Eden by comparison even for the poor. More important than the nanny state, is that we as a people allow the poor as many opportunities to make it as we can. I think currently with welfare and social safety nets we restrict their choices and foster dependency rather than independence and creativity.
Extremely well spoken throughout this thread. I'm a fan.
Oboma is just a puppet for the true Bankers and lobbiest telling him what to say to us - he dosn't run the country - they do
I don't think white people turning against Obama this time, he got many white votes in the election. His policy did not continue to profit only one class of people had prompted some noises from particular grouping not very happy about it, it is against America long held tradition that only a certain group of elite American should benefit from the administration policy, this time they don't get it, so they make a really big and loud noise about it, even to the extent of behaving badly in the house of congress.
The fact that Palin got up at all scared the hell out of many fellow Australians. We never thought a religious fanatic who speaks in tongues would have a shot at the white house!
Boy I want to contribute to this post, but I would end up on some government hit list.
Saying people who do not agree with Obama are racist is like saying people who don't agree with homosexuality are homophobic.
this whole "you don't agree with me, so I'm gonna name you something" is getting old.
“We aren’t red states, and blue states, we are the United States.”
“The time for bickering is over . . . Now is when we must bring the best ideas of both parties together and show the American people that we can still do what we were sent here to do . . .”
"My goal is to get us out of this polarizing debate, where we're always trying to score cheap political points, and actually get things done . . ."
"Both at the state legislative level and at the federal legislative level, I have always been able to work together with Republicans to find compromise and to find common ground . . ."
1989 – Stuart Butler of the Conservative think-tank Heritage Foundation, writes a paper called “A National Health System for America” proposing an insurance exchange/marketplace based on consumer choice and free market competition.
2009 – President Obama’s proposed health care bill includes an insurance exchange/marketplace based on consumer choice and free market competition.
1992 – Republican Richard Lugar sponsors a bill that leads to the Nunn-Lugar non proliferation program.
2004 - During his campaign for Senator candidate Obama praises the Nunn-Lugar legislation then later joins Senator Lugar on a tour of Russia and Eastern Europe to look at weapons facilities.
2005 – Republican Governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney starts a demonstration project that tries to get everybody covered by health insurance through the free-market system.
2009 – President Obama authorises demonstration projects to improve the model Romney used and proposes a health care bill that tries to get everybody covered through the free market system, and an additional public option.
2005 - Obama and Lugar co-sponsor legislation to update the Nunn-Lugar program. The Lugar-Obama Act became law in 2007 and expands the non proliferation program.
2005 - Lugar and Obama write an Op Ed for the New York times called “Grounding a Pandemic” in which the two Senators both outline the importance of pandemic preparedness.
2006 - Obama and Lugar co sponsor a bill aimed at driving investment into biomass ethanol. The bill, the American Fuels Act, became law in 2007.
2006 - President Bush calls for Congress to reform medical malpractice laws, as a way to lower the cost of health care.
2009 – President Obama includes reforms of medical malpractice laws in his proposed health care bill, as a way of lowering the cost of health care.
2006 - Robert M. Gates is appointed by then President George W. Bush as U.S. Secretary of Defence.
2008 – President-elect Obama announces appointment of Robert M. Gates as U.S. Secretary of Defence. Gates is only the fourteenth cabinet member in the history of the U.S. to have served two Presidents of different parties.
2009 - Neoconservative Robert Kagan comments on the Obama administration’s foreign policy: "There is a rough bipartisan consensus in American foreign policy, and Barack Obama is in it".
These are some of the things that give me the idea that President Obama is not only bi-partisan, but post-partisan. What gives you the idea that he isn’t?
If you have seen, read or heard him tell those on the right to “shut up” can you show me where, so I can see, read or hear it myself.
I see he said a lot about Governing as a bi-partisan, too bad he never does it!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lee-stran … 25786.html
I think his actions show at the very least he has tried to move beyond partisan politics.
