Escape from Elba

National => Campaign Trail => Topic started by: Admin on April 16, 2007, 09:00:01 PM



Title: Campaign Trail
Post by: Admin on April 16, 2007, 09:00:01 PM
Which candidates are best positioned to win their respective primary?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on April 22, 2007, 05:39:11 PM
Peter Franklin Paul, in a civil fraud suit filed against Bill and Hillary Clinton, claims the former president destroyed his entertainment company to get out of a $17 million deal in which Clinton promised to promote the firm in exchange for stock, cash options and massive contributions to his wife's 2000 campaign. Paul contends he was directed by the Clintons and Democratic Party leaders to foot the bill for a lavish Hollywood gala and fund-raiser prior to the 2000 election that eventually cost him nearly $2 million.

Sen. Clinton has claimed through her spokesman Howard Wolfson that Paul gave no money to her campaign, and her supporters have denied she had any anything to do with coordinating the August 2000 event or soliciting contributions directly from donors.

But videotape, with clear audio of Sen. Clinton, documents her direct knowledge and involvement with Paul in producing the Hollywood fund-raiser and indicates she participated in the solicitation of the entertainers, whose in-kind contributions of their services would also constitute illegal contributions exceeding $25,000.

Sen. Clinton's actions violated not only the $2,000 limit but Title 2 section 437 of the U.S. federal code, which states: "Any person who knowingly and willfully commits a violation of any provision of this act which involves the making, receiving, or reporting of any contribution, donation, or expenditure aggregating $25,000 or more during a calendar year shall be fined under Title 18, or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both."


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on April 22, 2007, 07:02:58 PM
While I am no fan of Hillary, I suggest that the value of the entertainers was probably overstated.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on April 22, 2007, 07:39:22 PM
WorldNutDaily is not considered a reliable source.  It is a republican propaganda rag.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on April 22, 2007, 07:55:49 PM
Typical liberal responses---someone comes up with a video-tape WITH audio of someone breaking the law (hillary) and since that person breaking the law IS a liberal, liberals will poo-poo the source and the accusation---w/o even assessing the merit of the evidence. Quite pathetic. If the accused was a republican, the response would be obviously different. Liberals pull the wool over the eyes of no-one with a grain of brain. If, for example, the video was of a republican castrating his principles with abramoff, I would be calling for his incarceration---providing the evidence was valid. In the case of a video with audio, it IS quite compelling---regardless of political affiliation. Unless, of course, one IS a liberal attempting to protect and defend another liberal.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on April 22, 2007, 09:10:59 PM
If you say, it is compelling because it has audio. So be it. If the law says the value of a donation must be in excess of $25,000 and the "crime" was that the value of the entertainers is assumed to be $25,000, then it is VERY appropriate to question whether there was an actual crime committed.

The point that YOU overlooked is that I could not care less if Hillary did or did not ask some guy to stage a "gala" fund collector for her 2000 campaign. She represents the people of New York. It is an issue for New Yorkers. I do not live or vote in New York, so it makes no difference to me.

What does concern me, is that Bush stole the vote away from Floridians and through his and his brothers political maneuvering, stole the election from the candidate favored by most of the people. That sticks in my craw, and makes me not trust republicans. During my early years in Virginia, it was the democrats, under the leadership of Harry Byrd whose "machine" illegally tampered with voting. During those years, I voted for republicans.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on April 23, 2007, 05:59:28 AM
If you say, it is compelling because it has audio. So be it. If the law says the value of a donation must be in excess of $25,000 and the "crime" was that the value of the entertainers is assumed to be $25,000, then it is VERY appropriate to question whether there was an actual crime committed.

The point that YOU overlooked is that I could not care less if Hillary did or did not ask some guy to stage a "gala" fund collector for her 2000 campaign. She represents the people of New York. It is an issue for New Yorkers. I do not live or vote in New York, so it makes no difference to me.

What does concern me, is that Bush stole the vote away from Floridians and through his and his brothers political maneuvering, stole the election from the candidate favored by most of the people. That sticks in my craw, and makes me not trust republicans. During my early years in Virginia, it was the democrats, under the leadership of Harry Byrd whose "machine" illegally tampered with voting. During those years, I voted for republicans.

I have voted for republicans once upon a time.  Republicans once were quite normal.  They weren't control by extremists, fascists, or christianists.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on April 23, 2007, 07:22:32 AM
In the present era, Republicans seem to stand for excessive spending, running up the national deficit, and trying to break the power of the unions. They also seem to be war-mongers, perhaps to kill off the young who are in need of jobs. When I was a teenager, I was of the opinion that wars were a "necessary evil" to help in population control. As a senior, I am no longer convinced that war is necessary, just an evil.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on April 23, 2007, 01:06:29 PM
In the present era, Republicans seem to stand for excessive spending, running up the national deficit, and trying to break the power of the unions. They also seem to be war-mongers, perhaps to kill off the young who are in need of jobs. When I was a teenager, I was of the opinion that wars were a "necessary evil" to help in population control. As a senior, I am no longer convinced that war is necessary, just an evil.

I believe that this is all part of the neocon agenda.  Bankrupt the country, destroy the public schools, and live with perpetual war.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on April 23, 2007, 01:09:25 PM
Front-running Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton's favorable rating is slipping at home and New York voters aren't quite as sure they prefer her over Republican Rudy Giuliani, a statewide poll reported Monday.

The latest poll from Siena College's Research Institute had Clinton leading Giuliani, the former New York City mayor, 48 percent to 43 percent, down from the 51 percent to 39 percent lead she enjoyed in a March poll from the Albany-area college.

Clinton's favorable rating among New York voters was at 50 percent in the latest poll, down from 56 percent last month.


Fabulous---anyone or anything but hillary.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on April 23, 2007, 04:15:47 PM
Front-running Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton's favorable rating is slipping at home and New York voters aren't quite as sure they prefer her over Republican Rudy Giuliani, a statewide poll reported Monday.

The latest poll from Siena College's Research Institute had Clinton leading Giuliani, the former New York City mayor, 48 percent to 43 percent, down from the 51 percent to 39 percent lead she enjoyed in a March poll from the Albany-area college.

Clinton's favorable rating among New York voters was at 50 percent in the latest poll, down from 56 percent last month.


Fabulous---anyone or anything but hillary.

It's a horse race and polls will change from week to week and day to day.  They are meaningless at this point in the campaign.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on April 23, 2007, 04:49:23 PM
What does concern me, is that Bush stole the vote away from Floridians and through his and his brothers political maneuvering, stole the election from the candidate favored by most of the people. That sticks in my craw, and makes me not trust republicans.


Truly, truly pathetic. I cannot say it strongly enough. Pathetic.


You mean the votes that Nader got in Florida (Several THOUSAND, if memory serves) had nothing to do with Gore losing? (Perot did it for clinton, remember?)

You mean the USSC court did not steal the elction for bush? (They followed federal election law) And Florida law was upheld---much to your chagrin.

You mean it wasn't voter intimidations? (Liberals still claim this to this day)

You mean it wasn't the hanging chads? (Liberals still speak of this to this day)

It wasn't the ballots that Flori-duh seniors couldn't figure out? (Liberals still use this as well)


All of these things and it was bush's theft? You are blind as your blinders and beliefs in hatred make you.

A Democrat operative was caught with voting machines in his car!!! And you have the gall to NOT complain about that?? YOU TRUST?? And the interview (I cannot remember with whom it was, and since I have no link, I am lying, right?) with the girl at one polling place in, I believe, Broward county, saying she'd cheat in any way to see gore win?

These bother you not at all??

Elections are not determined by the most people, but by the electoral college. That IS the law of the land, in case you didn't know---or just use as an excuse for complaining. You didn't hear complaints when sick-willie won, did you, with a mere 43% in '92? That IS a mandate?...... Had gore won, you'd be saying "The people have spoken". Your statement on bush stealing the election IS so patently absurd and SICK that it merits no discussion!!


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on April 23, 2007, 05:29:38 PM
NGC,

You sure wasted a lot of bandwidth on a topic you do not feel worthy of discussion. What liberals say is immaterial. What conservative did, pick up all the votes and throw them out, does. Then the court decided to stop the re-count. Amazing!


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on April 23, 2007, 06:18:33 PM
. Your statement on bush stealing the election IS so patently absurd and SICK that it merits no discussion!!

Then maybe you should just SHUT UP.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on April 23, 2007, 11:11:36 PM
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and fellow Democrats promised that with their majority in the Senate and House, the new Congress would be the most open and honest in history.

But just one month into the era of the Democratic majority, critics charge, Congressional leadership has taken steps to hide earmarks from public scrutiny.

For 12 years during the Republican congressional majority, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) tracked "pork" or earmark spending. In February, this federal agency discontinued the practice.

The move was made so quietly that many members of Congress were reportedly taken unaware. "CRS will no longer identify earmarks for individual programs, activities, entities, or individuals," whispered a private in-agency Feb. 22 directive from CRS director Daniel Mulhollan.

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., sees the hand of the Democratic majority behind the halt in earmark tracking.

This IS not going to help liberals in the next elections.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on April 24, 2007, 05:40:46 AM
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and fellow Democrats promised that with their majority in the Senate and House, the new Congress would be the most open and honest in history.

But just one month into the era of the Democratic majority, critics charge, Congressional leadership has taken steps to hide earmarks from public scrutiny.

For 12 years during the Republican congressional majority, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) tracked "pork" or earmark spending. In February, this federal agency discontinued the practice.

The move was made so quietly that many members of Congress were reportedly taken unaware. "CRS will no longer identify earmarks for individual programs, activities, entities, or individuals," whispered a private in-agency Feb. 22 directive from CRS director Daniel Mulhollan.

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., sees the hand of the Democratic majority behind the halt in earmark tracking.

This IS not going to help liberals in the next elections.

What is your source for these statements?  Worldnutdaily?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: whiskeypriest on April 24, 2007, 06:18:32 AM
Quote
(Perot did it for clinton, remember?)
A myth, of course.

Quote
You mean the USSC court did not steal the elction for bush? (They followed federal election law) And Florida law was upheld---much to your chagrin.
Last I checked the body with the power to determine the proper interpretation of Florida law is the Florida Supreme Court - a concept conservatives used to have no trouble understanding.  And the last time I read the plurality opinion it was based not on a reinterpretation of Florida law but a newly minted, single use only Constitutional right.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on April 24, 2007, 07:52:31 AM
Last I checked the body with the power to determine the proper interpretation of Florida law is the Florida Supreme Court - a concept conservatives used to have no trouble understanding.

This was a case involving a federal election. And Florida law dictated a recount when the results were of a certain difference---which was done. The results were final according to Florida law. Period. Liberals didn't like the results so they led the US down a sewer for several months trying to change the results. They claimed ballots were too difficult to understand, that intimidations were used to prevent people from voting, that votes were improperly counted, and a whole host of other ridiculous usual claims by liberals whenever they lose. The USSC properly showed that the liberals could not just ask for another recount in only 3 counties...a concept liberals have trouble understanding. Go do some homework!

Nader garnering several thousand votes in Florida had nothing to do with algore's loss, did it? algore being unable to win his own home state had nothing to do with his loss, did it? Liberals are still crying over this and it IS always rather amusing!! Well, keep on crying until you have a river!


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on April 24, 2007, 09:07:16 AM
Last I checked the body with the power to determine the proper interpretation of Florida law is the Florida Supreme Court - a concept conservatives used to have no trouble understanding.

This was a case involving a federal election. And Florida law dictated a recount when the results were of a certain difference---which was done. The results were final according to Florida law. Period. Liberals didn't like the results so they led the US down a sewer for several months trying to change the results. They claimed ballots were too difficult to understand, that intimidations were used to prevent people from voting, that votes were improperly counted, and a whole host of other ridiculous usual claims by liberals whenever they lose. The USSC properly showed that the liberals could not just ask for another recount in only 3 counties...a concept liberals have trouble understanding. Go do some homework!

Nader garnering several thousand votes in Florida had nothing to do with algore's loss, did it? algore being unable to win his own home state had nothing to do with his loss, did it? Liberals are still crying over this and it IS always rather amusing!! Well, keep on crying until you have a river!

I would agree that Nader was a spoiler in that election.  I also think that Al Gore was the winner and that George Bush was wrongly selected the winner by the SCOTUS, and what has happened since has been the greatest disaster in American History for our country.  I also fear that we might never recover because of the radical rightwing fascist neocons.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: whiskeypriest on April 24, 2007, 01:47:01 PM
Quote
This was a case involving a federal election.
Considering your recent citation of the electoral college I thought you understood the nature of the election better than that.

There were no federal regs or statutes at issue in the Florida recount.  None.  It doesn't matter that the persons being elected were ultimately going to be voting for a person to fill a federal office; the conduct of any election is a state concern, not a federal one, except to the extent there are federal laws that preempt the state ones - and there were none.

It is not for the US Supreme Court to tell Florida how to interpret its own laws.  You, of course, have chosen to buy the repo spin on what the Florida Court did.  However, Gore's attempts at a recount were procedures authorized specifically by Florida's election laws.  The problem was that those substantive recount rights were not compatible with the procedural time limit requirements of the Florida election laws.  The Florida Supreme Court chose to honor the substantive rights over the procedural ones.  You may disagree based upon your desire to enshrine the Bush election with a patina of legitimacy, but it is a permissable and defensible interpretation of the law.

Which, of course, is why O'Connor didn't opt for an overturning of what the SCOF did.  Amusingly, Scalia, Scalia's second vote, and "that clown Renchburg" did want to directly overturn the SCOF.  Wnat to take a guess what those three justices's reaction would have been to a federal court's overturning a state court's interpretation of its own statute in ANY OTHER CONTEXT?  The phrase "bull fucking shit" comes to mind.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: liquidsilver on April 24, 2007, 01:55:54 PM
Amen


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on April 24, 2007, 03:05:05 PM
"I propose we eliminate 500,000 government contracting positions . . . and that we insist on competitive bidding for the remaining contracts,” Clinton declared.

The New York Democrat criticized the Bush administration’s reliance on the private sector for a wide range of tasks, including security in Iraq, charging that federal outsourcing programs are plagued with waste and lack oversight. "All too often, this administration has handed out government contracts without even shopping around for the best price,” she said in her speech, which was posted on her Web site.

Yet I have not heard her complaining about Diane Feinstein and her awarding no-bid contracts to her husband! Nor have I heard liberals here condemn her!!!!

In hillaryspeak, the 500,000 would probably be the same as what her 'husband' sick-willie eliminated---500,000 from the military. Think not?

Here are the totals that sick-willie cut from the military---and liberals say we are stretched 'too thin' right now in Iraq. Here IS why...

709,000 REGULAR (ACTIVE DUTY) PERSONNEL.

293,000 RESERVE TROOPS.
EIGHT STANDING ARMY DIVISIONS.
20 AIR FORCE AND NAVY AIR WINGS WITH 2,000 COMBAT AIRCRAFT.

232 STRATEGIC BOMBERS.
19 STRATEGIC BALLISTIC MISSILE SUBMARINES WITH 3,114 NUCLEAR WARHEADS ON 232 MISSILES.

500 ICBMs WITH 1,950 WARHEADS.

FOUR AIRCRAFT CARRIERS AND 121 SURFACE COMBAT SHIPS AND SUBMARINES PLUS ALL THE SUPPORT BASES, SHIPYARDS, AND LOGISTICAL ASSETS NEEDED TO SUSTAIN SUCH A NAVAL FORCE.




Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on April 24, 2007, 03:07:32 PM
It is not for the US Supreme Court to tell Florida how to interpret its own laws.

It IS in the case of federal elections, and no matter how much you rant and cry, it will not change.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: liquidsilver on April 24, 2007, 03:12:42 PM
It is not for the US Supreme Court to tell Florida how to interpret its own laws.

It IS in the case of federal elections, and no matter how much you rant and cry, it will not change.

It doesn't sound like you understand what Wisk wrote.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: whiskeypriest on April 24, 2007, 03:19:35 PM
It is not for the US Supreme Court to tell Florida how to interpret its own laws.

It IS in the case of federal elections, and no matter how much you rant and cry, it will not change.
Great!  Name me one other case where a federal court has intervened in a state election law dispute because the ultimate office was federal.  Take your time.  Take a long time.  You won't find one.  No matter how much you rant and cry, that will not change.

It doesn't happen because elections, even for federal offices, are conducted under state laws.  STATE laws.  And except where results oriented judges decide to ignore federalism, that ends any federal court involvement.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: whiskeypriest on April 24, 2007, 03:27:31 PM
Or to put it another way, where a federal office is contested in a state election, the federal government protects the conduct of the election solely through its pre-emptive legislation, where it exists, and the Constitutional mandates, not through the supervision of state court interpretations of state statutes.  Everything else is the province of state legislatures, state elections boards, and state courts.   That's why the plurality created a single use only constitutional right to decide the case.

Another fun task: find any other case, in any context, where Scalia, Thomas, or Rehnquist approved a federal court's overturning a state court's interpretation of a state statute.  You won't find one, even where the federal and state laws are identical, or the state law is modeled on the federal, as in, for instance, state civil rights statutes.   


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on April 24, 2007, 04:31:25 PM
Or to put it another way, where a federal office is contested in a state election, the federal government protects the conduct of the election solely through its pre-emptive legislation, where it exists, and the Constitutional mandates, not through the supervision of state court interpretations of state statutes.  Everything else is the province of state legislatures, state elections boards, and state courts.   That's why the plurality created a single use only constitutional right to decide the case.

Another fun task: find any other case, in any context, where Scalia, Thomas, or Rehnquist approved a federal court's overturning a state court's interpretation of a state statute.  You won't find one, even where the federal and state laws are identical, or the state law is modeled on the federal, as in, for instance, state civil rights statutes.   

Now there's a group of thugs if there ever was one:  Scalia, Thomas, or Rehnquist.  Of course the last one has now been replaced with two new ones, Roberts and Ailito.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on April 24, 2007, 07:17:05 PM
No matter which court you blame, the indisputable fact is that voters in Florida were denied their constitutional right to help elect the president. And the main reason they were in dispute was because the people did not cast their votes as Jeb Bush had instructed them to.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on April 24, 2007, 07:37:55 PM
No matter which court you blame, the indisputable fact is that voters in Florida were denied their constitutional right to help elect the president. And the main reason they were in dispute was because the people did not cast their votes as Jeb Bush had instructed them to.

It was all part of the conspiracy to give the neocons the power they sought.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on April 24, 2007, 10:29:51 PM
Now that they have the "power" what have they done with it? Promised to catch a terrorist, then went to war with a totally different country that had nothing to do with the crime committed by the first terrrorist. Taken away the rights of American Citizens to just cause before search and seizure. Given power to corporations to take away the human dignity of those unfortunate enough to work for them. Give the wealth of the nation to the wealthy and their cronies. Wage war against state and local school boards and their authority to direct public education. Sink the working middle class into poverty. Chisel away at the human rights of women. Where does it end?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on April 25, 2007, 07:14:08 AM
Now that they have the "power" what have they done with it? Promised to catch a terrorist, then went to war with a totally different country that had nothing to do with the crime committed by the first terrrorist. Taken away the rights of American Citizens to just cause before search and seizure. Given power to corporations to take away the human dignity of those unfortunate enough to work for them. Give the wealth of the nation to the wealthy and their cronies. Wage war against state and local school boards and their authority to direct public education. Sink the working middle class into poverty. Chisel away at the human rights of women. Where does it end?