The piece you linked to doesn't show the President telling "those on the right to “shut up”". The first lines are:
"According to the Washington Post, you're asking health care reform advocates to stop attacks..." (my emphasis)
This piece is about the supporters of health care reform. It's a letter from a liberal who feels the President hasn't gone far enough, and wants the president to make "real health care reform". He defines "real" as the inclusion of the public option. He wants moderate Democrats to support the public option and has made some videos to that end attacking those that don't.
In a phone call with house and Senate Democrats, the President stated (as reported in the original Washington Post article) that he was concerned about the attacks and suggested that "We [democrats/liberals] shouldn't be focusing resources on each other".
This article is not an example of the President telling "those on the right to shut up". "The right" isn't mentioned at all. It's an example of President Obama trying to settle those on the far-left who feel disappointed that the reforms aren't going far enough. It's an example of President Obama trying to persuade those on the far-left that even moderate change is better than no change. It is an example of President Obama being post-partisan, i.e. pursuing solutions rather than ideologies.
If there's anywhere else you think you've seen, heard or read the President telling "those on the right to shut up", I'd be obliged if you show me, so I can see or read it for myself. Otherwise, I'll have to conclude that what you've said is untrue and that in actual fact President Obama has never told those on the right to shut up.
"But I don’t want the folks who created the mess — I don’t want folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking. I want them to just get out of the way so we can clean up the mess. I don’t mind cleaning up after them, but don’t do a lot of talking."
straight from Obama's speech.
This does not constitute the President telling "those on the right to shut up" as has been suggested. It constitutes the President telling Republican party politicians not to use the current economic crisis, which is a legacy of the old administration, to try to score political points against an administration which hasn't solved that crisis within a few months. This is clear if you look at what the president says prior to the part you quoted.
"The American people understand the recession was years in the making. It didn’t just start last month. That bank crisis didn’t happen on my watch. (Applause.) Let's get the history straight. (Applause.) . . . "
". . . now you've got folks on the other side of the aisle [Republican politicians] pointing at the federal budget and somehow trying to put that at our feet. Well, let's look at the history. When I walked in, we had a $1.3 trillion deficit. That was gift-wrapped and waiting for me when I walked in the Oval Office. (Laughter.)"
This about "those on the other side of the aisle", i.e. Republican politicians. Even then, they aren’t told not to talk. It’s suggested they don’t do “a lot” of talking. I read that as “a lot of [political point scoring]” with a crisis they contributed to.
Further on in the speech, genuine ideas and attempts to find solutions are welcomed:
"What we're going to do is we're going to be pragmatic instead of ideological . . . "
"We are going to try to bring people together rather than push them apart. (Applause.) We are going to make sure that we listen to other people's ideas . . ."
This speech says more about the post-partisan nature of President Obama's administration than it does about an attempt to silence vast swathes of "the right", as it's been suggested.
As neither this or the previous example given support the claim made by A Texan that the President "told those on the right to shut up", I have to conclude that claim is untrue. I'd be happy to look at any facts that support the claim, but so far there have been none.
The speech quoted was made by President Obama at a rally for state Senator Creigh Deeds, on august 6th 2009 at Tysons Corner, Virginia at 7:02pm EDT. Full transcript .
And now we have three trillion more in debt in just nine short months - and the other side of the aisle is still told to shut up.
That's what happens when you inherit a downward trend. It doesn't all the sudden stop.
Especially when you go out of your way to make it much, much worse.
I know, who the hell tries to fix things? We should have just done nothing and let it fix itself!
Dont you have five minutes to take back a completely idiotic, stupid, ridiculus, insane statement? Maybe you guys didn't see that little note?
Take a deep breath and please dont be rude to others, we are all friends.
Respectfully and in the spirit of community, let me say that just this very day, some right wing sob said that the army should Kill Barack Obama. Dress your disgusting racism in whatever pretty, highly educated, eloquent language you want to use in your discussion. I'm a simple man, and I see the plain and simple truth. Barack Obama has been the leader of this country for less than a Year! The fact that he saved us from a Depression the Republican President and Republican Congress took 8 years to get us into, should garner at least a little respect. But NO...Some of you think his reward should be death. How many open death threats did Bush and the Repuplican Congress get in the 8 years they were destroying this country? If Obama's policies are the problem, name ONE! Was he suppose to let the country sink into a Depression. Is he suppose to stand by and let sick people die needlessly? No President has done more to save this country in so little time as this President has. I respectfully request one of your long intelligent discussions explaining why this President, at this time, deserves such disrespect and according to some, even death.
An awful lot.
I don't think anyone who are part of this discussion said that the president deserves disrespect, they just made their point, expressed their views and openions. This is what is called a democracy. We all have great respect for the president, but there are several policies which many Americans don't agree with.
However, there are several people like you who supports the decision of the president,so you are not alone. So try to convince others why you really believe that the President's policies are right and for the people.
This is the beauty of the discusion.
Good laughs are priceless
What exactly would you need as proof? Obama saying he doesn't want to hear talk from the right because they caused the problems is not enough? By the way, Obama helped build that astronomical debt that he claims to have inherited, with a lot of Democrat help!
You asked me what the President has said that makes me think he is Bipartisan. I've told you. You stated the President has told "those on the right to shut up". I've asked you to show me the facts relating to this.
The first thing you showed me was an article about the President trying to settle the far-left who want his reforms to go further than they have. So that wasn't relevant to your claim.
The second was an excerpt from a speech posted by jiberish, in which the President tells certain Republicans not to do "a lot" of talking. This is a relevant fact, but other important relevant facts were omitted. Here are the facts that I have.
FACT - The President said "I don’t mind cleaning up after them, but don’t do a lot of talking".
FACT - In the same speech, he said "We are going to try to bring people together rather than push them apart. (Applause.) We are going to make sure that we listen to other people's ideas . . . "
FACT - He also said "What we're going to do is we're going to be pragmatic instead of ideological . . . "
FACT - The President has co-sponsored bills (now acts of law) with Republicans in the past.
FACT - The President has allowed the U.S. public (from all backgrounds) to express their concerns, fears, ideas to him face-to-face at public "town hall" style meetings.
I won’t go on, but hopefully you see my point. These facts do not support the claim that the President wants "those on the right to shut up".
The facts do suggest the President would like people to contribute to finding solutions, not just try and point score. The facts also suggest he believes it's important that conservatives and liberals, and people from all walks of life are engaged in the process of change. That's what the relevant facts suggest to me.
If as you imply, the President wants to silence criticism from the right, then you'll need to show more facts that support that claim. One paragraph quoted, out of context, from one speech doesn't do that.
The Democrats were always willing to step aside for George Bush whenever he asked them too. NOT!
All we need to do is join in lockstep with a politician who has no idea how to lead. NOT!
It is time to get rid of the congressmen and women as well as the senators who are only there to get reelected regardless of party.
We have met the enemy and he is us. Pogo was right. Only we can rectify it by having the cohones to do what needs to be done. Now is the time to slow the runaway train in D.C. Grow some backbone and stand up, be counted.
I totally want Obama gone man! He wants my son to learn how to knit and sew. Please elect Palin in 2012!
Carter is such a sissy. We need someone like Palin!
Man I was just joking. I really do not even vote or believe in politics, but my girlfriend was right about you Tea Baggers. Funny your group named yourself after an act I will not even describe here. Honestly I think the only prejudice is on the part of the Obama haters, and I was just conducting an experiment to see how much hate there is in the room. You really take the cake man!
An act you won't describe here. Funny that you think of the act that you won't describe here instead of the acronym of TEA.
Most people know what tea bagging is, and for years it was not the group marching in Washington. I still think they should have done more research before picking that name because they will always be a joke!
Obama is not good for America, but the liberals with their public school education think they know best. As I said they were having my son make doily in class last year, but all of your Obamabots just want the man in office because he looks hot.
There is one thing that you must give the conservative right and that is unity. The movement does not need much prodding or coddling. The people who support are very vocal and organized. Whereas the left is not as vocal and seem to be very disorganized. The democrats when given the power to effect changes become very timid and second guessing.
When the Republicans were in power they had no problem making sweeping changes regardless of what the Democrats thought or the country for that matter. It was to their undoing this past election and they are still reeling from it.
The only thing the left can do is carry out their agenda and wait another three years to either proove their efforts succeded or whether they were in vain.