Noboby knows.  But there is much to be concerned about, IMHO.  I am also very concerned about the rise of the religious right and their attempt to Christianize America.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on April 25, 2007, 08:41:06 AM
Obama said while he is committed to protecting Israel's security, he would also reach out to Arab leaders who are committed to recognizing Israel and renouncing violence. He did not repeat the statement he made last month while campaigning in Iowa — that he supports relaxing restrictions on aid to the Palestinian people if their leaders renounced terrorism and recognized Israel. "Nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people," Obama said at the time.

rrriiiggghhhttt----Nobody IS suffering more? rrriiiggghhhttt-----to listen to dingy harry reid, iraqi children are stuttering and wetting their beds at night scared of american troops, with so many killed by americans that we cannot count them all(I wonder when liberals will start to accuse americans of cutting off heads with hacksaws?). The 'mainstream' media still refuses to show anything good that has been going on over there---they continue their negative agende and expressions of hatred of bush--just like liberals) Liberals also are clamoring to go to Darfur. Obama has hurt himself with this statement. I hate it. It only serves to help 'mrs.' clinton achieve a real abomination---a true narcissist getting more power than she has now.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on April 25, 2007, 08:45:11 AM
I remember when the evangelistic Christians eschewed politics. I'm not sure exacly when they changed their minds, but they have become a formidable force now. It is amazing how corrupt these people who were once quite religious have become.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on April 25, 2007, 08:48:27 AM
 Talking about terrorism at an evening speech in Manchester, N.H., the Republican suggested that the country could face another major attack if it puts a Democrat in the White House in 2008.

"If one of them gets elected, it sounds to me like we're going on defense," Giuliani told the Rockingham County GOP. But, he said, if a Republican wins, "we will remain on offense" trying to anticipate what the terrorists are going to do and "trying to stop them before they do it."


This IS true. We should be on the offensive getting rid the fanatics, that would kill any American if they had the chance, wherever they are---not being on the defensive and doing the liberal thing---sitting back and waiting for another nasty event to happen. But, they will continue with their 'pelosi like' naievete in thinking that they can talk a mad dog into not biting them.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on April 25, 2007, 08:51:51 AM
Well, if it is true that Obama wants to downplay our involvement with Israel, he goes up a notch in my estimation. The origins of the Nation of Israel are suspect as a mere extension of British colonialsim, and an opportunity to rid the European counties of the Jewish people in their populations. Israel has become a serious drain on our good intentions and our foreign aid system. They are the Welfare Queens of our foreign policy.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on April 25, 2007, 08:54:36 AM
A U.S. Democratic lawmaker opposed to the Iraq war initiated a bid on Tuesday to remove Vice President Dick Cheney from office that even his own party leaders dismissed as futile.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio introduced three articles of impeachment in the Democratic-led House of Representatives against Cheney, accusing him of having misled the country into its 2003 invasion of Iraq and, more recently, threatening Iran without cause. (As if Iran DIDN'T say it was going to destroy the USA and Israel)


How did this idiot convince people in his own state to vote for him? Oh well, there are a lotta liberal idiots, indeed, and not just in his home state.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on April 25, 2007, 08:57:53 AM
Obama said he has probably gotten more support from Jewish donors, although he actively seeks support from Muslim Americans as well. But he said those Jews who have known him the longest would testify "that I haven't just talked the talk, I've walked the walk when it comes to Israel's security."

Obama said he is committed to protecting Israel's security.

Translation? Continuing flow of $$$ to Israel.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on April 25, 2007, 09:11:04 AM
Polls suggest that the leading attribute attracting voters to Hillary's presidential candidacy is her "experience".

Consider what her experience has been. She burst forth on the national stage with two tasks in her "husband's" administration: The selection of the nation's first female attorney general (What a terrible choice---makes gonzalez look fabulous!) and the design and adoption of a comprehensive program of health-care reform (Behind closed doors).

Her efforts to designate an attorney general hamstrung the new administration for months as two nominees, in succession, had to withdraw their names from consideration. Their corruption was so evident it was written on their foreheads.

Finally, at the eleventh hour, she urged her husband to appoint Florida's Janet Reno, a selection Bill Clinton would come to describe as "my worst mistake." (Sure---this was by design, as she had so much baggage that clinton was assured that she would never bring charges against him for anything) In the bargain, she suggested the appointment of Lani Guanier as head of the civil rights division, a job she was shortly forced to relinquish when her radical liberal views became known, another embarrassment for the new administration.

Her other selections for the Justice Department, the White House staff and the Treasury were her three law partners (Can you say 'cronyism'?): Web Hubbell, Vince Foster, and William Kennedy, appointments which culminated in one imprisonment, one very questionable death, and one forced resignation. Good judgement from hillary does not exist.


Her other assignment, health-care reform, collapsed in such a debacle, attempting to subvert 1/7 of the nations economy, that it cost her party control of both houses of Congress, a fate from which it took 12 years to recover.

And sane humans are supposed to believe that now she would be any different? Only a liberal could want another narcissist abomination in the WH.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on April 25, 2007, 09:19:56 AM
Hillary's main focus in the administration was scandal defense. From Jennifer Flowers, to Whitewater, to the FBI file affair, to the travel office firings, to her commodities market winnings, to the missing Rose Law Firm billing records, to the Paula Jones scandal, she orchestrated the administration's defense against scandal allegations.

In the process, she almost got herself indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice. And her advice in handling these matters was uniformly bad.

It was Hillary who counseled Bill not to settle the Paula Jones lawsuit even when the plaintiffs called for neither an apology nor payment, and it was she who stonewalled the release of Whitewater documents even when it led to the appointment of a special prosecutor. When the prosecutor whose appointment she had caused heard about the depositions in the Paula Jones case she had refused to settle, the Monica Lewinsky scandal eventuated.

Her experience continued when her race for the Senate and its aftermath became, in turn, mired in scandal. The pardon of the FALN terrorists to get Latino support in New York, that of the New Square Hassidim to get Hillary Jewish support, and the clemency shown toward Hillary's brothers' clients to get them financial support caused her ratings to plunge to their lowest level in March of 2001 as she took her Senate seat.

The theft of White House gifts, almost $200,000 of which had to be returned, did nothing to endear her to the electorate.

Since then, Hillary has done nothing of note in the Senate except to vote for the Iraq war, a position she has since disavowed, and to win the applause of her colleagues for not being partisan and obstinate.

Her main efforts have been directed at raising massive sums of money for herself and her colleagues and making a lot writing and selling her memoirs. Her efforts on behalf of New York after 9/11 have been exposed as largely derivative of those of her colleague, the very liberal Chuck Schumer.

She has passed no important legislation, except for 20 bills renaming post offices and courthouses and congratulating Alexander Hamilton, Shirley Chisolm, Harriet Tubman, the American Republic, and the Syracuse men's and women's Lacrosse team on their respective accomplishments.

If this the experience upon which her candidacy is based?



Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on April 25, 2007, 10:52:04 AM
Hillary's main focus in the administration was scandal defense. From Jennifer Flowers, to Whitewater, to the FBI file affair, to the travel office firings, to her commodities market winnings, to the missing Rose Law Firm billing records, to the Paula Jones scandal, she orchestrated the administration's defense against scandal allegations.

In the process, she almost got herself indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice. And her advice in handling these matters was uniformly bad.

It was Hillary who counseled Bill not to settle the Paula Jones lawsuit even when the plaintiffs called for neither an apology nor payment, and it was she who stonewalled the release of Whitewater documents even when it led to the appointment of a special prosecutor. When the prosecutor whose appointment she had caused heard about the depositions in the Paula Jones case she had refused to settle, the Monica Lewinsky scandal eventuated.

Her experience continued when her race for the Senate and its aftermath became, in turn, mired in scandal. The pardon of the FALN terrorists to get Latino support in New York, that of the New Square Hassidim to get Hillary Jewish support, and the clemency shown toward Hillary's brothers' clients to get them financial support caused her ratings to plunge to their lowest level in March of 2001 as she took her Senate seat.

The theft of White House gifts, almost $200,000 of which had to be returned, did nothing to endear her to the electorate.

Since then, Hillary has done nothing of note in the Senate except to vote for the Iraq war, a position she has since disavowed, and to win the applause of her colleagues for not being partisan and obstinate.

Her main efforts have been directed at raising massive sums of money for herself and her colleagues and making a lot writing and selling her memoirs. Her efforts on behalf of New York after 9/11 have been exposed as largely derivative of those of her colleague, the very liberal Chuck Schumer.

She has passed no important legislation, except for 20 bills renaming post offices and courthouses and congratulating Alexander Hamilton, Shirley Chisolm, Harriet Tubman, the American Republic, and the Syracuse men's and women's Lacrosse team on their respective accomplishments.

If this the experience upon which her candidacy is based?



And you know this how?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on April 25, 2007, 11:13:41 AM
He read it in blogs!


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on April 25, 2007, 11:25:15 AM
Polls suggest that the leading attribute attracting voters to Hillary's presidential candidacy is her "experience,".

Consider what her experience has been. She burst forth on the national stage with two tasks in her husband's administration: The selection of the nation's first female attorney general and the design and adoption of a comprehensive program of health-care reform.

Her efforts to designate an attorney general hamstrung the new administration for months as two nominees, in succession, had to withdraw their names from consideration.

Finally, at the eleventh hour, she urged her husband to appoint Florida's Janet Reno, a selection Bill Clinton would come to describe as "my worst mistake." In the bargain, she suggested the appointment of Lani Guanier as head of the civil rights division, a job she was shortly forced to relinquish when her radical views became known, another embarrassment for the new administration.

Her other selections for the Justice Department, the White House staff and the Treasury were her three law partners: Web Hubbell, Vince Foster, and William Kennedy, appointments which culminated in one imprisonment, one questionable, and one forced resignation.

Her other assignment, health-care reform, collapsed in such a debacle that it cost her party control of both houses of Congress, a fate from which it took 12 years to recover.

Beyond these initial tasks, her main focus in the administration was scandal defense. From Jennifer Flowers to Whitewater to the FBI file affair to the travel office firings to her commodities market winnings to the missing Rose Law Firm billing records to the Paula Jones scandal, she orchestrated the administration's defense against scandal allegations.

In the process, she almost got herself indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice. And her advice in handling these matters was uniformly bad.

It was Hillary who counseled Bill not to settle the Paula Jones lawsuit even when the plaintiffs called for neither an apology nor payment, and it was she who stonewalled the release of Whitewater documents even when it led to the appointment of a special prosecutor. When the prosecutor whose appointment she had caused heard about the depositions in the Paula Jones case she had refused to settle, the Monica Lewinsky scandal eventuated.



Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on April 25, 2007, 11:27:01 AM
Polls suggest that the leading attribute attracting voters to Hillary's presidential candidacy is her "experience".

Consider what her experience has been. She burst forth on the national stage with two tasks in her husband's administration: The selection of the nation's first female attorney general and the design and adoption of a comprehensive program of health-care reform.

Her efforts to designate an attorney general hamstrung the new administration for months as two nominees, in succession, had to withdraw their names from consideration.

Finally, at the eleventh hour, she urged her husband to appoint Florida's Janet Reno, a selection Bill Clinton would come to describe as "my worst mistake." In the bargain, she suggested the appointment of Lani Guanier as head of the civil rights division, a job she was shortly forced to relinquish when her radical views became known, another embarrassment for the new administration.

Her other selections for the Justice Department, the White House staff and the Treasury were her three law partners: Web Hubbell, Vince Foster, and William Kennedy, appointments which culminated in one imprisonment, one questionable death, and one forced resignation.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on April 25, 2007, 11:28:36 AM
Pardon the spamming look---have been having some computer problems. Apologies.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on April 25, 2007, 11:29:16 AM
A tort reform crusader gets own suit tossed
Rep. John Sullivan (R-Okla.) has long railed against frivolous lawsuits, voting on many occasions to cut down the number of legal challenges filed in this country.

Last week, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia found that a lawsuit filed by Sullivan against the U.S. was, well, if not frivolous, then at least superfluous.

The court decided to throw out Sullivan’s case because the matter is already being handled by the executive branch.
Nearly four years ago, Sullivan was injured after giving a speech in Washington, D.C. With his aide driving, Sullivan sustained facial cuts and a serious eye injury when a security barrier fell on the car, triggering the vehicle’s air bags.

The barrier fell on the car because of an unclear hand signal from one security officer to another near the Cannon House Office Building.

Sullivan was taken to the George Washington University Medical Center and treated. He then filed a complaint under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) seeking financial relief for injuries he has said are permanent and disabling. FTCA allows financial compensation for federal employees who have sustained personal injury while performing their work.
Sullivan has claimed he has suffered economic loss as a result of the injuries.

The court last week dismissed the case because the Secretary of Labor has accepted Sullivan’s claim and is reviewing it.
Sullivan’s legal team said the court should not dismiss the case, noting that the congressman “has not received one penny to date.”

That, the court found, is irrelevant. Because the Labor Department has done what it should be doing, the court has no jurisdiction. The ruling also chastised Sullivan for offering no legal basis to proceed with the case.

I thought this was interesting.  The repukes are never happy.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on April 25, 2007, 11:31:24 AM
He read it in blogs!

So---you deny the veracity of the post?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on April 25, 2007, 11:36:58 AM
He read it in blogs!

So---you deny the veracity of the post?

I don't.  But what's your point? 


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on April 25, 2007, 11:45:24 AM
I don't.  But what's your point?

I guess I'll break my own law and respond this once.

You notice I have not put up a signature. Until you remove the one you have, I'll continue to not respond to you.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on April 25, 2007, 11:57:56 AM
I don't.  But what's your point?

I guess I'll break my own law and respond this once.

You notice I have not put up a signature. Until you remove the one you have, I'll continue to not respond to you.

Not sure what your problem was with my signature.  I used that on the NYT forums.  Anyway, I've removed it, at least temporarily.  So what's your point about Clinton?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on April 25, 2007, 12:06:12 PM
Point IS that hillary cannot claim any WH experience at all on matters that are of importance to this nation. She was a first 'lady', and nothing more. Besides, if after seeing just what she managed to be involved with during her 'husbands' administration IS any indication of what she would have planned for this country's future, her judgements obviously are quite terrible. Could we also believe that the return of Jouh Huang, Johnnie Chung, Charlie Trie, Nora Lum, Irene Kanchanalak, Mark Gimenez, and Ng Lapseng would be in the offing? Can anyone justify the presence of foreign monies in a US election? The answer should be a resounding no.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on April 25, 2007, 12:07:40 PM
Gotta run---back shortly.

Am pleased to see the 'peace' offering was accepted!


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on April 25, 2007, 12:39:10 PM
Point IS that hillary cannot claim any WH experience at all on matters that are of importance to this nation. She was a first 'lady', and nothing more. Besides, if after seeing just what she managed to be involved with during her 'husbands' administration IS any indication of what she would have planned for this country's future, her judgements obviously are quite terrible. Could we also believe that the return of Jouh Huang, Johnnie Chung, Charlie Trie, Nora Lum, Irene Kanchanalak, Mark Gimenez, and Ng Lapseng would be in the offing? Can anyone justify the presence of foreign monies in a US election? The answer should be a resounding no.

Personally, I don't want to see Hillary at the candidate, but not for the same reasons you don't, though I don't necessarily disagree with your reasoning.  I just think it is time for some new blood in Washington.  Some of those who served with Nixon are still running the show 38 years latter. It is time for the middle baby-boomer generation to step up to the plate and take their turn at governing.

Two Bushes and two Clintons could be the death of America.  The only republican I could see having a prayer of winning is Chuck Hagel, and he isn't even running.  On the other side, I think Obama could be the man.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on April 25, 2007, 12:50:50 PM
Anyone but hillary for the Ds. Anyone but McCain for the Rs. I see possibly another D coming out before too long (gore or kerry--regardless of their ability to thrill their own), as neither hillary nor barack are capable of winning imho. As for the Rs, I predict that Thompson, Kemp, or JEB will come out. There are many behind the scenes that want JEB, and he keeps on saying he won't, though he leaves the door open. If neither of these 3 do end up not coming out, and either hillary or barack are the D nominee, there will be no predicting a winner---only guessing at the winner. If neither of the 3 Rs come out, and the D nominee IS not hillary or Barack, the Ds will win.

The populace IS going to be a loser regardless of whom wins. Anyone connected to those that are in congress right now do not have the best interests of this nation at heart.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: liquidsilver on April 25, 2007, 12:52:35 PM
I think his last name has killed Jeb's chances of a run at the presidency in the near term, which is too bad since he'd make a heck of a better President than his brother imho


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: liquidsilver on April 25, 2007, 12:55:44 PM
I do think Obama probably has the best shot at the presidency for the Dems.  Guiliani is the Repubs best option.

At least of the known candidates....



Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on April 25, 2007, 12:57:56 PM
Only the shallow minded will hold someone's name against him. And that IS probably very much influencing whatever decision he may/may not make. But rest assured, that IF he were to be the R nominee, all you'd hear from the left would be 'Another bush'...even tho his record as gov of Fla IS quite excellent. Even won his last election there by quite a substantial margin, if I recall correctly.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: liquidsilver on April 25, 2007, 01:09:35 PM
Interestingly enough, Jeb's replacement, Crist, has received higher approval ratings from registered voters than Jeb ever did during his tenure.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: liquidsilver on April 25, 2007, 01:10:41 PM
Only the shallow minded will hold someone's name against him. And that IS probably very much influencing whatever decision he may/may not make. But rest assured, that IF he were to be the R nominee, all you'd hear from the left would be 'Another bush'...even tho his record as gov of Fla IS quite excellent. Even won his last election there by quite a substantial margin, if I recall correctly.

I'm not so sure Repub candidates wouldn't use his last name against him in the primary race.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on April 25, 2007, 01:42:36 PM
I'm not so sure Repub candidates wouldn't use his last name against him in the primary race.


Nothing surprises me anymore. I remember the immortal words from Reagan---a republican shalt not speak ill of another republican. It used to be that only liberals ate their own. Now, anyone IS fodder for anyone. A sad testament, indeed, of where the political processes in this country have gone. I knew that the sewer had really taken over when clinton was in office---it was confirmed to me when those that were religious were attacked as cruel, corrupt, etc.---not that this hasn't been the case for quite sometime. But it has become more pronounced in recent years.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: liquidsilver on April 25, 2007, 01:46:01 PM
The smear campaign that Rove launched against McCain in the 2000 South Carolina primary was among the worst I've ever seen.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on April 25, 2007, 01:52:31 PM
The worst I have ever seen was not repub on repub, but what clinton did with ken starr. Or to gingrich.

I remember before the lewinsky thing broke loose, that people had said, repeatedly because of his expertise, that if your were innocent, and had nothing to fear, starr was the one you wanted on your case---but that if you were guilty, and had reason to fear, starr was the one you didn't want on your case.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: liquidsilver on April 25, 2007, 01:59:40 PM
I don't really know how that is much different than Gingrich's assertions that then Speaker of the House Jim Wright was crooked despite a lack of evidence


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on April 25, 2007, 02:15:20 PM
I don't really know how that is much different than Gingrich's assertions that then Speaker of the House Jim Wright was crooked despite a lack of evidence.

Wasn't the house controlled by the Ds, and they forced one of their own to resign? Correct me if I am wrong here. Memory IS fallible. At any rate, an assertion by someone on someone else really ISn't a 'smear campaign'. It IS a smear, yes, but not an organized assault like what clinton did to starr or gingrich.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on April 25, 2007, 02:22:14 PM
How to waste philanthropic monies:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/25/education/25schools.html?ex=1178164800&en=64c526e2221ce366&ei=5070

It seems two billionaires who are upset because the election talk centers on issues that concern the American public such as Iraq and Health Care, are donating a large lumps of the largesse to putting the issue of education front and center in the campaigns to come. More misspent millions that should be spent on putting technology in the classrooms of Mississippi and other poor states, and encouraging the development of realistic content online to pipe into those classroom.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on April 25, 2007, 03:01:25 PM
The head of the Democratic Party said Wednesday that the best way to get presidential candidates to talk frankly about issues is to lock out the media.