I am enjoying the recent interplay between sanity (Don W.), insanity...and satire, lol, on the part of a few hubbers on this thread.
The first thing I think of is tea bagging too The Tea Baggers probably wear pearl necklaces too. And maybe one of them is named Dirty Sanchez, who thinks he is superman.
Give me some credit, I teach sexual health to college freshmen.
You would think that by the time they got to college they would already know about that.
Really? Do you know the 12 steps to putting on a condom correctly? Or the modes of transmission of an STI? Or the most common symptom of an STI? Or the 3 different categories of an STI? Or which are curable and which are treatable? Or the window period for HIV? Or how the HIV test works? What a dental dam is? The types of contraception available? Everything about mammograms, pap smears, cervical cancer, gardasil, HPV, women's health in general? The different types of condoms, how each should be used? The laws in the state of Florida regarding rape? Victim's rights?
Oh yeah, I'm sure they know allllll of that. There is a lot more to sexual health than the penis goes in the vagina and wear a condom.
Its not a "liberal" thing.
There are actually 12 steps to putting on a condom?
I guess you told us! Laws regarding rape needs to be taught in a freshman sexual health class? Why don't you give me the elements of that offense and then I will know what constitutes sexual assault in Florida.
If at my age I don't know those things, I should quit having sex. Don't they teach that stuff in phys ed? I was a freshman in Highschool and knew those things. What's with schools these days?
Most sexual health is taught through the health class in middle/high school. However they don't go into great detail. If you were a freshman in high school and you knew those things congrats. However I doubt you knew much about HPV/gardasil, or the different types of condoms, those are fairly recent studies. Actually pretty much everything I mentioned has been updated recently.
All of a sudden I'm glad that I don't have any Sanchez's in my family tree.
Why bother debating him, he doesn't even have any hubs up and he's been a member for over a year. That shouts troll to me.
Speak for yourself buddy. My girlfriend worked on the Obama campaign and health care was a big issue for many of the constituents. If you looked at the organizing for America website more often you might have known that.
My point was this. Of the top ten reasons stated for choosing Obama, Health care was 8th! Change/Fresh Approach was number one. The Economy was number two. The War in Iraq was also high on the list. By the way you can't spend money on health care when you are bleeding money to a war in Iraq, borrowed money at that! Oh yea I forgot the slogan was "YES WE CAN!" While that's a great slogan Bob the Builder uses to inspire children. I'm not so sure its a good approach in regards to national politics.
Oh we're borrowing money for much more than the war in Iraq. How do you think we keep the Great Society programs alive? Social Security? Fannie and Freddie? All of it done with at least some, if not most of it, borrowed money.
Understand that. I'm no fan of social programs at all. The war in Iraq was about two things, Sadam and oil. Not neccesarily in that order either. Sadam is gone, I want my OIL!LOL In fact I think we should declare imminent domain on the coast of California and Anwar Alaska. We have to rid ourselves of OPEC. They are the problem, not any one leader in the Middle East. Dependency on foriegn oil is the single biggest issue in this country today. It has been so since the 70's. This issue has to be resolved. I don't care how its resolved, only that it doesn't envolve doing business with the middle east.
Think of what would happen to the U.S. Economy if we decided to address this issue and the trade deficit with China. It would cause our economy to skyrocket! Of course this would require true statesmanship and diplomacy. Do we have any of those kind of folks around anymore? So far I only see folks who want to threaten, or roll over.
If you really want to see us get diversified away from oil, end the government's subsidy of oil. Price would go up which would stimulate demand for other sources of energy. The source of energy which could give us the most bang for our buck would become the new source of energy for our economy. Oil companies would lose unless they adapted, but that's the name of the game in business. Change or die. And that's as it should be.
I take it your refering to the stratigic oil reserves as subsidizing? Interesting. I guess it is. Of course I remember the Black Flag days of the 70's. I think at the time it was needed. Now I believe that technology has improved on all fronts. Oil exploration and alternative energy has come a long way since the seventies. I'm just fed up with the middle east. Don't want their oil, don't want their problems. I also don't want china to have all of that oil either.....but I'd rather deal with them, than any middle east country.