During the Mortgage Bankers Association conference, a banker expressed frustration with candidates who only talk in sound bites and wondered how that could be changed. Howard Dean, once a presidential candidate, offered a simple solution.

"I suggest you have candidates in to meetings like this and bar the press," Dean said.

The Democratic National Committee chairman criticized media coverage, arguing that networks such as CBS used to put content first and didn't mind losing money for the prestige of delivering a quality news report. Dean said the days of Walter Cronkite are gone and the corporatization of the media has led to a desire to boost profits.


Ain't gonna happen. I would like to see, however, each party having its own TV channel and each party could control what was shown, and when someone wished to hear about politics, they could go to DEM TV or REPUB TV---meaning no ads on ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, FOX or any other channel. But, it ain't gonna happen. Too much $$$ in play. And it should NEVER go to public financing of campaigns. Never!! I do NOT care to finance the communist, nazi, or socialist parties, as they would have to be included in any 'public financing' scheme. As well as how many other parties that exist?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: whiskeypriest on April 25, 2007, 03:20:16 PM
Quote
Never!! I do NOT care to finance the communist, nazi, or socialist parties, as they would have to be included in any 'public financing' scheme.
And yet we have public financing, and they are not included.

The best way to get candidates to stop talking in sound bites is to lengthen the attention span and mnemonic capacity of the hearers.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: liquidsilver on April 25, 2007, 03:26:56 PM
Personally, I think political advertising should be held to the same standards as commerical advertising.  Political advertisers should be held accountable for their advertisements and should be expected to follow the same code of advertising ethics as commercial advertisers.  Political advertisements that are deemed false or misleading by the National Advertising Review Board should be modified or discontinued.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: srnich on April 25, 2007, 03:30:37 PM
This is how they stole Ohio in 2004, and how they'll steal the 2008 election too. Be ready, be forewarned.

On November 2, 2004, in the State of Ohio, 239,127 votes for President of the United States were dumped, rejected, blocked, lost and left to rot uncounted.  

http://www.thetip.org/art_The_Theft_of____________1306_icle.html



Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on April 25, 2007, 03:45:41 PM
This is how they stole Ohio in 2004, and how they'll steal the 2008 election too. Be ready, be forewarned.

On November 2, 2004, in the State of Ohio, 239,127 votes for President of the United States were dumped, rejected, blocked, lost and left to rot uncounted.  

http://www.thetip.org/art_The_Theft_of____________1306_icle.html



I was listening to a call-in radio show this morning.  A caller who was an election supervisory called in to tell his story of what happened in his district in the last election.  The machines arrived with votes already on them.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on April 26, 2007, 12:12:35 AM
Sami,

Did the caller tell what he did about it, or was he just venting?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on April 26, 2007, 09:44:01 AM
Sami,

Did the caller tell what he did about it, or was he just venting?


The caller said he had notified everyone who he could think of including his congressional delegation, and he had heard from no one.  This was on the Tom Hartman show, yesterday.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on April 26, 2007, 11:38:35 AM
Democratic presidential candidates on Wednesday rebuked Republican rival Rudy Giuliani for suggesting that the United States could face another major terrorist attack if a Democrat is elected in 2008. The former New York mayor did not back down.

Illinois Sen. Barack Obama said Giuliani, who was in office on Sept. 11, 2001, should not be making the terrorist threat into "the punchline of another political attack."


Well, the Ds sure are touchy about being soft on terror. Maybe if they started to realize that this IS a matter that should not be played for mere political expediencies, they'd see the light. The Ds apparently want to wait for something nasty to happen AGAIN before opening their eyes to the fact that there are a lotta bad guys in the world that are going to continue the acts we have seen on 911, the african embassy bombings, the USS Cole, the trains in spain, etc., etc., etc. Sticking one's head into the sand ain't gonna make them go away. We need to be dealing with them everywhere they are found. I'd rather we be fighting them overseas than here. Why do people want to wait for the mad dog to bite them before they SEE that the mad dog IS right there in front of their faces?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on April 26, 2007, 02:20:56 PM
Democratic presidential candidates on Wednesday rebuked Republican rival Rudy Giuliani for suggesting that the United States could face another major terrorist attack if a Democrat is elected in 2008. The former New York mayor did not back down.

Illinois Sen. Barack Obama said Giuliani, who was in office on Sept. 11, 2001, should not be making the terrorist threat into "the punchline of another political attack."


Well, the Ds sure are touchy about being soft on terror. Maybe if they started to realize that this IS a matter that should not be played for mere political expediencies, they'd see the light. The Ds apparently want to wait for something nasty to happen AGAIN before opening their eyes to the fact that there are a lotta bad guys in the world that are going to continue the acts we have seen on 911, the african embassy bombings, the USS Cole, the trains in spain, etc., etc., etc. Sticking one's head into the sand ain't gonna make them go away. We need to be dealing with them everywhere they are found. I'd rather we be fighting them overseas than here. Why do people want to wait for the mad dog to bite them before they SEE that the mad dog IS right there in front of their faces?

Ok.  What is your solution to this problem, a problem that goes back to the beginning of time, btw.  I'll just bet you would have lite the fire to all those "witches" had you had the chance.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on April 26, 2007, 02:55:30 PM
What is your solution to this problem, a problem that goes back to the beginning of time, btw.

It IS an old problem, and if there IS a perfect solution, it hasn't been implemented yet. I do believe that attempting to erradicate it wherever found IS a plausible way to proceed. Sitting back and waiting IS not an option in my book. Iran, for example, we know harbors and funds terrorists and terrorism. In addition, they have publicly stated that they will destroy Israel and the US. Look at the provocation with the UK sailors. They are also defying the UN (puke) on nuclear matters, and talk with these fanatics certainly appears to be going nowhere. More talk IS probably not going anywhere either. Since they are proceeding with their nuclear program and they are saying what they have said, to say that there ISn't anything we can do IS just not so. And the sooner we let them taste something forceful, the sooner fears will be alleviated. There are a couple of ways to do this---we say we will purchase nothing from their country, AND we will purchase nothing from any country that DOES buy from them. That will get some response, imho. We can also block ships from docking at Kharg, their main vessel loading point, if memory serves. That would be a bit more forceful. At any rate, the iranians are NOT even attempting to be good neighbors, wouldn't you say?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: srnich on April 26, 2007, 03:13:37 PM
It IS an old problem, and if there IS a perfect solution, it hasn't been implemented yet. I do believe that attempting to erradicate it wherever found IS a plausible way to proceed. Sitting back and waiting IS not an option in my book.

A lot of fear in your world isn't there?

Or is it just your idea to pick a fight first, talk later?

Going to war with the world is a losers game.





Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on April 26, 2007, 03:21:23 PM
A lot of fear in your world isn't there?

Or is it just your idea to pick a fight first, talk later?

Going to war with the world is a losers game.


What do you propose be done with people that cut off heads with hacksaws? What do you propose be done to those that have women and children strap explosives onto their bodies and detonate themselves in markets full of those just trying to buy food? What kind of discussion would you get into with a mad dog to convince it not to bite you?



Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: srnich on April 26, 2007, 03:55:00 PM
First off, I would not trespass into that dog's yard.

Duh.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on April 26, 2007, 04:37:55 PM
First off, I would not trespass into that dog's yard.

Duh.

Even if the dog IS running around the neighborhood? Hmmm? He can run back into his own yard for sanctuary with YOU in charge??

You trying to say that the Iranians have NOT been crossing the border into Iraq? Or that Iraq never crossed the border into Kuwait? Or that Iraq never crossed the border into Saudi Arabia?

Indeed---DUH!!! How do you say 'wake up'! But, being the liberal that you apparently are, you wish to sit back and wait for that dog to come out of his yard to bite you---then, it "IS" too late.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on April 26, 2007, 05:47:11 PM
First off, I would not trespass into that dog's yard.

Duh.

Even if the dog IS running around the neighborhood? Hmmm? He can run back into his own yard for sanctuary with YOU in charge??

You trying to say that the Iranians have NOT been crossing the border into Iraq? Or that Iraq never crossed the border into Kuwait? Or that Iraq never crossed the border into Saudi Arabia?

Indeed---DUH!!! How do you say 'wake up'! But, being the liberal that you apparently are, you wish to sit back and wait for that dog to come out of his yard to bite you---then, it "IS" too late.

I suppose your solution would be to nuke Iran...like John McCann sang, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran...eh?  Then take out Afganistan, and you'll also end a large part of the drug problem, and then take out Pakistan, who harbors and supports radical Islam, and then vote for dominionist christianist and turn this country into a christer theocracy and prepare the way for the rapture. 

Or, you could put a bullet through your head and end your fear and agony and paranoia now.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on April 26, 2007, 07:23:22 PM
I suppose your solution would be to nuke Iran...like John McCann sang, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran...eh?  Then take out Afganistan, and you'll also end a large part of the drug problem, and then take out Pakistan, who harbors and supports radical Islam, and then vote for dominionist christianist and turn this country into a christer theocracy and prepare the way for the rapture.

I never said this. YOU think that your suppositions are the way to resolve anything? I never said anything about taking out anyone or anything. You cannot read anyone's mind. Your slander at christianity IS also quite un-necessary and beyond the pale. You wish to be an atheist, your choice---but how can you tell me anyone IS wrong that IS christian? That sorta seems to be your gist!! Hatred of christians!! I notice that you do NOT say anything about the islamofascists that cut off people's heads with hacksaws!! Why not??


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on April 26, 2007, 07:27:43 PM
I suppose your solution would be to nuke Iran...like John McCann sang, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran...eh?  Then take out Afganistan, and you'll also end a large part of the drug problem, and then take out Pakistan, who harbors and supports radical Islam, and then vote for dominionist christianist and turn this country into a christer theocracy and prepare the way for the rapture.

I never said this. YOU think that your suppositions are the way to resolve anything? I never said anything about taking out anyone or anything. You cannot read anyone's mind. Your slander at christianity IS also quite un-necessary and beyond the pale. You wish to be an atheist, your choice---but how can you tell me anyone IS wrong that IS christian? That sorta seems to be your gist!! Hatred of christians!! I notice that you do NOT say anything about the islamofascists that cut off people's heads with hacksaws!! Why not??

I don't need to.  YOU do that for us.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on April 26, 2007, 07:45:17 PM
I don't need to.  YOU do that for us.


Evading my questions again, huh? Trying to debate with you appears to be becoming more and more pointless when you ask me questions, I answer, yet you do not reciprocate. Tiresome.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on April 26, 2007, 07:51:25 PM
I don't believe there is such a thing as a Islamo Fascist.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: Kam on April 26, 2007, 10:01:25 PM
You trying to say that the Iranians have NOT been crossing the border into Iraq?

Iranians have more of a right to be there than Americans.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on April 26, 2007, 10:51:08 PM
NGC,

Stop trying to put words in people's mouths. Whatever do the traveling habits of Iranians have to do with our presence in Iraq? As my mother used to say, "If Iran jumps off the cliff, are you going to too?"



Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on April 27, 2007, 06:02:12 AM
NGC,

Stop trying to put words in people's mouths. Whatever do the traveling habits of Iranians have to do with our presence in Iraq? As my mother used to say, "If Iran jumps off the cliff, are you going to too?"



NGC was having a bad day, me thinks.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on April 27, 2007, 09:24:38 AM
Iranians have more of a right to be there than Americans.

But they have been crossing the border and attacking American troops.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on April 27, 2007, 09:26:31 AM
Democratic presidential hopefuls flashed their anti-war credentials Thursday night, heaping criticism on President Bush's Iraq policy in the first debate of the 2008 campaign.

This IS to be expected. They just wish to bash bush and not talk specifics of what they'll do IF elected. A whole group of evasive vindictive liberals.

However---anyone or anything but hillary.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on April 27, 2007, 10:24:29 AM
Hillary is in the lead, kiddo.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on April 27, 2007, 10:37:30 AM
Hillary is in the lead, kiddo.

How unfortunate that the charlatan has people supporting her that cannot see that she IS only out for herself---like the narcissist that she IS. If you think she has your best interests at heart, you've been snowed.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on April 27, 2007, 10:42:13 AM
Hillary is in the lead, kiddo.

How unfortunate that the charlatan has people supporting her that cannot see that she IS only out for herself---like the narcissist that she IS. If you think she has your best interests at heart, you've been snowed.

And whose best interest have the neocons?  Their own greedy pockets, that's who.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on April 27, 2007, 10:46:58 AM
And whose best interest have the neocons?  Their own greedy pockets, that's who.

Have you heard me advocate voting for anyone? D or R? Nope.


BUT---I can see that hillary ain't the one for the job. ANYONE or ANYTHING but hillary. I'd rather have your dog for pres than her. Or your cat---or your parakeet---or your goldfish---or your gerbil...whatever pet you own. Or whatever pet your neighbor has.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on April 27, 2007, 10:50:41 AM
Not only will Florida be punished if it moves up its presidential primary, but Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said any Democratic candidate who steps foot in the state will be too.


Dean acknowledges that Florida is the state most likely to jump ahead of states like California and New York which are moving up to the Feb. 5 primary, but it, and any other state, will do so at a cost.


He said he supports a Jan. 19 caucus in Nevada and a Jan. 29 primary in South Carolina because it adds more diversity to the process.


Howard dean IS an absolute kook.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on April 27, 2007, 10:54:42 AM
As someone who has criticized the Bush administration for not fighting back enough against relentless Democratic attacks and disinformation, I was delighted by Vice President Cheney's overdue dress-down of the Peter-principled and unprincipled Senate majority leader, Harry Reid. What an abomination he is.

If the mainstream media (MSM) gave as much credence to stories of real deception by Democrats as they do to phony allegations of Republican deception, the political landscape would look dramatically different. But no, I'm not holding my breath.

The MSM dutifully reports as fact the Democrats' false allegation that Bush lied about Iraqi WMD, when at worst it was a mistake, since Bush was properly relying on the virtually unanimous opinion of all major intelligence agencies in the United States and the world. To lie is to say something you know at the time to be false. This simply was not the case.

In fairness, though, it was not President Bush's mistake, but the intelligence agencies. If you insist on saying Bush made a mistake, so did the Democrats who voted along with him — with access to the same intelligence, though they've lied in denying that as well.

Though Bush clearly hadn't lied, we wondered why Democrats were all of a sudden bothered by lying, since they continuously defended the habitual liar clinton of their party who previously occupied the Oval Office.

And now some liberals want to put hillary back there----insane!!


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on April 27, 2007, 11:15:31 AM
Former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani leads New York Sen. Hillary Clinton and other Democrats in the 2008 presidential race in three critical states - Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania, according to Quinnipiac University's Swing State Poll, three simultaneous surveys of voters in states that have been pivotal in presidential elections since 1964.

But former Vice President Al Gore, who is not yet a candidate, runs better against Republican challengers in most Swing State matchups than Sen. Clinton or Illinois Sen. Barack Obama. The independent Quinnipiac University poll finds:

Florida - Giuliani leads Clinton 49 - 41 percent, compared to 50 - 40 percent in an April 2 poll. Gore trails Giuliani 47 - 43 percent.

Ohio - Giuliani leads Clinton 46 - 41 percent, compared to March 22 when Clinton was up 46 - 43 percent. Gore trails Giuliani 47 - 39 percent.

Pennsylvania - Giuliani leads Clinton 47 - 43 percent, compared to 46 - 42 percent March 29. Gore ties Giuliani 44 - 44 percent.
"Mayor Rudolph Giuliani remains the front-runner, but he and the entire Democratic field should wonder if Al Gore will become an inconvenient truth in the 2008 presidential race and go for the biggest Oscar of them all," said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.


ANYONE or ANYTHING but clinton.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on April 27, 2007, 01:50:14 PM
Will you be moving to Cuba is Hillary gets elected President?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on April 27, 2007, 05:53:27 PM
Will you be moving to Cuba is Hillary gets elected President?

Nope. For all the flaws this country has, it IS better off than the people are that are living under the communist thumb. I would think that liberals would go there anyway---to have the lifestyle they truly wish for---no freedom of speech, no freedom of press, no freedom of association, and coupled along with the 'superior' medical and educational services that abound, that castro himself will not even use. He went out of country for his medical attention, remember? One more example of those on the left just not seeing the "Do as I say, not as I do" routine. It IS a regular sound from the likes of gore, tokyo rosie, soros, streisand. Liberals should really read that book---"Do as I say, not as I do", and see for yourself the hypocrisy, and double standards, that liberals live with. But---I doubt that you'll read it.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on April 27, 2007, 06:26:00 PM
Will you be moving to Cuba is Hillary gets elected President?

Nope. For all the flaws this country has, it IS better off than the people are that are living under the communist thumb. I would think that liberals would go there anyway---to have the lifestyle they truly wish for---no freedom of speech, no freedom of press, no freedom of association, and coupled along with the 'superior' medical and educational services that abound, that castro himself will not even use. He went out of country for his medical attention, remember? One more example of those on the left just not seeing the "Do as I say, not as I do" routine. It IS a regular sound from the likes of gore, tokyo rosie, soros, streisand. Liberals should really read that book---"Do as I say, not as I do", and see for yourself the hypocrisy, and double standards, that liberals live with. But---I doubt that you'll read it.

I really haven't paid much attention to Castro's health.  I know you rightwingers like to keep on top of things like that.  Perhaps if Hil gets elected president, you could move to Iraq.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: kidcarter8 on April 27, 2007, 06:37:10 PM
Nope

I am moving south, learning the "dialect" so I can get my butt lissed by her too.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: kidcarter8 on April 27, 2007, 06:38:14 PM
I do agree though that she is bilingual.

She speaks english and idiot.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on April 27, 2007, 06:40:02 PM
Nope

I am moving south, learning the "dialect" so I can get my butt lissed by her too.

Are you moving to Cuba along with NGC?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on April 28, 2007, 06:22:16 AM
Kidcarter,

How far south are you moving? Are you going to the South American countries where, with a decent nest egg, you can live like a prince and abuse the natives of those lands? Or are you moving to the American South where the conservatives still control the politics to a large extent?

If you are headed for the American South, do not expect an easy time at assimilation. I have been in Virginia for forty years, all of my family insists I have a distinct "southern" accent, but the locals spot me for a "da*n yankee" whenever I meet someone new. Of course, I give myself away easily by admitting a fondness and admiration for the blacks who strive to escape their depiction and bonds. I have been mistaken on Virginia forums, where you can't see what someone looks like, as a black person.

Of course, you could move to Texas and stand guard on the Mexican border, to keep those "unworthies" form "infection" OUR way of life.



Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on April 28, 2007, 04:20:35 PM
Or he could go to Saudi Arabia.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on April 29, 2007, 08:05:38 AM
Watergate reporter Bernstein takes apart Hillary’s career
 
Drawing on a trove of private papers from Hillary Clinton’s best friend, the legendary Watergate journalist Carl Bernstein is to publish a hard-hitting and intimate portrait of the 2008 presidential candidate, which will reveal a number of “discrepancies” in her official story.

“Bernstein reaches conclusions that stand in opposition to what Senator Clinton has said in the past and has written in the past,” said Paul Bogaards, a spokesman for Knopf, which publishes the book on June 19.

The book could revive the explosive charge, made earlier this year by David Geffen, a former Clinton donor and Hollywood mogul, that “the Clintons lie with such ease, it’s troubling”.

Liberals will now slime one of their own for daring to tell the truth about either of the clintons being congenital liars. They are both total narcissists.

ANYONE or ANYTHING but hillary.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on April 29, 2007, 02:38:47 PM
Watergate reporter Bernstein takes apart Hillary’s career
 
Drawing on a trove of private papers from Hillary Clinton’s best friend, the legendary Watergate journalist Carl Bernstein is to publish a hard-hitting and intimate portrait of the 2008 presidential candidate, which will reveal a number of “discrepancies” in her official story.

“Bernstein reaches conclusions that stand in opposition to what Senator Clinton has said in the past and has written in the past,” said Paul Bogaards, a spokesman for Knopf, which publishes the book on June 19.

The book could revive the explosive charge, made earlier this year by David Geffen, a former Clinton donor and Hollywood mogul, that “the Clintons lie with such ease, it’s troubling”.

Liberals will now slime one of their own for daring to tell the truth about either of the clintons being congenital liars. They are both total narcissists.

ANYONE or ANYTHING but hillary.

The more you whine about Hillary, the more you remind me of Braer Rabbit and the Briar Patch. 




Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on April 29, 2007, 05:51:06 PM
The more you whine about Hillary, the more you remind me of Braer Rabbit and the Briar Patch.


I see that you choose to go juvenile. I see you wish to go the mindless, belittling route of slander. I thought that this type of activity from you was----oh, never mind. Once a liberal, always a liberal.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on April 29, 2007, 08:17:48 PM
The more you whine about Hillary, the more you remind me of Braer Rabbit and the Briar Patch.


I see that you choose to go juvenile. I see you wish to go the mindless, belittling route of slander. I thought that this type of activity from you was----oh, never mind. Once a liberal, always a liberal.

Once a whiney jerk, always a whiney jerk.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: thecap0 on April 30, 2007, 11:43:43 AM
ngc,

Once a liberal, always a liberal.

Not so.  I was once a conservative; in fact, my first Presidential vote was for Goldwater.
I read Alyssa Rosenblum diligently and thought John Galt was a hero.

Then I grew up!


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on April 30, 2007, 12:34:35 PM
Personally, I'm beginning to think that NGC is suffering from Monica Envy.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on April 30, 2007, 04:05:40 PM
There has been a sudden and highly significant shift in the Democratic Presidential race: Hillary Clinton is rapidly losing her frontrunner position to Barack Obama as her negative ratings climb.

According to the Gallup poll, most Americans don’t like Hillary Clinton and the number of people who view her negatively has been steadily increasing ever since she announced her candidacy for President in January.


Hillary isn’t wearing well. It seems as if the more people see her, the less they like her. Now, for the first time, her low likeability levels are costing her votes, as Democratic party voters are abandoning her to support Barack Obama.

In February, Hillary had a 19 point lead over Obama. He is now only 5 points behind her.



Good!! Anyone or anything but hillary.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on April 30, 2007, 04:10:06 PM
Once a liberal, always a liberal.

Not so.  I was once a conservative; in fact, my first Presidential vote was for Goldwater.
I read Alyssa Rosenblum diligently and thought John Galt was a hero.

Then I grew up!


Sounds more like you failed at something, never recovered, and have been miserably jealous of those that are a success ever since. So you became a liberal and haven't looked back, huh?

My statement stands....once a liberal, always a liberal. Very few end up realizing the error of the ways of the liberal. I will never see the logic liberals profess to have since they LOVE the double standard. And live for bad news to gain power instead of actually putting out a message. Pitiful.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: thecap0 on April 30, 2007, 04:21:56 PM
ngc,
There has been a sudden and highly significant shift in the Democratic Presidential race: Hillary Clinton is rapidly losing her frontrunner position to Barack Obama as her negative ratings climb.

Gotta love it when our resident Reichwinger tries to handicap a race that affects her not at all.
Why do I hear the distinct sound of someone whistling past a grveyard?
At any rate, I can only hope that his worst nightmare comes true and that on 1/20/09, she has to choke out the words "President Clinton."
Even if she is sliding a bit, her worst day is orders of magnitude better than any of the Rebuttlickan candidates' best.
BTW, how about it, shirker, tell us why you didn't volunteer for combat during Vietnam.  Our nation would have surely benefitted from a warrior such as yourself on the front lines.
Oh, you say you were anARMCHAIR warrior?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on April 30, 2007, 04:36:06 PM
There has been a sudden and highly significant shift in the Democratic Presidential race: Hillary Clinton is rapidly losing her frontrunner position to Barack Obama as her negative ratings climb.

According to the Gallup poll, most Americans don’t like Hillary Clinton and the number of people who view her negatively has been steadily increasing ever since she announced her candidacy for President in January.


Hillary isn’t wearing well. It seems as if the more people see her, the less they like her. Now, for the first time, her low likeability levels are costing her votes, as Democratic party voters are abandoning her to support Barack Obama.

In February, Hillary had a 19 point lead over Obama. He is now only 5 points behind her.





Good!! Anyone or anything but hillary.

Prove it.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on April 30, 2007, 04:38:23 PM

BTW, how about it, shirker, tell us why you didn't volunteer for combat during Vietnam.  Our nation would have surely benefitted from a warrior such as yourself on the front lines.
Oh, you say you were anARMCHAIR warrior?

LMAO....armchair warrior.  Or Monica Envy.  NGC wishes she'd been the one in the oval office with big Bill.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on April 30, 2007, 06:46:34 PM
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) "turned some heads" last week at a briefing when she wore "dark, oversized shades, even though the classified meeting took place very much indoors." Clinton's spokesman said that she didn't have her regular prescription glasses with her, so she used the sunglasses. "Which is a lot better than the rose-colored glasses the Bush administration puts on whenever they look at their failed policy in Iraq," he added.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on April 30, 2007, 07:31:46 PM
That's a good one, Sam! I've left my glasses somewhere else, and ended up wearing my shades indoors. Since my shades are only my distance prescription rather than bifocals, it's hard to read stuff between the darkness and the wrong prescription. Plus it's embarrassing when people look at you as if you are hiding something!


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on April 30, 2007, 08:41:11 PM
BTW, how about it, shirker, tell us why you didn't volunteer for combat during Vietnam.

As I have already stated---I was a flightline re-fueling maintenance mechanic for USAF systems command.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on April 30, 2007, 09:38:43 PM
NGC,

Are you saying that you were so individually vital to Systems Command that if you had volunteered to go to 'Nam, you would have been turned down?

Tell me one I can believe.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on April 30, 2007, 10:19:36 PM
Are you saying that you were so individually vital to Systems Command that if you had volunteered to go to 'Nam, you would have been turned down?


I actually had orders for Tan Son Nhut airbase in Saigon...but there were cancelled because they didn't need more mechanics. Not my fault. They were, I was told, wanting to staff the systems commands more at that time (A support/logistics function). I would not have actually been fighting had I gone, though I would have been exposed to 122mm rocket attacks and would have had access to weaponry if needed. To my knowledge, Tan Son Nhut was never really assaulted heavily anyway.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on May 01, 2007, 12:48:40 AM
rrrrrrriiiiiiiiggggggghhhhhhhhtttttt

A likely excuse!


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh2 on May 01, 2007, 06:20:28 AM
BTW, how about it, shirker, tell us why you didn't volunteer for combat during Vietnam.

As I have already stated---I was a flightline re-fueling maintenance mechanic for USAF systems command.

I appreciate your service to our country.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 01, 2007, 09:04:41 AM
rrrrrrriiiiiiiiggggggghhhhhhhhtttttt

A likely excuse!


Well, ms. liberal, I could care less whether you believe it or not. You are a liberal that would sit back and watch this nation disintegrate for reasons based on total ignorance, and all in the name of 'peace this' or 'peace that' (Standard liberal philosophy---as if communism IS not responsible for over 100,000,000 un-necessary deaths---you know that it IS). You have zero concept of just what bad people are, and the fact that those that cut off heads with hacksaws happily read your supportive posts---and you continue right along just oblivious to the FACT that they drool over the thought of doing the same to YOUR head. You are a sheep. You are a steer in a slaughter house. You think that talk resolves everything (A shame that it can't)---but your kind of thinking IS extremely dangerous, and the sooner you realize that it IS true, the sooner absolute hate will leave your life. (I will not hold my breath)

There IS nothing moderate about you. Period. I thank the stars that YOU, or a liberal like you, IS not in charge.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 01, 2007, 10:04:07 AM
rrrrrrriiiiiiiiggggggghhhhhhhhtttttt

A likely excuse!


Well, ms. liberal, I could care less whether you believe it or not. You are a liberal that would sit back and watch this nation disintegrate for reasons based on total ignorance, and all in the name of 'peace this' or 'peace that' (Standard liberal philosophy---as if communism IS not responsible for over 100,000,000 un-necessary deaths---you know that it IS). You have zero concept of just what bad people are, and the fact that those that cut off heads with hacksaws happily read your supportive posts---and you continue right along just oblivious to the FACT that they drool over the thought of doing the same to YOUR head. You are a sheep. You are a steer in a slaughter house. You think that talk resolves everything (A shame that it can't)---but your kind of thinking IS extremely dangerous, and the sooner you realize that it IS true, the sooner absolute hate will leave your life. (I will not hold my breath)

There IS nothing moderate about you. Period. I thank the stars that YOU, or a liberal like you, IS not in charge.

You really are going off your nut, guy.  Take your medication and calm down.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: srnich on May 02, 2007, 10:06:10 AM
and all in the name of 'peace this' or 'peace that'

We wouldn't want any of THAT!

Eternal war (that I don't have to go fight) is more MANLY!

There IS nothing moderate about you. Period. I thank the stars that YOU, or a liberal like you, IS not in charge.

You're gonna LOVE January 21, 2009.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 02, 2007, 07:01:20 PM
You're gonna LOVE January 21, 2009.

Well, we'll just have to wait and see, won't we? You may be in for a surprise---tho I have said and continue to say 'Anyone or anything but hillary'.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 02, 2007, 08:27:44 PM
President Hillary Clinton.  Jan 2009.  Madame President.  Wow.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 03, 2007, 09:11:53 AM
So cindy sheehan has said that hillary IS her least favorite candidate---great. IS this a redeeming quality for her?

From The Hill--20Questions profiles Cindy Sheehan 
By Betsy Rothstein


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 03, 2007, 09:21:45 AM
The Rasmussen poll, ended on April 26, 2007, shows Obama beating Hillary, albeit by the slim margin of 32-30. This is, of course, the first national poll among Democratic candidates that shows Obama in the lead. Rasmussen, whose polls seem to be one step ahead of everybody else’s, had the candidates tied two weeks ago and has shown Obama creeping up with each survey.

Good! Seems that more and more people are waking up to SEE just what kind of lying-narcissist-charlatan hillary "IS". Sure hope this continues.

Anyone or anything but hillary.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 03, 2007, 10:16:07 AM
The Republican candidates are to have a debate soon.  Romney talks in TV ads here in NH about how he vetoed lots of bills when Governor of MA; the thing he doesn't mention is that most of his vetoes didn't stand. 


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 03, 2007, 10:20:22 AM
Crazy for Rudy

Many New York political pros believe Rudy Giuliani—former mayor, hero of 9/11, and now presidential candidate—is, quite literally, nuts. The author asks whether Giuliani's lunatic behavior could be the ultimate campaign asset.

by Michael Wolff/June 2007

There's no politician more fun to write about than Rudy Giuliani. He's your political show of shows—driven to ever greater public outlandishness by a do-anything compulsion always to be at the center of attention. At some point, when he was New York's mayor, it seemed to stop mattering to him that this attention was, for his political career, the bad kind of attention. Politics appeared no longer to be his interest; to prove, over and over again, that it's his right—his art, even—to be at the center of attention was. Even this does not really explain the implausibility, and entertainment, of Rudy as a politician.

Rudy Giuliani and his third wife, the former Judith Nathan, who has become a colorful distraction for his campaign. Illustration By André Carrilho.
The explanation for what makes Rudy so compelling among people who know him best—including New York reporters who've covered him for a generation, and political pros who've worked for him—is simpler: he is nuts, actually mad.

Now, this line should be delivered with the proper timing (smack your head in astonishment when you deliver it). And it implies some admiration and affection: he's an original. But it is, too, a considered political diagnosis: every student of Rudy Giuliani—indeed, every New Yorker—has witnessed, and in many cases suffered, his periods of mania, political behavior that, in the end, can't have much of a rational explanation.

So, if you are not from New York, if you haven't had the pleasure of what Jack Newfield, that querulous old-school New York City columnist and reporter, called "the Full Rudy"—also the title of his 2002 book about the former mayor—you perhaps cannot appreciate our sense of emperor's-new-clothes incredulity. Despite what's in front of everybody's face—behavior that's not only in the public record but recapped on the front pages every day—becoming president could really happen for Rudy.

No, that is wrong: virtually every Full Rudy veteran expects the implosion to happen any second. It's in some bizarro parallel reality that the Rudy campaign achieves verisimilitude and even—strange, too, when you consider the cronies and hacks who surround him—appears, at times, adept.

It's a Catch-22 kind of nuttiness. What with all his personal issues—the children; the women; the former wives; Kerik and the Mob; his history of interminable, bitter, asinine hissy fits; the look in his eye; and, now, Judi!, his current, prospective, not-ready-for-prime-time First Lady—he'd have to be nuts to think he could successfully run for president. But nutty people don't run for president—certainly they don't get far if they do....

More:

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/06/wolff200706?printable=true&currentPage=all (http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/06/wolff200706?printable=true&currentPage=all)


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 03, 2007, 10:39:56 AM
Many New York political pros believe Rudy Giuliani—former mayor, hero of 9/11, and now presidential candidate—is, quite literally, nuts.


Fear not---he will not be the Rs nominee.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 03, 2007, 12:26:03 PM
Many New York political pros believe Rudy Giuliani—former mayor, hero of 9/11, and now presidential candidate—is, quite literally, nuts.


Fear not---he will not be the Rs nominee.

Who will Hillary be running against?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 03, 2007, 12:29:15 PM
Many New York political pros believe Rudy Giuliani—former mayor, hero of 9/11, and now presidential candidate—is, quite literally, nuts.


Fear not---he will not be the Rs nominee.

Who will Hillary be running against?
If you accept the view that the activist base determines the candidate for both parties, it's hard to envision any of the Repo front runners - Gulianni, Romney or McCain, getting the nomination.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: liquidsilver on May 03, 2007, 12:40:13 PM
If that holds true, Thompson could be the nominee


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 03, 2007, 12:45:25 PM
He's good on television.  Is that all you need to be president?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: liquidsilver on May 03, 2007, 12:46:33 PM
Worked for Reagan


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 03, 2007, 12:47:21 PM
I've been reading more about the Mormons.  Talk about your hustler and your snake oil.  Now comes Mitt.  Ugh.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 03, 2007, 12:54:42 PM
As Republican contenders for the presidential nomination gather for their first debate Thursday night at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and Museum, they are caught between a rock and a hard place. The vast majority of Americans have given up on George Bush, the sitting conservative president. But the die-hards who still support him are loyal Republican primary voters that no Republican candidate can afford to offend.

The Big Con How can the contenders distance themselves from Bush’s failures without alienating their own base? Expect them to invoke the conservative icon Ronald Reagan early and often. They’ll call for a return to the faith, pledge to follow in the footsteps of the Gipper and promise a new “Morning in America.”

Watch a debate between conservative William Kristol and progressive Robert Kuttner at 12:30 p.m. Thursday on C-SPAN3.
Follow the Failure of Conservatism Conference on The Big Con blog.

But the Gipper can’t save them. Bush’s signature failures—the war in Iraq, Katrina, Enron and the corporate scandals, failed tax and trade policies, the attempt to privatize Social Security, the posturing around Terri Schaivo and stem cells – can be traced back not simply to the conservative ideology and ideologues that sired them—but to the core conservative doctrine that Reagan championed. The Gipper can’t lead Republican candidates out of the wilderness because, to paraphrase him, his conservatism is not the solution to their problem; his conservatism is the problem.

Over the last six years, with Bush in the White House, Tom DeLay ramrodding the Republican Congress, and Karl Rove focused on mobilizing the Republican base, conservatives have largely had their way. Bush pursued the core ideas of each strand of “movement conservatism” largely to catastrophic effect. In each case, he was simply walking in Reagan’s footsteps.

The neo-cons got the Iraq war they plotted for, and produced the worst foreign policy debacle in U.S. history. Their toxic mix of militarist unilateralism, scorn for allies and the United Nations, dismissal of international law, embrace of an imperial presidency above the law was Reagan’s opening act. In his first term, Reagan scorned détente, arms control, the U.N. and global accords. Reagan also fecklessly exposed U.S. troops in Lebanon—and had the intervention literally blow up in his face. He just had the good sense to cut and run, and then pick on a target easier to deal with—hapless Grenada in the Caribbean.

Under Bush, corporate conservatives took charge of economic policy and pushed through top-end tax cuts, Wall Street trade policies, deregulation and privatization, crony corporate staffing and subsidies, open assault on labor unions, rollback of consumer and environmental protections. The results were stagnant wages, a corporate crime wave, Gilded Age inequality, the worst trade deficits in the annals of time, billions squandered in subsidies to Big Oil and Big Pharma—and an economy now dependent on the good will of Chinese and Japanese central bankers. But Bush was only ordering from the Gipper's menu. He first served up the same noxious policy cocktail—and got the same results, even including the corporate plunder culminating in the savings and loan rip-off that cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars.

Small government conservatives didn’t get much from either president, since both favored top-end tax cuts and military spending over balanced budgets. But both Bush and Reagan cut back on spending on the poor and on domestic programs. Both disdained the civil servants they were elected to lead. Both starved vital infrastructure investments from levees in New Orleans to sewers in our cities. Both stocked regulatory agencies with corporate lobbyists intent on gelding the agencies that monitored their former clients. For Reagan, the scandals ranged from the Department of Housing and Urban Development to the Interior department. Bush was less lucky, as Katrina exposed the terrible price of conservative scorn for government.

Under Bush, fundamentalists got mostly gestures and a politics of division—posturing on gay marriage amendments, gag rules on family planning and birth control abroad, curbs on stem cell research, intrusion into the personal tragedy of Terri Schaivo. But Reagan first practiced that playbook, using race to divide, invoking conservative values but ducking pitched battles over them.

Why is Reagan popular and Bush dismissed? Much comes from personal nostalgia for the old performer and from the right-wing campaign to deify him. Unlike Bush, Reagan avoided losing a war. He talked tough but was actually cautious in the use of military force, much to the dismay of the neoconservatives who assailed him. He was also saved by his adversaries – the USSR’s Mikhail Gorbachev who essentially sued for peace, and Democrats in Congress who blocked many of Reagan’s domestic excesses—like the talk of gutting Social Security. Bush had no such luck. His catastrophic occupation of Iraq has provided al Qaeda and its franchises with recruits across the world, and for the last six years, his allies controlled the Congress and followed his lead.

So what will Republican candidates do? Stay loyal to a failed president? Embrace Ronald Reagan, whose conservative ideology is at the root of Bush’s failures? Adjust the right-wing catechism, or choose doctrine over experience?

Perhaps there’s one lesson the Gipper can offer.  Republicans are going to need someone with Reagan’s ability to peddle the unpalatable. No wonder a yet-undeclared TV actor—Fred Thompson—is emerging as their new best hope.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: srnich on May 03, 2007, 03:37:02 PM
.. When asked his favorite novel in an interview shown yesterday on the Fox News Channel, Mitt Romney pointed to “Battlefield Earth,” a novel by L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology. That book was turned into a film by John Travolta, a Scientologist.

A spokesman said later it was one of Mr. Romney’s favorite novels.

“I’m not in favor of his religion by any means,” Mr. Romney, a Mormon, said. “But he wrote a book called ‘Battlefield Earth’ that was a very fun science-fiction book.” Asked about his favorite book, Mr. Romney cited the Bible.




Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: srnich on May 03, 2007, 03:41:01 PM
Can't wait till the debate.

Mitt and Rudy9/11, with John (bomb, bomb, bomb,) Mccain -

- alongside Ron (dirt roads) Paul and Tom (blame the immigrant) Tancredo.

What cluster this will be.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 03, 2007, 03:57:08 PM
Can't wait till the debate.

Mitt and Rudy9/11, with John (bomb, bomb, bomb,) Mccain -

- alongside Ron (dirt roads) Paul and Tom (blame the immigrant) Tancredo.

What cluster this will be.

They will all be barking at the moon by the tiime it's over.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: liquidsilver on May 03, 2007, 04:04:16 PM
Kind of interesting that he's flip flopped from Huckleberry Finn.  He didn't have 'Battleship Earth' on his Facebook site.

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/RomneyBooks3.jpg


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 03, 2007, 04:06:50 PM
Here in NH we've been bombarded with Romney Political Ads already in which he claims he's vetoed many bills; the only problem is, he doesn't mention that most of his vetos were over ridden by the legislature.  Romney, IMHO, is as phoney as they come.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 03, 2007, 05:14:02 PM
A Harlem state senator became the first of New York's Democratic officials to break ranks with Sen. Hillary Clinton yesterday and endorse her presidential rival, Sen. Barack Obama.

State Sen. Bill Perkins (D-Harlem) told the Daily News that he will formally announce his support for Obama tonight, and some believe it could encourage other New York Dems to defect.

"I think that his message of hope and opportunity is the right message. ... There's no question that folks in New York - and throughout the country - are looking for a change from the way things are being done," said Perkins, who was among a handful of city officials who attended an Obama fund-raiser here in March.

Obama has been poaching campaign cash on Clinton's turf and now appears poised to pick off some of her fellow Democrats.

Ironically, the first to endorse Obama represents the area where Bill Clinton's office is located.



Another slap in the face to hillary. And deservedly so. More and more wake up to the reality of the charlatan that she IS.

Anyone or anything but hillary.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 03, 2007, 06:07:00 PM
As revealed in their willingness to see the United States defeated in Iraq, the liberals also showed the white flag of surrender when faced with a terrifying debate hosted by the evil Fox News. They ran for cover.

The liberals refused to participate if Fox is to be in charge of the debate and the coverage of the session, with Fox reporters questioning the candidates and moderating the session. After all, the last thing the liberals want is a fair and balanced presentation, which is what Fox offers. They demand a rigged game.

According to MSNBC, "The first debate, which was to be co-sponsored by Fox and the Nevada Democratic Party, had been set for this August but was canceled. Fox then teamed with the Congressional Black Caucus Political Education and Leadership Institute for a Sept. 23 debate that is still scheduled, even though John Edwards, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton all said they won't attend."

That more or less leaves Dennis Kucinich and a couple of other hopeless hopefuls to face the lions in the Fox's den next September.

As Ann Coulter put it, "The not-visibly-insane Democrats all claim they'll get rough with the terrorists, but they can't even face Brit Hume.

They always insist on having the umpires in their back pockets. If they are fair and unbiased the liberals won't play in their ballpark. As Dracula is said to cringe before a crucifix, the liberals tremble in the face of facts.

The Republicans, however, are not only willing to fight an unpopular war in Iraq against the insurgents, they are also willing to face the hostility of the home-grown insurgency that has captured the Democratic Party, the mainstream media, and liberal Chris Matthews and NBC.

Think about it — the liberals run away from a fair and balanced Fox-sponsored debate while the Republicans have no problem agreeing to a debate moderated by the Bush-hating, anti-GOP Matthews, whose idea of balance is to tilt everything towards the liberal side, and run by NBC, the most liberal network. The GOP attitude: "Bring ‘em on," contrasted with the liberals' cut-and-run strategy.

In this case, as in the case of the war in Iraq, the Republicans are standing up while the liberals continue to display that large yellow streak that runs down their spines, even retreating in the face of what they regard as a deadly threat: an unbiased Fox network.




Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 03, 2007, 06:30:34 PM
Faux News is nothing more than a propaganda tool of the rightwing neocon fascists. 


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on May 03, 2007, 09:59:53 PM
Seems to me, NGC, that since you did not serve in Viet Nam with your buddies, you are the one with the yellow streak down your back. Is that why you keep asserting that those opposed to the killing of men, women and children in Iraq by the US Army, etc., should be stopped? How many more do you want killed anyway?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 04, 2007, 09:00:07 AM
Seems to me, NGC, that since you did not serve in Viet Nam with your buddies, you are the one with the yellow streak down your back. Is that why you keep asserting that those opposed to the killing of men, women and children in Iraq by the US Army, etc., should be stopped? How many more do you want killed anyway?


A very gratuitous comment from you, ms. liberal---that I have a yellow streak, and asking if I want more people killed---while you sit at home in anonymity behind your keyboard. You make me think of the pathetic little 'hump every guy you can' make-love-not-war peacenik that was around during the Vietnam war, and that would spit on our troops and call them baby killers. Very pathetic, btw, since even samiinh has thanked me for my service (And I still will not return posts to him/her since the tendency to go vulgar over-rides civility) In case you have NOT noticed, there are more women and children being killed by iranian insurgents and islamic fanatics strapping explosives to women and children. You defending these animals?  But, since you wish to wear your blinders, parse, and say I am a coward, all I can say to you IS that you are pitiful. A cranky old lady approaching senility that has nothing better to do than express insults to someone that simply calls her what she IS---a liberal. You hide behind the desire for peace (Something that everyone wants) w/o seeing that bad guys exist, and they'll kill you, too, given the chance. Yet you wish to be a sheep and wait for your slaughter. Thank God people like you are not in charge. I see no point in wasting time with you, and I am not initiating contact with you---it IS jsut un-necessary. Yet it IS you that continues to elicit responses from me, some questions of which you will not even define, and then have the propensity (W/O fact) to call me a coward. Veeerrrry liberal of you. Why don't you just enjoy your pension and clip coupons.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 04, 2007, 09:11:38 AM
Paris - Socialist Segolene Royal warned on Friday that France could slide into violence if Nicolas Sarkozy wins the presidency as polls showed the rightwinger had extended his lead.

"His candidacy is dangerous. That is why I ask voters to think twice," said Royal in an interview to RTL radio on the final day of campaigning ahead of the election on Sunday.

Two polls released on Friday showed Sarkozy pulling ahead of Royal with 53 and 54% of votes against 46 and 47% for the Socialist.

Royal, who wants to become France's first woman president, said she was "issuing an alert" that the election of Sarkozy to the presidency could "trigger violence and brutalities across the country".



Sounds like the socialist IS taking a page from car-vile's palybook---try to initiate fear and scare rather than talk issues.

Great that a non-liberal IS looking like he's going to win. Maybe there IS a bit of hope yet for france.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 04, 2007, 09:30:13 AM
Earlier this year, the Sunday Times of London reported, "Hillary Clinton is to be presented as America's Margaret Thatcher as she tries to become the first woman to win the White House." Clinton aide Terry McAulliffe defended the idea of Hillary Clinton as the new Margaret Thatcher by noting: "Their policies are totally different, but they are both perceived as very tough. She is strong on foreign policy. People have got to know you are going to keep them safe."

In October 2002, Hillary Clinton demonstrated that strength when she spoke ardently about the need to take on Saddam Hussein's regime: It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.
With public support for the war effort still respectably high, Clinton remained an advocate for the mission in Iraq in April 2004. Clinton appeared on "Larry King Live" to say that she didn't regret her vote supporting President Bush's decisions to launch Operation Iraqi Freedom.

"No, I don't regret giving the president authority because at the time it was in the context of weapons of mass destruction, grave threats to the United States, and clearly, Saddam Hussein had been a real problem for the international community for more than a decade." But now that support for the mission in Iraq has fallen, Clinton's done a complete reversal, announcing in an e-mail to supporters:"If Congress had been asked [to authorize the war], based on what we know now, we never would have agreed. …"

Sorry, but Margaret Thatcher was a woman of convictions who fought for what she believed in, no matter how popular or unpopular her stance on an issue may have been. Hillary is nothing of the sort.

Anyone or anything but hillary.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 04, 2007, 10:36:53 AM
Solid debate last night.  All candidates qualified and prepared.  Some more polished than others.

Rudy the most polished, with Romney a close second.  But some of Guiliani's material a bit worrisome.  Can't at this point get behind McCAIN.  Worried he may just be too much the live wire, though I'd never question him on issues.  AGE - yes - despite RR's presidency - does also factor in here.

Ruled out just one candidate last night, intrigued by a couple of faces I did not know.

No frontrunner for me just yet.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: thecap0 on May 04, 2007, 11:02:07 AM
ngc,
Sounds like the socialist IS taking a page from car-vile's palybook (sic.)---try to initiate fear and scare rather than talk issues.


Sorry for your typo; the forum is sure you meant to write ROVE'S Playbook.

It was wonderful to hear the Repugnicans march in to the plaintive strains of Send in the Clowns.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 04, 2007, 11:25:35 AM
Sorry for your typo; the forum is sure you meant to write ROVE'S Playbook.


You are a real hoot. Regardless of whose playbook it IS from, the socialist IS apparently going to lose the election. That just sux for you, doesn't it? Because of voter intimidations, ballot box rigging, some other candidate siphoning off votes, the will of the people being trashed, the french supreme ct gonna get a hand in it, something from the liberals list of reasons that bush won?

BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 04, 2007, 01:18:26 PM
Hillary is winning voters with her bill to rescind the authorization of 2002 to go after Saddam's non-existant WMD.  She's a winner.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 04, 2007, 02:12:53 PM
May God have mercy on this nation's political soul
May 4, 2007 - 8:36am.

    * The Rant

By DOUG THOMPSON

Now that we've all had a chance to see the parade of wannabes from both sides of the political aisle stake out their so-called positions on the issues in two tightly-controlled, and endlessly boring, "debates" the only conclusion that any sane person can reach is "oh my God, we're in a lot of trouble."

Thursday night's Republican debacle…I mean debate…staged in grand style under the wings of Ronald Reagan's Air Force One Boeing 707 at the late President's library showcased just how out of touch the party of the elephant is with mainstream America.

The candidates avoided any mention of President George W. Bush. Not surprising. You don't get elected by tying yourself to a failed leader with a 30 percent job approval. So they invoked the memory of a dead President - Reagan - hoping the myth might overshadow reality and, somehow, help their faltering election hopes.

It won't. Reagan is not the political god that Republicans try to create in such hushed tones and the GOP that these candidates represent today is a far cry from the party that existed when the Gipper served in office.

While Democrats seek political extinction through moderation and capitulation, Republicans, for the most part, stick with the same, tired, extremist agenda that alienates voters.

GOP frontrunner Rudy Giuliani may avoid mentioning George W. Bush but he sounds a lot like Dubya. Democrats, he says, run and hide from terrorism and only he and the GOP can save America.

John McCain, who may set a record in the speed that he drops from presumed frontrunner to actual also-ran, says war is the only answer.

Mitt Romney says a lot of things - most of them contradictory. He may or may not be a hunter, depending on the day. He may or may not support abortion. Heck, he may or may not be a Republican.

As for the rest of the field, who knows and who cares? Under George W. Bush's tortured tenure, Republicans have become the party of excess, even fielding more candidates for President than the Democrats and suffering from more hot button issues: abortion, same-sex marriage, stem-cell research and the biggie: Bush's illegal and immoral war in Iraq.

Bringing up Ronald Reagan's name 19 times won't save the Republican Party. Drafting lawyer-actor-former Senator Fred Thompson won't either.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 04, 2007, 02:58:11 PM
Doug Thompson can say While Democrats seek political extinction through moderation and capitulation, Republicans, for the most part, stick with the same, tired, extremist agenda that alienates voters. But just saying so doesn't make it true. If it were true, I wonder why every poll that you can just about name right now shows Giuliani beating hillary or obama? And Giuliani won't even be the nominee---it will be either Fred or JEB. BUT---That ISn't decided yet. I do not believe that hillary will be the nominee for the Ds. They cannot be that stupid. But who knows. Anyone but hillary as far as I am concerned will be better for this country. Reagan is not the political god that Republicans try to create in such hushed tones, but the again, neither are either of the clintons---and the sooner the Ds realize this the better.

I see the RANT as nothing more than an 'I wish this were true' article. Liberals keep referring to 'bush's illegal and immoral war---yet these people seem to forget that it was authorized by congress---and it IS just as much their fault as his. And with even CNN realizing that pulling out too early would be a disaster, the rant becomes even more of an "I wish this were true' article. Same-sex marriage? The word cannot be applied, as the word marriage IS sacred to more people than moveon.org would care to admit to. Abortion? The agenda of death IS not going to carry the Ds to victory.

Stem cell research? Adult cells from the same body looks promising---but fetal cells have shown no promise---from the scientific articles I have seen.

The Ds need to get rid of the radical 'moveon types' side of the equation, and they'd be unbeatable---IMHO. But---do not hold your breath.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 04, 2007, 03:27:27 PM
Moveon.org has made valuable progress against rightwing theocrats, IMHO.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 04, 2007, 04:30:38 PM
Moveon.org has made valuable progress against rightwing theocrats, IMHO.


What would you guess IS why Rush, Hannity, Boortz, and O'Reilly, etc.,  have followings and ratings that put moveon to shame? Or would you think that there are more that pay attention to moveon than these that I have listed?

I would estimate that Rush alone has done more for conservatives than any radio, TV, or internet program has done for either side. I know you probably have the same distaste for Rush that I do for moveon, but why would the ratings and followings be as they are? Could truth be invloved, or just political positioning?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 04, 2007, 07:20:51 PM
Moveon.org has made valuable progress against rightwing theocrats, IMHO.


What would you guess IS why Rush, Hannity, Boortz, and O'Reilly, etc.,  have followings and ratings that put moveon to shame? Or would you think that there are more that pay attention to moveon than these that I have listed?

I would estimate that Rush alone has done more for conservatives than any radio, TV, or internet program has done for either side. I know you probably have the same distaste for Rush that I do for moveon, but why would the ratings and followings be as they are? Could truth be invloved, or just political positioning?

IMHO, Rush is just a loud mouth entertainer.  Moveon.org is a grass roots network of progressive thinking people who want nothing more than to save this country from rightwing fascist and neocon war mongers like some of the posters who post on this forum.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 04, 2007, 08:18:20 PM
Moveon.org has made valuable progress against rightwing theocrats, IMHO.


What would you guess IS why Rush, Hannity, Boortz, and O'Reilly, etc.,  have followings and ratings that put moveon to shame? Or would you think that there are more that pay attention to moveon than these that I have listed?

I would estimate that Rush alone has done more for conservatives than any radio, TV, or internet program has done for either side. I know you probably have the same distaste for Rush that I do for moveon, but why would the ratings and followings be as they are? Could truth be invloved, or just political positioning?

IMHO, Rush is just a loud mouth entertainer.  Moveon.org is a grass roots network of progressive thinking people who want nothing more than to save this country from rightwing fascist and neocon war mongers like some of the posters who post on this forum.

Are you saying I am a neocon warmonger and fascist? I have already stated that we should not have entered Iraq.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: thecap0 on May 04, 2007, 09:08:25 PM
ngc,

] Yet it IS you that continues to elicit responses from me, some questions of which you will not even define, and then have the propensity (W/O fact) to call me a coward.

If you were truly not a coward, you would not have to take up so much bandwidth proclaiming that you were and are not.

The names of two boys I taught in high school are inscribed on the Wall in DC.  If either Jack Horton or Bobby Bates were alive today, they would step into the gutter rather than meet you.  They had lots of names for you and your ilk.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 05, 2007, 06:27:42 AM
Moveon.org has made valuable progress against rightwing theocrats, IMHO.


What would you guess IS why Rush, Hannity, Boortz, and O'Reilly, etc.,  have followings and ratings that put moveon to shame? Or would you think that there are more that pay attention to moveon than these that I have listed?

I would estimate that Rush alone has done more for conservatives than any radio, TV, or internet program has done for either side. I know you probably have the same distaste for Rush that I do for moveon, but why would the ratings and followings be as they are? Could truth be invloved, or just political positioning?

IMHO, Rush is just a loud mouth entertainer.  Moveon.org is a grass roots network of progressive thinking people who want nothing more than to save this country from rightwing fascist and neocon war mongers like some of the posters who post on this forum.

Are you saying I am a neocon warmonger and fascist? I have already stated that we should not have entered Iraq.

If the shoe fits, wear it.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: thecap0 on May 05, 2007, 10:52:50 AM
sam.

If the shoe fits, wear it.

Ngc's constant whining about how he is not a coward reminds me of nothing so much as Tricky Dickie's, " I am not a crook!"

There really is nothing new under the sun.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 05, 2007, 12:33:42 PM
Obama is seen as the most optimistic candidate (a consistent measure of electability) in either party: 51 percent of registered voters say the Illinois senator is optimistic, compared to 47 percent who say Edwards is, 46 percent for Clinton, 45 percent for Giuliani, 40 percent for McCain, and 27 for Romney.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 05, 2007, 04:24:06 PM
Ngc's constant whining about how he is not a coward ...


Not whining at all---you wish to evade rational debate, well, that's very liberal of you. If it makes you feel superior to call me a coward, that's just a liberal's thoughts sitting behind a keyboard safely tucked away in anonymity, mr. liberal. Have at it---stroke yourself all ya want to. It IS probably the bravest thing YOU'LL ever accomplish!


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 05, 2007, 08:34:57 PM
Ngc's constant whining about how he is not a coward ...


Not whining at all---you wish to evade rational debate, well, that's very liberal of you. If it makes you feel superior to call me a coward, that's just a liberal's thoughts sitting behind a keyboard safely tucked away in anonymity, mr. liberal. Have at it---stroke yourself all ya want to. It IS probably the bravest thing YOU'LL ever accomplish!

Who were you addressing this to, Ngc? 


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: thecap0 on May 05, 2007, 08:39:54 PM
ngc,

Have at it---stroke yourself all ya want to. It IS probably the bravest thing YOU'LL ever accomplish!

Since neither you nor I saw combat, I suggest that makes us equal, except that I'm not trying to get 40 years of stories out of one year's noncombatant service.

Oh, and BTW, please call me a liberal again; it's what I am, and I wear the title with pride.,


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 06, 2007, 08:33:21 AM
ngc,

Have at it---stroke yourself all ya want to. It IS probably the bravest thing YOU'LL ever accomplish!

Since neither you nor I saw combat, I suggest that makes us equal, except that I'm not trying to get 40 years of stories out of one year's noncombatant service.

Oh, and BTW, please call me a liberal again; it's what I am, and I wear the title with pride.,

That's a rather vulgar statement, NGC, coming from someone who claims not to be vulgar.  It connotes the same tone as Cheney's expression of "Go F--K yourself."


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: thecap0 on May 06, 2007, 08:40:55 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/us/politics/06giuliani.html?ref=politics

Can anyone here spell P-A-N-D-E-R?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 06, 2007, 09:07:20 AM
That's a rather vulgar statement, NGC, coming from someone who claims not to be vulgar.

I was referring to passing your own hand over your own head like someone would a dog or cat, mr. liberal. PET yourself. But, it may be that you see something vulgar in so much that you mind IS clouded. I do not care. I said nothing vulgar---period. Only a liberal will attempt to vulgarize that which IS not. Parse all you want to. It IS common place for a liberal to switch discussion away from the topic at hand to asassinate character or slander that which purveys something the liberal doesn't like. And you prove it.