It's not just the strategic oil. Do you think that our taxes are the only reason gas is cheaper here in the States than it is in Europe? I'm not sure you understand that oil really doesn't matter in an economic sense. Right now it's gives you the most energy for your dollar, but that doesn't mean it's the only alternative. Soon enough, oil will have to get high enough to become uncompetitive. When that happens we can leave the fundamentalist fanatics in the Gulf to their own devices. It'll be a sweet, sweet day when we can tell them to go screw.
Agreed, the tarif/tax breaks given to oil importers helps keep the gas prices down. I think your wrong when you say that oil doesn't matter in an economic sense. It affects every facit of our economy. It is the backbone of the U.S. economy. When a barrel of crude is "cracked" not all becomes gasoline. Not all of it can become galsoline. Many other products are created.
Natural gas,Unleaded gasoline,Diesel fuel,Engine oil,Gear oil
Grease and Tar/asphalt just to name a few. By the most aggressive estimates gasoline comprises 49% of a barrel of crude. That means even if all commuter/passenger cars were electric, we are still on the hook for oil. There is no way at the momement to move to a petroleum free economy. You simply can't find another commodity that is as far reaching as oil. So to say it doesn't matter is certainly overstating.
No it's not, not really. There isn't anything that oil does that cannot be done by some other process and yes, that includes plastics. The alternatives are too expensive when a barrel of oil is under $100, but when it goes above that price point, alternatives become feasible.
You're also not looking at how useful things like plastics and other oil-derived products are. If you knew that oil was above $100 dollars, wouldn't you look for any alternative to produce those items without the use of oil?
You're also discounting nuclear power. And no, they don't have to produce any nuclear waste. One of the only reasons most of our plants do today is because they were built over forty years ago and many were used as breeders for creating plutonium for nuclear weapons.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 … 205902.htm
The only thing stopping us from utilizing these sources of energy, yes the ANWR too, is political pressure. Get rid of the greenies and you could say goodbye to the Middle East that much more quickly.
Yes. Condoms can be up to 98% effective against pregnancy and some STIs. But that effectiveness decreases with human error.
Do parents/high school teach their kids that? Probably not. So does every college freshman know about sexual health? Most of them don't.
You're right, it's pretty much touch and go depending on the parents. I don't agree that you necessarily have to teach about rape and victims rights only because the parents should have taught their kids to respect themselves and not to allow anyone to take advantage of them, much less force them into anything. Still if wishes were wings, pigs could fly.
Hell, what's an STI. When we were taught about it they were making the change from VD to STD. So what the hell is STI? Teaching kids about this stuff might be easier if they didn't change the terminology once a generation.
I explain to my class why the term was changed from STD to Sexually Transmitted Infection by the CDC. I find they don't have difficulty grasping it at all.
I have lots of comments on your comment on rape, but I have an interview soon so I have to hop in the shower. I can discuss it with you later.
I would think an instructor on the subject of Sexual assault would know that "Rape" is not the preferred term for sexual assault!
Words are a funny thing. People nowadays seem to think that changing a word changes the meaning. It doesn't. STD, STI, VD, the name doesn't matter. What does is the idea behind the word. The idea that there are diseases that are transmitted through bodily fluids and you have to be aware and take precautions against them. Why confuse the issue by changing the word. I'd even go so far as to say STI is misleading. Not all sexually transmitted diseases are infections.
Infection-is the detrimental colonization of a host organism by a foreign species
What STI is not an infection?
I thought that bacteria were the cause of infections. If so there are plenty of STD's that are not, strictly speaking, infections. STD was a much better descriptor of the condition. Of course the CDC could have decided to change the definition of infection, but that goes right with the stupidity of changing the definition of words every generation or so.
Infections can be viral too...
Political correctness is what it's all about. Better to say infections than diseases. Some wisdom in it too.
Sexual assault is a more broad category which includes rape. The victim's advocate on campus uses both terms depending on the subject being taught. I don't teach a course on sexual assault, the victims advocate is in charge of that. I mention it and refer the students to her for questions and further information.
Really? I'm waiting on the elements for sexual assault in Florida so I can learn something.