For the sake of arguement, why don't WE stick to the topics of the threads? Just a suggestion. WE'll proceed how you suggest.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 06, 2007, 09:20:58 AM
That's a rather vulgar statement, NGC, coming from someone who claims not to be vulgar.

I was referring to passing your own hand over your own head like someone would a dog or cat, mr. liberal. PET yourself. But, it may be that you see something vulgar in so much that you mind IS clouded. I do not care. I said nothing vulgar---period. Only a liberal will attempt to vulgarize that which IS not. Parse all you want to. It IS common place for a liberal to switch discussion away from the topic at hand to asassinate character or slander that which purveys something the liberal doesn't like. And you prove it.

For the sake of arguement, why don't WE stick to the topics of the threads? Just a suggestion. WE'll proceed how you suggest.

I guess you never heard of Karl Rove.  He's a master at "character assassination" and he's also a rightwing conservative fascist.  Perhaps YOU need-to be a little more careful in how you phrase your come-backs, mister fascist.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 06, 2007, 09:25:35 AM
I guess you never heard of Karl Rove.  He's a master at "character assassination" and he's also a rightwing conservative fascist.  Perhaps YOU need-to be a little more careful in how you phrase your come-backs, mister fascist.

Since when have I supported rove? Not once. It appears that I am going to finally just ignore you after your last comment. It was your choice.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 06, 2007, 09:29:30 AM
I guess you never heard of Karl Rove.  He's a master at "character assassination" and he's also a rightwing conservative fascist.  Perhaps YOU need-to be a little more careful in how you phrase your come-backs, mister fascist.

Since when have I supported rove? Not once. It appears that I am going to finally just ignore you after your last comment. It was your choice.

As usual, you missed the point completely.  You claimed that "liberals", your obsession, were character assassins.  My point was the grand master is a ultra conservative in your camp, where you support him or not is irrelevant.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 06, 2007, 09:38:05 AM
I guess you never heard of Karl Rove.  He's a master at "character assassination" and he's also a rightwing conservative fascist.  Perhaps YOU need-to be a little more careful in how you phrase your come-backs, mister fascist.

Since when have I supported rove? Not once. It appears that I am going to finally just ignore you after your last comment. It was your choice.

As usual, you missed the point completely.  You claimed that "liberals", your obsession, were character assassins.  My point was the grand master is a ultra conservative in your camp, where you support him or not is irrelevant.

You are always trying to associate me with something like this. You add fascist, and it ain't so. You said you are a liberal and proud of it, right? So me calling you a liberal IS just confirming your own words. I have said I am a conservative, but not fascist. fair? Call me conservative, and there'll be some honesty, instead of something else. Fair? When we are speaking of vulgarities, we are speaking of HERE---not in DC---unless specifically stated.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 06, 2007, 12:13:46 PM
Looks like the socialist IS going down. Great day for France.

I wonder what liberals waill say about the conservative winning?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 06, 2007, 02:21:48 PM
In France, no less! Of all places. Leftists, socialists, liberal positions rejected by LARGE margin. Revolution they are calling it---a harbinger of doom for the liberals in the 2008 elections? I wonder what IS running thru the minds of Terry McAuliffe, clinton, obama, car-vile, anne lewis, begala, leahy, waxman, conyers, durbin, and the rest of the liberals? For some it IS already a foregone conclusion---they are going to impeach bush just before the next elections,... and the fishing expeditions will continue as well with the idea of sliming as many non-liberals as IS possible---along with the hate bush, hate bush, hate bush routine that has consumed the liberals in DC, and the 'mainstream' media (This IS a result that dan rather hates as well, wouldn't you imagine? As well as those that fabricate things for hate's sake.).

Liberal constituencies? How does the backseat feel? Tho you're probably happy that liberals are simply going after bush in any way, shape, fashion, and form. Right?



Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 06, 2007, 04:38:21 PM
Liberal constituencies? How does the backseat feel? Tho you're probably happy that liberals are simply going after bush in any way, shape, fashion, and form. Right?



We've been sitting in the back seat since 1994, but now we are in the front seat and you rightwing fascists are in the backseat.  So tell us how it feels, fascist.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 06, 2007, 05:56:48 PM
So tell us how it feels, fascist.

I don't know how to answer, as I am not a fascist, mr. liberal. Ask a fascist how he feels---I wouldn't know. But, as on other threads, you'll continue with the juvenility. It IS a liberal trait. Name calling IS the sign of a weak mind you know. Or maybe you don't. But, you are definitely a liberal---since you have admitted it, right? So I am not projecting---you are.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 06, 2007, 06:36:38 PM
Quote
So tell us how it feels, fascist.
That's so unfair.  Comrade ngc is a communist who believes in nationalizing the means of production.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 06, 2007, 06:46:18 PM
Quote
So tell us how it feels, fascist.
That's so unfair.  Comrade ngc is a communist who believes in nationalizing the means of production.

LOL...comrade ngc.  I love it.  He is a commie, you're right. 


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 06, 2007, 10:19:14 PM
Liberals---as I have been saying, you are pathetic. You just have to reduce the debate to character assassination and name calling. Very liberal of you. But, it IS predictable. Go right ahead and enjoy your juvenility. What flavor kool aid would you like me to serve you?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on May 06, 2007, 10:41:57 PM
NGC,

If you'd stop characterizing the liberals, they would stop characterizing you. You brought it on yourself with your outrageous and insulting statements about "liberals" which cannot possibly be applied to all "liberals", especially considering the way in which you determine who is a "liberal".

If you don't have something to say about the subject of the thread, why not just sit down and be quiet.

The Dems are going to win next year. There is nothing you can do about it. You can rail against Hillary all you want, but it won't change the direction of the country. The conservatives had their day. They had their war. It's over. Do try to bow out gracefully!!!


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 06, 2007, 11:46:37 PM
If you'd stop characterizing the liberals, they would stop characterizing you.

Liberals may characterize me with the opposite of liberal---conservative--all day, and that will be fair. Resorting to other name calling and vulgarity IS just plain nasty and un-necessary---except to liberals that cannot stand being called liberal---I must be hitting the mark to get those reactions, huh?. And you know it.


If you don't have something to say about the subject of the thread, why not just sit down and be quiet.

I could say the same thing about the liberals vulgar posts to me! Just answering back.


The Dems are going to win next year. There is nothing you can do about it. You can rail against Hillary all you want, but it won't change the direction of the country. The conservatives had their day. 

That remains to be seen. If you notice what just happened in France, I must say don't count your chickens yet! If a democrat or a republican wins, we'll all still be losers. Yet liberals actually think that democrats have their best interests at heart. They don't. (Check out the recent shenanigans of Feinstein, if you care to see for your self) That's why I don't vote for Ds or Rs. And you'll probably just accuse me of lying here, but what the heck---that's the way liberals do it.

Anyone or anything but hillary. Either party.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 07, 2007, 01:23:55 AM
If you'd stop characterizing the liberals, they would stop characterizing you.

Liberals may characterize me with the opposite of liberal---conservative--all day, and that will be fair. Resorting to other name calling and vulgarity IS just plain nasty and un-necessary---except to liberals that cannot stand being called liberal---I must be hitting the mark to get those reactions, huh?. And you know it.


If you don't have something to say about the subject of the thread, why not just sit down and be quiet.

I could say the same thing about the liberals vulgar posts to me! Just answering back.


The Dems are going to win next year. There is nothing you can do about it. You can rail against Hillary all you want, but it won't change the direction of the country. The conservatives had their day. 

That remains to be seen. If you notice what just happened in France, I must say don't count your chickens yet! If a democrat or a republican wins, we'll all still be losers. Yet liberals actually think that democrats have their best interests at heart. They don't. (Check out the recent shenanigans of Feinstein, if you care to see for your self) That's why I don't vote for Ds or Rs. And you'll probably just accuse me of lying here, but what the heck---that's the way liberals do it.

Anyone or anything but hillary. Either party.
See, when you call someone a liberal, you don't mean liberal in any real world sense of the word, you mean the insult in your tag.  It is just a way for you to insult people and then lie about what you are doing.  It is as dishonest argumentively as you are intellectually.  I could call you a conservative, define it as - to choose your nomenclature, a*****e.  But it is just so much easier - and much more honest - to cut to the chase.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 07, 2007, 05:51:12 AM
Typical liberal responses---someone comes up with a video-tape WITH audio of someone breaking the law (hillary) and since that person breaking the law IS a liberal, liberals will poo-poo the source and the accusation---w/o even assessing the merit of the evidence. Quite pathetic. If the accused was a republican, the response would be obviously different. Liberals pull the wool over the eyes of no-one with a grain of brain. If, for example, the video was of a republican castrating his principles with abramoff, I would be calling for his incarceration---providing the evidence was valid. In the case of a video with audio, it IS quite compelling---regardless of political affiliation. Unless, of course, one IS a liberal attempting to protect and defend another liberal.

Post #4.  Ngc.  Liberal this, liberal that.  You brought this on yourself, Ngc.  You started with the name calling and you continue.  That you can give it out but cannot take it says a great deal about YOU.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on May 07, 2007, 07:17:25 AM
NGC,

Consider, that when you label someone a liberal and then define liberalism in a negative way which is not what that someone is about, you are insulting both the person and the "liberal" philosophy which you understand not one little bit. It is problematic to call you a conservative, since I know many who call themselves conservative who do not subscribe to the outlandish ideas that you claim as you own, especially the nationalization of production. Whatever you are, you are not a conservative any more than I am a liberal.

If you have a candidate you favor who is neither a democrat nor a replublican, please bring up that person and we can talk about what good they will or will not do for the country and its diverse population.



Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 07, 2007, 08:20:26 AM
NGC,

Consider, that when you label someone a liberal and then define liberalism in a negative way which is not what that someone is about, you are insulting both the person and the "liberal" philosophy which you understand not one little bit. It is problematic to call you a conservative, since I know many who call themselves conservative who do not subscribe to the outlandish ideas that you claim as you own, especially the nationalization of production. Whatever you are, you are not a conservative any more than I am a liberal.

If you have a candidate you favor who is neither a democrat nor a replublican, please bring up that person and we can talk about what good they will or will not do for the country and its diverse population.



Ngc is a communist.  Plain and simple.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 07, 2007, 09:27:00 AM
Consider, that when you label someone a liberal and then define liberalism in a negative way which is not what that someone is about, you are insulting both the person and the "liberal" philosophy...

GOOD!!! There IS nothing positive about anything that IS liberal. And if you feel soooo insulted by being called a liberal, call me one!! I'll promise to be properly insulted...or you can call me conservative---whether or not you think I am one--as that may be insulting in your mind. Again, calling someone a liberal IS a POLITICAL conotation---NOT PERSONAL...regardless of your opinion of it.


There are many reasons, but the two greatest may be naivete and narcissism. Each alone causes problems, but when combined in the same person, they are particularly destructive.

At the heart of liberalism is the naive belief that people are basically good. (You already said you are this way---it sounds good, but IS naive---the bad inside too many people tends to get to the surface) As a result of this belief, liberals rarely blame people for the evil they do. Instead, they blame economics, parents, capitalism, racism and anything else that can let the individual off the hook (Hence the defense of the iranians tactics of murdering civilians in iraq---and you comparing deaths under communism to any suffered under capitalsim).

A second naive liberal belief is that because people are basically good, talking with people who do evil is always better than fighting, let alone killing them. "Negotiate with Saddam," "Negotiate with the Soviets," "War never solves anything," "Think peace," "Visualize peace" – the liberal mind is filled with naive cliches about how to deal with evil.


I believe these words are APLLICABLE to you. And that IS why I call you liberal---if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, eats like a duck, sleeps like a duck, flies like a duck, swims like a duck......it IS more than likely---A DUCK!!


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 07, 2007, 10:16:16 AM
GOOD!!! There IS nothing positive about anything that IS liberal. And if you feel soooo insulted by being called a liberal, call me one!! I'll promise to be properly insulted...or you can call me conservative---whether or not you think I am one--as that may be insulting in your mind. Again, calling someone a liberal IS a POLITICAL conotation---NOT PERSONAL...regardless of your opinion of it.

You are a commie bastard.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 07, 2007, 10:19:45 AM
You are a commie bastard.

Now, now---little juvenile liberal. Just drink a little more kool aid and exhale. Your little childish name calling and going vulgar ISn't adult and IS only a veneer of superiority for you. Your weak mind just rules you, doesn't it, mr. liberal? Gawd---pathetic.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 07, 2007, 10:50:42 AM
A bastard is a child born out of wedlock.  You have a problem with bastards?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 07, 2007, 10:57:27 AM
A bastard is a child born out of wedlock.  You have a problem with bastards?

Liberally pathetic. Why don't we return to the reason of this thread--Campaign Trail? Or do you just want to continue down your liberal juvenile path? I grow weary of the reeking of kool-aid.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 07, 2007, 11:00:15 AM
I grow weary of the reeking of kool-aid.
Then stop drinking it.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 07, 2007, 11:04:06 AM
rrriiiggghhhttt......


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 07, 2007, 12:14:22 PM
Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., has run into strong opposition among Catholics in Chicago who are furious that the pro-abortion candidate will speak at the Mercy Home for Boys & Girls.

"I'm sorry we have to picket this Mercy Home fundraiser," said Joseph M. Scheidler, National Director of the Chicago-based Pro-Life Action League. "But Hillary Clinton's appearance at their Graduates' Luncheon is just wrong! This is a well-known and much loved Catholic institution, while Senator Clinton is unabashedly hostile to the Catholic Church's teaching on the value of life."


As well she SHOULD be receiving strong opposition.

Anyone or anything but hillary.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 07, 2007, 12:20:59 PM
Sen. Barack Obama in Iowa renewed his call for withdrawal from Iraq on Sunday and took a swipe at homestate Republican Sen. Charles Grassley for not agreeing.

The Democratic presidential hopeful also talked up the need for education reform and promoted a forthcoming universal health care plan.

"We intend to force our colleagues in the Senate and House to take vote after vote until we overcome (the president's) veto," Obama told a crowd of about 200 at a middle school.




What part of veto after veto until the liberals abandon their defeatist mindset, does he not understand?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 07, 2007, 12:51:42 PM




What part of veto after veto until the liberals abandon their defeatist mindset, does he not understand?

Defeat!  That's what we have in Iraq now.  If only the rightwing would see reality, but they don't.  These are the same ones who believe the earth is only 6 thousand years old.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 07, 2007, 01:07:14 PM
Robert L. Borosage is the co-director of the Institute for America's Future. This article first appeared inThe Huffington Post .

Ten white guys in dark suits and bright ties to answer questions. Three white guys in dark suits and bright ties to ask them. Stale ideas fit the staid image at the first Republican presidential debate Thursday at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library. MSNBC should have broadcast the event in black and white. The Gipper himself would have felt at home.

What do these monochromatic candidates offer? Without exception, war and more war. No exit from Iraq. New confrontation with Iran, with only former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani mumbling a hint of caution. For former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, brandishing his newborn wing-nut credentials, it’s war not just against al Qaeda, Iraq and Iran, but against Shia and Sunni, Hezbollah and Hamas and more. Wartime for America.

All this is done while invoking Ronald Reagan’s sunny optimism. But they’ve forgotten Reagan’s basic caution. While he committed serial follies in the Middle East, Reagan never got caught in a losing war. When the Marines he fecklessly dispatched to Lebanon were blown up, he cut and ran, invading hapless Grenada to cover his retreat. And when the USSR’s Mikhail Gorbachev sued for peace, Reagan ignored the CIA, which called it a trick, spurned the neocons and went to the negotiating table.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 07, 2007, 02:16:11 PM
Defeat!  That's what we have in Iraq now.

In the liberal mindset, like dingy harry reid, sure. Liberals are defeatist. When we leave, then we can debate defeat or victory. Iraq IS a combat of 2 engagements---one, against saddam's army, we won. Period. Two, fighting terrorism and terrorists, IS still being waged, and IS not finished yet. Saying we are defeated before the final round IS finished IS, well, being liberal and defeatist!


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 07, 2007, 02:18:25 PM
invading hapless Grenada to cover his retreat...


Really? You mean the cubans that were doing the actual invading should have been left alone to subjugate the island?

Man you are as blind as those liberal blinders you wear make you.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 07, 2007, 03:01:19 PM
Defeat!  That's what we have in Iraq now.

In the liberal mindset, like dingy harry reid, sure. Liberals are defeatist. When we leave, then we can debate defeat or victory. Iraq IS a combat of 2 engagements---one, against saddam's army, we won. Period. Two, fighting terrorism and terrorists, IS still being waged, and IS not finished yet. Saying we are defeated before the final round IS finished IS, well, being liberal and defeatist!

And where did the terrorist come from?  They came from the US occupation.  If we were being occupied by say Cuba, you would be a terrorist too.  Duh.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 07, 2007, 03:02:17 PM
70% of Americans know that Bush failed.  He failed the American people, he failed the Iraqi people, and he failed the world community.  There are more terrorist today than ever before because of Bush and his failed policies.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 07, 2007, 03:06:01 PM
Quote
Really? You mean the cubans that were doing the actual invading should have been left alone to subjugate the island?
The CUBANS invaded?  I tell you, comrade, no one can twist and parse away all meaning quite the way you can.  The Cubans were there at the request of the Granadan government, weren't they - the communists had seized power four years earlier - not as a military force but to build an airport..  And they were primarily engineers and construction workers.  

Hiw typical of your fellow comrades, ngc, to invade with construction crews!

The fig leaf covering our invasion was the purported "danger" to a group of students at a Club Medical School during a military coup that ousted one pro-Cuban communist in favor of another.  Not an "invasion" by Cubans.  You are a liar, and there is no reason for anyone to believe anything you post.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 07, 2007, 03:10:12 PM
Quote
Really? You mean the cubans that were doing the actual invading should have been left alone to subjugate the island?
The CUBANS invaded?  I tell you, comrade, no one can twist and parse away all meaning quite the way you can.  The Cubans were there at the request of the Granadan government, weren't they - the communists had seized power four years earlier - not as a military force but to build an airport..  And they were primarily engineers and construction workers.   

Hiw typical of your fellow comrades, ngc, to invade with construction crews!

The fig leaf covering our invasion was the purported "danger" to a group of students at a Club Medical School during a military coup that ousted one pro-Cuban communist in favor of another.  Not an "invasion" by Cubans.  You are a liar, and there is no reason for anyone to believe anything you post.

ROTFLMAO


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 07, 2007, 03:55:09 PM
The CUBANS invaded?  I tell you, comrade, no one can twist and parse away all meaning quite the way you can.  The Cubans were there at the request of the Granadan government, weren't they - the communists had seized power four years earlier - not as a military force but to build an airport..  And they were primarily engineers and construction workers. 

You are correct---poor choice of words on my part. I still think it was good idea to stop the spreading of marxism.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 07, 2007, 03:56:30 PM
The CUBANS invaded?  I tell you, comrade, no one can twist and parse away all meaning quite the way you can.  The Cubans were there at the request of the Granadan government, weren't they - the communists had seized power four years earlier - not as a military force but to build an airport..  And they were primarily engineers and construction workers. 

You are correct---poor choice of words on my part. I still think it was good idea to stop the spreading of marxism.

Marxism...that the communist manifesto, comrade Ngc.  The one you support for America.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 07, 2007, 03:57:45 PM
The CUBANS invaded?  I tell you, comrade, no one can twist and parse away all meaning quite the way you can.  The Cubans were there at the request of the Granadan government, weren't they - the communists had seized power four years earlier - not as a military force but to build an airport..  And they were primarily engineers and construction workers. 

You are correct---poor choice of words on my part. I still think it was good idea to stop the spreading of marxism.

Marxism...that the communist manifesto, comrade Ngc.  The one you support for America.


Negative.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 07, 2007, 04:00:38 PM
The CUBANS invaded?  I tell you, comrade, no one can twist and parse away all meaning quite the way you can.  The Cubans were there at the request of the Granadan government, weren't they - the communists had seized power four years earlier - not as a military force but to build an airport..  And they were primarily engineers and construction workers. 

You are correct---poor choice of words on my part. I still think it was good idea to stop the spreading of marxism.

Marxism...that the communist manifesto, comrade Ngc.  The one you support for America.


Negative.

Liar.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 07, 2007, 04:04:14 PM
The CUBANS invaded?  I tell you, comrade, no one can twist and parse away all meaning quite the way you can.  The Cubans were there at the request of the Granadan government, weren't they - the communists had seized power four years earlier - not as a military force but to build an airport..  And they were primarily engineers and construction workers. 

You are correct---poor choice of words on my part. I still think it was good idea to stop the spreading of marxism.

Marxism...that the communist manifesto, comrade Ngc.  The one you support for America.


Negative.

Liar.

Keep right on projecting whatever you want. That IS very liberal of you. Not even your vulcan mind meld would get the answer you THINK you know.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 07, 2007, 04:05:58 PM
The CUBANS invaded?  I tell you, comrade, no one can twist and parse away all meaning quite the way you can.  The Cubans were there at the request of the Granadan government, weren't they - the communists had seized power four years earlier - not as a military force but to build an airport..  And they were primarily engineers and construction workers. 

You are correct---poor choice of words on my part. I still think it was good idea to stop the spreading of marxism.

Marxism...that the communist manifesto, comrade Ngc.  The one you support for America.

Duh.  Ngc, it is obvious you are a rightwing neocon who leans toward communism.  We all know it from your many posts.


Negative.

Liar.

Keep right on projecting whatever you want. That IS very liberal of you. Not even your vulcan mind meld would get the answer you THINK you know.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 07, 2007, 04:10:31 PM
it is obvious you are a rightwing neocon who leans toward communism.  We all know it from your many posts.


Keep on projecting---liberals are champs at it.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 07, 2007, 04:30:01 PM
Once Hillary is elected president, or selected president, whatever, you'll find out how much!!!!


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on May 07, 2007, 04:51:25 PM
NGC,

You are right, that I see good in most people. I'm not too sure about you. You are a violation to my faith in people. But, you are dead wrong that I do not hold them responsible for their behavior. I was a teacher. I most certainly did hold my students responsible both for their learning, which I knew was difficult since they were with me because of disabilities, and for their behavior. But, I did not advocate murdering them because they got into a fight, as you want to do with Iran. Let the punishment fit the crime. There is no reason to go overboard.

The question you could/should ask is if my methods worked, and I can say sincerely that they did. When I began teaching I was told that if my students were able to graduate, I would be a success. I was told that if my students could get a job, I would be a success. I was told that if my students could keep a job, I would be a success. Well, most of my students graduated, they all got jobs, and most kept their jobs. Some even moved up in their jobs to management levels. But, that did not make me a success. The credit is due to the students. They followed my lead. They learned to believe in themselves because I believed in them. They became the success.

Now, tell me how many successes you have under your belt from your belief in the basic evilness of people?



Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 07, 2007, 05:24:57 PM
re:  belief in the basic evilness of people

Pushing evilness under the rug might work small scale and with good luck on your side.

Seeing good in all people is folly - and can get you killed.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 07, 2007, 06:42:16 PM
Now, tell me how many successes you have under your belt from your belief in the basic evilness of people?


You are just awash in your hate, aren't you? I never said I believe in the basic evilness of people. You are just spinning with intent to insult. Period. The same way you do with my military service.



I did not advocate murdering them because they got into a fight, as you want to do with Iran.

I do not want a fight at all---I would like to see Iran stay out of the equation with their insane murdering of civilians. But, you will just say I am lying, or some such projection.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 07, 2007, 06:49:39 PM
Did you suffer mental illness after you service Ngc?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 07, 2007, 06:52:39 PM
Did you suffer mental illness after you service Ngc?

Why do you continue down this path of insult? I guess I shouldn't even be asking the question that I already know the answer to---you're just being a liberal full of hate.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 07, 2007, 06:57:17 PM
Many coming back from Iraq, about 50 percent, I believe I read or heard, are suffering some type of mental trauma from their service.  I was asking if you had had the same experience, that's all. 

I've suffered from depression in my lifetime, it is nothing to be ashamed of.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on May 07, 2007, 07:56:19 PM
Kid,

I do not know if you are young, as your handle implies. But I've been around a long time, and have found it healthy to believe in the good in people. Of course, that does not mean you have to let people walk all over you. When people do bad things, they need to have consequences for their actions.

As I learned in teacher preparation, you have to distinguish between the person and their behavior. If the behavior is bad, say so, don't say that the person is bad. You cannot know if there is goodness in the person if you only judge by a single behavior or a single action.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 07, 2007, 09:35:42 PM
and have found it healthy to believe in the good in people.

This is true.



Of course, that does not mean you have to let people walk all over you.

This is true.



When people do bad things, they need to have consequences for their actions.


This is true.



You cannot know if there is goodness in the person if you only judge by a single behavior or a single action.

Even if they are strapping explosives onto women and children? What accountability should they be getting?



Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 07, 2007, 09:46:52 PM
Many coming back from Iraq, about 50 percent, I believe I read or heard, are suffering some type of mental trauma from their service.  I was asking if you had had the same experience, that's all. 

I've suffered from depression in my lifetime, it is nothing to be ashamed of.

Depression is nothing to be ashamed of. This is so true. I know some that have suffered it, and they are great people.


I was never in combat so I have not suffered anything like this or any traumatic stress. But I have seen guys that came back from Nam---even ones that were not actually in combat, that were visibly affected by things they had seen, or experienced. My roommate, another mechanic, was walking back to his 'hooch' after work one day and when he was about 100 feet from it, it suffered a direct hit from a russian 122mm rocket---and everything he owned over there was destroyed. The shockwave from the explosion knocked him on the ground. The type of hooch he lived in housed 4 people---1 on each corner. When he got there, he saw the remains of 2 guys he knew. I am sure it still makes him cry to this day. He is also with difficulty holding employment. There is another older gentleman I know that cries when he talks of his experiences. A man I know was in WWII who was a tank driver. His tank was hit by an anti-tank shell. He was badly burned below the elbows. He detests going into public where people can see his scars. But in the restaurant he owns, he proudly displays the medals he received...rarely venturing from behind the griddle where he prepares meals, and is always wearing long gloves while cooking.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on May 07, 2007, 10:37:19 PM
NGC,

The best answer I can give for those who strap explosives to others who do not volunteer to be used as a suicide bomber, is to give them a dose of their own medicine. That is not the single act of badness that I was referring to. You do not know if the women who were so used volunteered to do this for religious or other reasons. I can assume that children cannot make a rational decision on this until they are at least 14-16 years old. After that, again, we have to ask if the person volunteered for the mission. It is certainly not uncommon in combat or war, to have people who are passionate about their side in the war, to commit acts which they judge to be "heroic".

This is one of the reasons that so many Viet Nam vets came back with mental issues. The combatants were not limited only to able-bodied adult males. Those who saw their buddies shot by an innocent looking female or child were not merciful the next time they encountered an innocent looking female or child. This led to the horrors that some combat vets have had to live with. The soldier may have been momentarily sure he was in danger, only to go back in retrospect and question his decision - for the rest of his life. That horror has been documented in psychiatry since Freud began his study of the science. 

That is why, before you start a was, you must be very, very certain that it is the ONLY solution, and that it is indeed a worthy problem.  Even as my son was in transit to Iraq at the beginning of this war, I remember hearing that Hussein was coming round to talking diplomacy, and hoping against hope that the decision to attack would be reversed and my son would come home. Instead, Bush, as the leader of the nation, "stayed the course" and went ahead with the attack. Sadly, for all involved, once he got into attack mode, he didn't know when to stop. He is like the shooter who kills his prey, then keeps pumping bullets into the dead body until the hate runs out. Everyone is telling him that it is over, and he still wants to "stay the course". And, you support him in that insanity.



Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: thecap0 on May 08, 2007, 06:13:46 AM
ngc,

But I have seen guys that came back from Nam---even ones that were not actually in combat, that were visibly affected by things they had seen, or experienced. My roommate, another mechanic, was walking back to his 'hooch' after work one day and when he was about 100 feet from it, it suffered a direct hit from a russian 122mm rocket---and everything he owned over there was destroyed. The shockwave from the explosion knocked him on the ground. The type of hooch he lived in housed 4 people---1 on each corner. When he got there, he saw the remains of 2 guys he knew. I am sure it still makes him cry to this day. He is also with difficulty holding employment.

I am sure this parallels the emotions felt by the Iraqi father whose 6-year old daughter is murdered by a bomb dropped from a USAF warplane, a death you and other warmongers write off as mere "collateral damage".

The disdain in which you hold the lives of all but Americans disgusts me.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 08, 2007, 06:42:11 AM
ngc,

But I have seen guys that came back from Nam---even ones that were not actually in combat, that were visibly affected by things they had seen, or experienced. My roommate, another mechanic, was walking back to his 'hooch' after work one day and when he was about 100 feet from it, it suffered a direct hit from a russian 122mm rocket---and everything he owned over there was destroyed. The shockwave from the explosion knocked him on the ground. The type of hooch he lived in housed 4 people---1 on each corner. When he got there, he saw the remains of 2 guys he knew. I am sure it still makes him cry to this day. He is also with difficulty holding employment.

I am sure this parallels the emotions felt by the Iraqi father whose 6-year old daughter is murdered by a bomb dropped from a USAF warplane, a death you and other warmongers write off as mere "collateral damage".

The disdain in which you hold the lives of all but Americans disgusts me.

I think the point to this thread (at least in my attempt) is to make our friend see other people's point of view.  Americans tend to view only their own. 

Imagine living in a refugee camp for generations.  Palestines have been forced to live like that since their lands were taken to create the state of Israel.  Imagine life in Darfur.  Life in Baghdad.  I can not imagine how horrible life is for some people because of the greed and arrogance of other people.  We in America are very fortunate that we don't know this life; well, at least most of us don't.  The richest nation in the history of the world leaves its poor to live on the street, homeless.  That is another crime against humanity, IMHO.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: thecap0 on May 08, 2007, 06:45:01 AM
sam,

I think the point to this thread (at least in my attempt) is to make our friend see other people's point of view.

One of the first things a Seaman in the Navy is taught when on her/his first trip at sea is to never spit over the windward rail of the vessel.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 08, 2007, 07:14:17 AM
Here is a very good article about what the war in Iraq is all about:  http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/51572/


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 08, 2007, 08:59:54 AM
The disdain in which you hold the lives of all but Americans disgusts me.

This IS simply not true. But nothing that I could possibly say regarding anything will do anything other than disgust you. That IS the way your mind works. So enjoy your little 'holier than thou' and 'superior' sphere that you exist in.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 08, 2007, 09:02:11 AM
You do not know if the women who were so used volunteered to do this for religious or other reasons.

Any woman that straps on explosives and walks into a market and detonates herself IS an animal if she IS not forced to do so. Any defense of indiscriminate murder like this IS beneath contempt. Period.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 08, 2007, 09:22:46 AM
Bush, as the leader of the nation, "stayed the course" and went ahead with the attack. Sadly, for all involved, once he got into attack mode, he didn't know when to stop. He is like the shooter who kills his prey, then keeps pumping bullets into the dead body until the hate runs out. Everyone is telling him that it is over, and he still wants to "stay the course". And, you support him in that insanity.


Well, I guess the analysts at CNN are also insane. More and more people are starting to realize that leaving early will be a mistake. More and more articles are appearing that reflect this. Even the iraqis themselves have been polled and they that while they DO want the US to leave, they say 'not just yet'. Since it appears that you are in a fixed position on iraq, and anyone that believes we should stay the course, including the iraqis, IS insane, why don't we 'moveon', as nothing that can be said will change your or my position?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 08, 2007, 09:26:51 AM
Quote
So enjoy your little 'holier than thou' and 'superior' sphere that you exist in.
Is there nothing you can post that doesn't reek with irony?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: liquidsilver on May 08, 2007, 09:31:14 AM
Quote
Well, I guess the analysts at CNN are also insane. More and more people are starting to realize that leaving early will be a mistake. More and more articles are appearing that reflect this. Even the iraqis themselves have been polled and they that while they DO want the US to leave, they say 'not just yet'. Since it appears that you are in a fixed position on iraq, and anyone that believes we should stay the course, including the iraqis, IS insane, why don't we 'moveon', as nothing that can be said will change your or my position?

Meanwhile, high ranking Republicans like Trent Lott and John Boehner are showing their war weariness, giving the administration only a couple months to show results.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 08, 2007, 09:31:51 AM
Meanwhile, high ranking Republicans like Trent Lott and John Boehner are showing their war weariness, giving the administration only a couple months to show results.


GOOD!!


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 08, 2007, 09:35:25 AM
Is there nothing you can post that doesn't reek with irony?


Not for you. Nothing I can say will for you will be w/o irony, or disgust for you, or some other reasoning. I tell some people things like that post you say IS ironic, when they project what they think IS in my mind for sake of insult.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: liquidsilver on May 08, 2007, 09:35:35 AM
I think by September or October, if things on the ground haven't changed significantly, you are going to see high ranking Republicans change their tune on the open-ended timetable.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 08, 2007, 09:39:11 AM
Quote
I tell some people things like that post you say IS ironic,
This reads like it was translated from Korean by babelfish.


Quote
when they project what they think IS in my mind for sake of insult.
Considering everything you post about "liberals" projects - wrongly - what other people think for sake of insult, my assumption is this is actually a deliberate irony.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 08, 2007, 09:39:28 AM
I think by September or October, if things on the ground haven't changed significantly, you are going to see high ranking Republicans change their tune on the open-ended timetable.


That sounds very rational to me. I wouldn't put it past the administration to speak to the iraqis behind the scenes, after some type of private inducement, to formally/publicly ask the US to begin a withdrawal of troops on some sort of continuous downsizing scale until we are all gone, as they now believe there are sufficient trained iraqi personnel to start taking over the lions share of their own security. But maybe not. Who knows.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 08, 2007, 09:45:16 AM
Considering everything you post about "liberals" projects - wrongly - what other people think for sake of insult, my assumption is this is actually a deliberate irony.


You are perfectly welcome to your own opinion. Have at it. If you get called a liberal, and you are NOT one, you have no reason to feel anything---except to say that you are being erroneously characterized as favoring one side of that political spectrum, right? Even tho it IS purely a POLITICAL conotation---and nothing personal, it IS funny, almost hilarious, that you and others go over the deep end when associated with that side of the political fence.  But since I continue to have responses like yours pop up, I know I am correct and am hitting the mark!!!


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 08, 2007, 09:50:49 AM
Comrade ngc -

Well,  enjoy your little 'holier than thou' and 'superior' sphere that you exist in, you troop hating commie.  You are not a liberal.

And by "liberal" I mean intelligent, intellectually honest, and willing to consider all sides of an argument without resorting to insult.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 08, 2007, 09:59:06 AM
And by "liberal" I mean intelligent, intellectually honest, and willing to consider all sides of an argument without resorting to insult.


So---if my calling you a liberal IS not an insult (intelligent, intellectually honest by your reckoning), what are you in such a tizzy fit for? And you are making quite a leap to say I hate our troops. And you know that it ISn't true. But you'll just cloud your mind with projections to suit yourself. Have at it.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 08, 2007, 10:02:23 AM
I'm not in a tizzy fit.  I am lampooning someone who posts drivel on these forums and doesn't realize what an absurd fool he is.

And you do hate our troops.  You are on record as being against anyone who does not have the courage to fight the enemy face to face and have approved our ground troops as being cannon fodder.  Who's left, the Coast Guard?  Why do you hate our troops?

If you did not recognize the validity of the comment, it wouldn't upset you, comrade.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 08, 2007, 10:06:09 AM
Nausea started as I watched Hillary's latest gyration on the war in Iraq. In a recent interview she said, "This is Bush's war." Nice try, Hillary, but the inescapable truth is that it is also your war. As much as you'd like to divest yourself of ownership in it, as much as you'd like to convey your interest in it to a gutter rat, like, say, George W. Bush, this is your war, too.

Poor Hillary. Those of us with a speck of discernment always knew she was just pretending to be hawkish to make herself appear more presidential back before the war's popularity went in the gutter along with our proverbial rat. We also knew that eventually she would have to account to the anti-war Democratic base for her apostasy.

Hillary didn't merely vote for the Iraq war resolution; for quite some time she took great pains to deliberately distinguish herself from the war's fiercest critics, which invited condemnation from such leftist luminaries as Cindy Sheehan and Arianna Huffington.


hillary---the next generation of the 'waffle'.

Anyone or anything but hillary.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: yankguy on May 08, 2007, 10:08:29 AM
Common message board etiquette is that when you quote somebody, you attribute the source.  Unless you wrote that yourself.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 08, 2007, 10:13:13 AM
And you do hate our troops.  You are on record as being against anyone who does not have the courage to fight the enemy face to face and have approved our ground troops as being cannon fodder.  Who's left, the Coast Guard?  Why do you hate our troops?

If you did not recognize the validity of the comment, it wouldn't upset you, comrade.


There ISn't a bit of validity to it. I am merely trying to correct you, but you are just 'stuck on stupid' with your mindset, like a dyed in the wool liberal. I am a vet and you just don't seem to accept that. Oh, well. You have taken COMPLETELY out of context what I said in a previous post---or else you are just being a liberal. Go ahead and project aaaallll you want to. It IS amusing to see a liberal be one, that thinks she IS being tolerant, superior, more intellectual, and open to ideas that are different from her own. Continue to act like a senile old lady---or a liberal. I don't care which. Returning answers to your 'stuck on stupid' posts IS getting boring.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 08, 2007, 10:15:05 AM
Common message board etiquette is that when you quote somebody, you attribute the source.  Unless you wrote that yourself.

Pardon me. The source IS World Net Daily.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 08, 2007, 10:17:10 AM
Quote
Continue to act like a senile old lady
Wouldn't want to get insulting, comrade troop hater?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 08, 2007, 10:27:26 AM
More from the same article..

Hillary, not being real conversant with personal mea culpas, wouldn't even offer an insincere – or, out of respect, should I say "Clintonesque"? – apology to pacify the anti-war base. She would only say, "If I had known at the time of the vote on the Iraq war resolution what I know today, I wouldn't have supported it." That ranks with her husband's "I'm sorry for the pain I caused in my marriage," when the stained dress emerged.

But Hillary doesn't quite possess her husband's ability to survive – even prosper from – "Sister Souljah moments." She fell way short of appeasing the loons. That's why she's been steadily intensifying her efforts to win them back.

She didn't stop at calling it Bush's war. Along with the KKKonscience of the Senate, Sen. Robert Byrd, she is promoting a pathetically unserious and enormously cynical proposal that Congress repeal the authority it gave President Bush in 2002 to invade Iraq.

It's unserious because it will never happen – and she knows it. It's cynical because it is designed not to work but to earn her redemption for her otherwise unforgivable sin of supporting the resolution. And, it is carefully calculated to avoid the charge – that a resolution to cut the funding would certainly bring – that she is not supporting the troops.

As usual, it's all about Hillary and her political aspirations – the troops and the national interest be damned. It's too bad Hillary can't follow her own admonition when she said some time ago, "The exercise of playing politics with war … carries with it a very high cost, and those who choose to play that game are squarely in the wrong." Indeed. Get this woman a mirror.