Sorry Tex, I didn't see your question. Here is sexual assault as Florida defines it: "Sexual battery" means oral, anal, or vaginal penetration by, or union with, the sexual organ of another or the anal or vaginal penetration of another by any other object; however, sexual battery does not include an act done for a bona fide medical purpose.
The state uses the term, "sexual battery", when we're speaking with students we use sexual assault or rape. When the victims advocate consults with a student she always uses the legal terms, but may use the other terms to clarify. This is because students see the words "assault" and "battery" to mean different things. Again I don't go into the details, that is for the victims advocate on campus. I just point out a few laws to the students. Like if someone is under the influence legally they cannot consent. As well as if someone is raped while under the influence they do not need to feel retaliation from police regarding the substance abuse when they report the crime.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/ind … SEC011.HTM
I'm not sure what you mean by sexual assault. That can cover a wide variety of meanings. To some it might mean any action that uses force for the purposes of coercing someone into having sex against their will. Others might take it to be feelings or changing their mind or who knows what. The definition might be as broad as infinity because everyone defines it differently.
That is why morals are not relative. In order to make good decisions about things like this we need some sort of reference point from which to base our actions. While I like my first definition, that begs the question, what is coercion? Is it confined to deeds or does it include words? Thoughts? That's where we get into very dangerous territory. Look at the Duke lacrosse team and that fiasco of a trial.
So how do you balance the two? The need to protect victims and potential victims of rape and the need to protect people from untrue accusations. I'm pretty sure a discussion like that is probably germane to the subject you teach.
Any more questions, comments, concerns? Ok cool. I'm off to my interview then. Have a good day everyone!
Huh you really do learn something every day. I stand corrected. Thanks CB.
Do people actually use wikipedia as a reference? As a writer I won't go near that site!
Why not? Wikipedia is a free market of ideas in action. Did you even bother to check the reference and determine the truth of it? Probably not. Now there are some things you have to take with a boulder of salt like political biographies and stuff like that, but Wikipedia is pretty good about weeding out the stupidity. They do have a review process and do note when a particular subject or section doesn't meet their guidelines. So what exactly is the problem. Is the site too common?
I don't see a problem in using wikipedia, as long as you check the sources at the bottom. It is more so the sources that make up the wikipedia that is used, than using wikipedia itself as a source.
I've found that if you use it to verify scientific data like the different epochs prehistory is divided up into or different types of nuclear power plants or the chemical composition of plastic, those sorts of things are spot on. You get a little ambiguous when you stray into some history, social studies and social sciences, but that I think is true no matter where you go to get your information on those topics. It's not like you can isolate those subjects in a lab and test them.
I think that some people are just too attached to the hoity-toity intellectual snob persona to understand how useful something like Wikipedia can be.
by Nathan Bernardo 10 years ago
Is it not a little telling that it comes up at all? Questioning his nation of origin, and in other ways making reference to his race. It seems entirely irrelevant, though a person can definitely question many other things about his policies, and there's plenty of it to question. It seems his...
by Grace Marguerite Williams 9 years ago
in light of the current sociopolitical and socioeconomic situation regarding the United States of America? Do you believe that President Obama is doing the best job he can under the circumstances? Do you maintain that President Obama can do a much better job as President? Do you contend that...
by Jack Lee 6 years ago
This question is addressed to the TDS crowd. What do I mean about this question? Suppose Trump achieve even 50% of his goals in the first two years.Suppose the economic policies lead to more jobs, better pay and increased wealth for all people both at the top and the middle and even the bottom of...
by marinealways24 13 years ago
All opinions respected. Who would win a debate between Obama and Limbaugh?
by Grace Marguerite Williams 8 years ago
According to CNN and Fox News reports dated July 14, 2004, Attorney General Holder stated that there is opposition to him and President Obama because they are Black. Attorney General Holder maintained that no other president has been criticized in America as much as President...
by ChenardRobinson 10 years ago
Ever since the President has stepped into office he has been wrong. Its almost as if white people forgot to vote in 2008 and President Obama stole the seat. I would like to take you on a journey over the last four years to put into perspective of how racially divided we have come in the last four...
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
Copyright © 2023 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective owners.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|