Anyone or anything but hillary.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 08, 2007, 10:30:39 AM
In a more perfect world it would take a lot more than what hillary is doing to win back her base. They would require her to explain her pre-war statements, like, "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

Even if hillary is able to fool her base into believing the fantastic, self-serving canard that George Bush made her believe this, surely the majority of voters won't be that willingly gullible.

This may be "Bush's war," hillary, but it's also yours. How about being presidential and admitting that?
 
Last part of the article.

Anyone or anything but hillary.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: yankguy on May 08, 2007, 10:52:28 AM
Instead of citing "World Net Daily" as your source it would be best if you cited the author of the article, who in fact is David LIMBAUGH, a first-class blowhard, who blames all of the world's ills on the Democrats and likely would not even have a forum if his name was David Smith.

For the record, I've read everything he's written and have even engaged in e-mail exchanges with him.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 08, 2007, 11:00:04 AM
Instead of citing "World Net Daily" as your source it would be best if you cited the author of the article, who in fact is David LIMBAUGH, a first-class blowhard, who blames all of the world's ills on the Democrats and likely would not even have a forum if his name was David Smith.

For the record, I've read everything he's written and have even engaged in e-mail exchanges with him.

Geeze---I cited the source, WND. Pardon me for not giving his name.

Believe what you wish. I agree with these particular words about hillary.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 08, 2007, 11:09:05 AM
Quote
Believe what you wish. I agree with these particular words about hillary.
Perhaps, then, you should give thought to the possibility that you are also  a first-class blowhard, who blames all of the world's ills on the Democrats or liberals - or at least Hilary.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 08, 2007, 11:16:21 AM
 who blames all of the world's ills on the Democrats or liberals ...


Geeze---I have said nothing of the sort. You are really getting boring.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 08, 2007, 03:37:04 PM
TROUBLE FOR RUDY GEE.

Was Rudy Giuliani more than a fan of the Yankees? Was he on the take???

 

His monogamous embrace of the Yankees as mayor was so fervent that when he tried to deliver a West Side stadium to them early in his administration, or approved a last-minute $400 million subsidy for their new Bronx stadium, New Yorkers blithely ascribed the bad deals to a heaving heart.

It turns out he also had an outstretched hand.

Sports fans grew accustomed to seeing Giuliani, in Yankee jacket and cap, within camera view of the team's dugout at every one of the 40 postseason home games the Yankees played while he was mayor. His devotion reached such heights that at the 1995 Inner Circle press dinner, he played himself handing the city over to George Steinbrenner in a lampoon version of the Broadway musical Damn Yankees, succumbing to a scantily clad Lola who importuned him on behalf of the Boss to the tune of "Whatever Lola Wants (Lola Gets)." Mike Bloomberg understood years later that the song was no joke; he nixed Rudy's stadium deal in his first weeks in office.

It is only now, however, as Giuliani campaigns for president, that we are beginning to learn that this relationship went even deeper. Giuliani has been seen on the campaign trail wearing a World Series ring, a valuable prize we never knew he had. Indeed, the Yankees have told the Voice that he has four rings, one for every world championship the Yankees won while he was mayor. Voice calls to other cities whose teams won the Series in the past decade have determined that Giuliani is the only mayor with a ring, much less four. If it sounds innocent, wait for the price tag. These are certainly no Canal Street cubic zirconia knockoffs.

With Giuliani's name inscribed in the 1996, 1998, 1999, and 2000 diamond-and-gold rings, memorabilia and baseball experts say they are collectively worth a minimum of $200,000. The Yankees say that Giuliani did pay for his rings—but only $16,000, and years after he had left office. Anyone paying for the rings is as unusual as a mayor getting one, since neither the Yankees nor any other recent champion have sold rings to virtually anyone. The meager payment, however, is less than half of the replacement value of the rings, and that's a fraction of the market price, especially with the added value of Giuliani's name.

What's more troubling is that Giuliani's receipt of the rings may be a serious breach of the law, and one that could still be prosecuted.

 

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0719,barrett,76566,2.html

 What would Rudy the DA do if it was a Dem who had taken the bribes from the Bronx Bombers???

Prosecute them, of course! Get him in court!



Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 08, 2007, 03:43:34 PM
ham -

I'm sure comrade ngc will either find a way to blame Hilary for that, or else dredge up some allegation from WorldNews Nuts or some such site to claim that the Clintons received a free flower from someone at a rally which of course excuses all Republican chicanery.

Rudy Giuliani: Lord of the Rings.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 08, 2007, 04:02:19 PM
ham -

I'm sure comrade ngc will either find a way to blame Hilary for that, or else dredge up some allegation from WorldNews Nuts or some such site to claim that the Clintons received a free flower from someone at a rally which of course excuses all Republican chicanery.

Rudy Giuliani: Lord of the Rings.

It's a lengthy article, but details how he got a lot more than rings--he got caps--jackets---food---a lot of stuff...and the Yanks got a lot in return, too.

Rudy is as fake and as phony as they come, and if not for 9/11,(and let's face it, which politician doesn't look good wrapping their arms around firemen and the flag?) nobody outside of NY would know him.

The truth has a way of catching up with you, when you burn as many bridges as Rudy did in New York.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 08, 2007, 04:20:16 PM
I've never believed for a moment that Giuliani would get the Repo nomination.  Too much of the wrong kind of baggage for that base.  I could just hear the jaws of the faithful drop in the debate when he indicated it would be ok if Roe was not overturned.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: liquidsilver on May 08, 2007, 04:30:54 PM
I think Guiliani might have best shot of winning the Presidency out of the GOP but not the nomination.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 08, 2007, 06:43:22 PM
IMHO, the repukes haven't presented a candidate that could represent the center of America.  They are either too far to the right, like Huckabee, or just have too much baggage like McCain and Guilanni, or are too fake, like Mitt (the Mormon) Romney.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on May 08, 2007, 09:58:34 PM
I really don't think the republicans are going to try to win this election. They already know that the American public is disgusted with them, and they would have a terrible uphill battle to make it back into the white house. I think they are just going to let the refuse run for the fun of it for this campaign. Just enough to collect some largesse in their coffers.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on May 09, 2007, 12:15:52 AM
Barrack Obama spent this evening in Richmond, politikking with the southern dems. The sound byte said he added nothing new to the campaign issues, but spoke mostly in support of the candidacy of the democrats lined up behind him. It was all shirtsleeves with ties, but no stogies.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: thecap0 on May 09, 2007, 02:07:38 AM
ngc,

Anyone or anything but hillary.

Since you never had any thought of voting for Senator Clinton, your comment, like you yourself, is completely irrelevant.

The fact that Senator Clinton on her worst day is better than any of the Repugnicans on their best is meaningless to you.

BTW, any clue about Occam's Razor?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 09, 2007, 07:19:38 AM
ngc,

Anyone or anything but hillary.

Since you never had any thought of voting for Senator Clinton, your comment, like you yourself, is completely irrelevant.

The fact that Senator Clinton on her worst day is better than any of the Repugnicans on their best is meaningless to you.

BTW, any clue about Occam's Razor?

Negative. The populace of the US will continue to be a loser when either Ds or Rs are elected. If you think that either Ds or Rs have the best interests of this nation in their hearts, you are snowed---with the snowflakes falling either to the left or the right of the fence.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 09, 2007, 07:23:00 AM
I really don't think the republicans are going to try to win this election. They already know that the American public is disgusted with them, and they would have a terrible uphill battle to make it back into the white house. I think they are just going to let the refuse run for the fun of it for this campaign. Just enough to collect some largesse in their coffers.


Could very well be. Plus there IS a lotta apathy with the Rs right now, from what I have read. I wonder if Fred getting in later on will make any difference? Probably not. But in this country, who knows? We end up being losers with a D or an R getting elected.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 09, 2007, 07:26:59 AM
Rudy is as fake and as phony as they come, and if not for 9/11,(and let's face it, which politician doesn't look good wrapping their arms around firemen and the flag?) nobody outside of NY would know him.

The truth has a way of catching up with you, when you burn as many bridges as Rudy did in New York.

This IS accurate. I also do not believe that Giuliani will be the R nominee---all the ones running for the nomination now are duds.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 09, 2007, 07:31:34 AM
Rudy is as fake and as phony as they come, and if not for 9/11,(and let's face it, which politician doesn't look good wrapping their arms around firemen and the flag?) nobody outside of NY would know him.

The truth has a way of catching up with you, when you burn as many bridges as Rudy did in New York.

This IS accurate. I also do not believe that Giuliani will be the R nominee---all the ones running for the nomination now are duds.

Well, at least we have something we can agree on.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 09, 2007, 07:37:58 AM
Rudy is as fake and as phony as they come, and if not for 9/11,(and let's face it, which politician doesn't look good wrapping their arms around firemen and the flag?) nobody outside of NY would know him.

The truth has a way of catching up with you, when you burn as many bridges as Rudy did in New York.

This IS accurate. I also do not believe that Giuliani will be the R nominee---all the ones running for the nomination now are duds.

Well, at least we have something we can agree on.

Actually, more than you might want to believe.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 09, 2007, 09:41:55 AM
ngc,

Anyone or anything but hillary.

Since you never had any thought of voting for Senator Clinton, your comment, like you yourself, is completely irrelevant.

The fact that Senator Clinton on her worst day is better than any of the Repugnicans on their best is meaningless to you.

BTW, any clue about Occam's Razor?

Better at what?  What has she done?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 09, 2007, 10:02:11 AM
Better at what?  What has she done?

She has continually stuck her finger into the air to decide how to speak on any given day.

Anyone or anything but hillary.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: liquidsilver on May 09, 2007, 10:05:44 AM
Better at what?  What has she done?

She has continually stuck her finger into the air to decide how to speak on any given day.



And that's different than every other politician out there?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 09, 2007, 10:38:02 AM
Better at what?  What has she done?

She has continually stuck her finger into the air to decide how to speak on any given day.



And that's different than every other politician out there?

Nope, not for the most part. Now you know one of the reasons why I say that if a D or an R gets elected, we all are losers. Yet there are those that actually think she has our best interests at heart---she doesn't. Anyone or anything will be better than her IMHO.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: liquidsilver on May 09, 2007, 11:13:16 AM
Which candidate has our best interests at heart?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 09, 2007, 11:15:34 AM
Which candidate has our best interests at heart?

None of the Ds or Rs.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 09, 2007, 12:19:51 PM
The fact that Senator Clinton on her worst day is better than any of the Repugnicans on their best is meaningless to you.

I really don't see much difference between her and many of the R's, myself. All seem self-serving and more concerned with their own careers vs our country.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 09, 2007, 12:38:13 PM
Better at what?  What has she done?

She has continually stuck her finger into the air to decide how to speak on any given day.

Anyone or anything but hillary.

I thought that was Mitt (the cultist) Romney.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 09, 2007, 01:24:49 PM
Three of the repuke candidates believe in Creationism.  The earth is only 6K years old.  Dinasaurs were on Noah's Arc along with humans.  Yep.  These guys really know how to pick 'em.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 09, 2007, 01:38:50 PM
The fact that Senator Clinton on her worst day is better than any of the Repugnicans on their best is meaningless to you.

I really don't see much difference between her and many of the R's, myself. All seem self-serving and more concerned with their own careers vs our country.

Absolutely. As I have been saying, to support a D or an R means you have been snowed. Since it appears that we are going to end up getting one of these, I prefer to see anyone but hillary. She IS the most self serving narcissist among them. IMHO.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 09, 2007, 01:40:15 PM
Better at what?  What has she done?

She has continually stuck her finger into the air to decide how to speak on any given day.

Anyone or anything but hillary.

I thought that was Mitt (the cultist) Romney.

I never said she was the only one that did this.

Anyone or anything but hillary.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: liquidsilver on May 09, 2007, 01:40:24 PM
Quote
She IS the most self serving narcissist among them

No, Romney is


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 09, 2007, 01:47:48 PM
Three of the repuke candidates believe in Creationism.  The earth is only 6K years old.  Dinasaurs were on Noah's Arc along with humans.  Yep.  These guys really know how to pick 'em.

Dinosaurs?  Come on!!!!
















Didn't you hear Carl Everett?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: liquidsilver on May 09, 2007, 01:48:16 PM
Mitt Romney is the single most repellant candidate in the race.  He will say anything to get elected and change his moral values at the drop of a dime if he thinks it will garner him more votes.  Whether you dislike Clinton or not, she has been pretty steadfast in her core values and platform.  Romney changes more frequently than the wind.

At least when David Duke ran, you knew where he stood.  Romney is the most dangerous candidate out there because you don't really know what he believes in and what his policies really will be.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 09, 2007, 01:50:33 PM
Three of the repuke candidates believe in Creationism.  The earth is only 6K years old.  Dinasaurs were on Noah's Arc along with humans.  Yep.  These guys really know how to pick 'em.

Dinosaurs?  Come on!!!!
 

Why am I not surprised you'd quote a christer nutcase.















Didn't you hear Carl Everett?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 09, 2007, 01:55:46 PM
Mitt Romney is the single most repellant candidate in the race.  He will say anything to get elected and change his moral values at the drop of a dime if he thinks it will garner him more votes.  Whether you dislike Clinton or not, she has been pretty steadfast in her core values and platform.  Romney changes more frequently than the wind.

Not really. If you listened to her before we went to Iraq, and I mean BEFORE bush was even elected pres, she was a hawk---now she IS part of the "I was duped by faulty intel" dove crowd...it just doesn't fly. IMHO. I want her to discuss her associations with Ng Lapseng! She IS also the most narcissist candidate out there, from either party, IMHO. I would rather have Obama than her....or any of the Ds or Rs that are currently in the field. Mitt IS also not going anywhere at all. Not to worry about him---his drive for the nomination IS a lost cause. As IS McCain. Again, IMHO.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 09, 2007, 01:57:16 PM
Three of the repuke candidates believe in Creationism.  The earth is only 6K years old.  Dinasaurs were on Noah's Arc along with humans.  Yep.  These guys really know how to pick 'em.

Dinosaurs?  Come on!!!!
 

Why am I not surprised you'd quote a christer nutcase.















Didn't you hear Carl Everett?

Do you believe in any particular religion or deity, or are you atheist? Just curious.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: yankguy on May 09, 2007, 02:01:44 PM
Do you believe in any particular religion or deity, or are you atheist? Just curious.[/i}
I would love to live in a place where anybody- be they a politician or the proverbial "Ordinary Joe"- can be asked this question and answer "None of your business".....and not have that held against them.   


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: liquidsilver on May 09, 2007, 02:08:39 PM
I would love to live in a place where anybody- be they a politician or the proverbial "Ordinary Joe"- can be asked this question and answer "None of your business".....and not have that held against them.   

Canada?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 09, 2007, 02:15:10 PM

Do you believe in any particular religion or deity, or are you atheist? Just curious.

I would love to live in a place where anybody- be they a politician or the proverbial "Ordinary Joe"- can be asked this question and answer "None of your business".....and not have that held against them.   
[/quote]


None of your business IS an acceptable response. I asked---it doesn't HAVE to be answered. Yet I would imagine, that if the person were NOT an atheist, they would readily answer. Wouldn't you agree? I do not remember who said it, but the words were,"It IS better to believe at all, than not to believe at all". You can understand those words or not---your choice.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: yankguy on May 09, 2007, 02:19:48 PM
It's possible to be a devout believer and at the same believe that it's nobody else's business. 

You can believe that or not.  Your choice.

I like Canada. 


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: bankshot1 on May 09, 2007, 02:25:16 PM
IMO asking about a politician's philosophical/religious beliefs and if those beliefs would guide policy choices is a legitimate concern to the electorate.

edit: and I understand the concept that a person's religion and beliefs can be deeply personal, and they should not be paraded for political purposes. But it seems they usually are.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: yankguy on May 09, 2007, 02:34:09 PM
Because politicians have more than ever used their piety as a sledgehammer on those who believe differently or don't believe at all, I (naively, I admit) believe that a candidate's personal belief in the existence of diety should have no place in the political realm.  Further, I believe it possible to ascertain a candidate's philosophy without having to engage in the kind of silly symbolism (my favorite is the Uber-WASP pol making a fool of himself wearing a yarmulke) that we have suffer through in the name of  religious inclusiveness.  I think one's religion is and should be a private matter and need not be trivialized by office-seekers.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 09, 2007, 02:34:43 PM
IMO asking about a politician's philosophical/religious beliefs and if those beliefs would guide policy choices is a legitimate concern to the electorate.

edit: and I understand the concept that a person's religion and beliefs can be deeply personal, and they should not be paraded for political purposes. But it seems they usually are.

This IS so true. Yet some here feel the need for exclusion---why, ISn't necessarily easily understood. Could it be fear of something? I do not profess to know. The individual has to respond.



Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 09, 2007, 02:37:57 PM
It's possible to be a devout believer and at the same believe that it's nobody else's business.

It may, indeed, be no-one else's business, but I believe that most would not have a fear of expressing their acceptance or not of a religion or deity. Tho, I could be wrong. An individual wishes to keep it a private thing? Well, as some one else intimated, they won't be in politics very long.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: yankguy on May 09, 2007, 02:39:00 PM
....which brings me back to my original point, which is that I wish things weren't that way.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: liquidsilver on May 09, 2007, 03:07:58 PM
It's possible to be a devout believer and at the same believe that it's nobody else's business. 

You can believe that or not.  Your choice.

I like Canada. 

I do too but the winters are brutal. 


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 09, 2007, 03:34:43 PM
My believe system is irrelavant to the discussion. 


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 09, 2007, 09:35:12 PM
hillary's nomination automatically fixes, albeit temporarily, all of the GOP's problems.

Let us examine:

1) The possibility of the religious right defecting from the GOP nominee, or (just as bad) staying home and not voting, is eliminated in one fell stroke. The antipathy to Hillary is so strong that they will all return to the GOP fold and vote for the Republican nominee, no matter who that is, even if they have to hold their nose as they vote for the GOP candidate.

2) Bush's Iraq war drags down the GOP: that won't happen as much with Hillary as the Democrat because she was just as enthusiastically for the war as Bush. Furthermore, she has twisted herself into a pretzel trying to shake off that vote, and it has only made her seem even less trustworthy, if that is possible.

3) Turnout: Conventional wisdom has been saying that GOP turnout will be down in 2008, and Democrat turnout way up, because the country is so mad at Bush and the Republicans over Iraq, and the GOP base is so upset over illegal immigration and other issues. 

That all may be true. But the specter of Hillary — and Bill — back in the White House will motivate the GOP like nothing we have ever seen. Everyone, and I mean everyone, on the right and in the GOP will come out for one reason: to keep the Clintons out of the White House.

4) The GOP candidate can do with Hillary what he could not do with any of the other Democratic candidates: make her the issue in the race. She has so many negatives — 52 percent in the latest Gallup Poll — that the Republican just have to keep the heat on her all through the race.

Yes, the liberal media loves Hillary and will help her, but the alternative media, talk radio and the Internet, will go after Hillary like no other candidate.

In sum, the Democrats want to win the White House so badly that they can taste it!

Ironically, they are about to nominate the one candidate who can rescue a damaged and diseased Republican Party: Hillary.

From John LeBoutillier

Anyone or anything but hillary.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 10, 2007, 05:28:18 AM
hillary's nomination automatically fixes, albeit temporarily, all of the GOP's problems.

Let us examine:

1) The possibility of the religious right defecting from the GOP nominee, or (just as bad) staying home and not voting, is eliminated in one fell stroke. The antipathy to Hillary is so strong that they will all return to the GOP fold and vote for the Republican nominee, no matter who that is, even if they have to hold their nose as they vote for the GOP candidate.

2) Bush's Iraq war drags down the GOP: that won't happen as much with Hillary as the Democrat because she was just as enthusiastically for the war as Bush. Furthermore, she has twisted herself into a pretzel trying to shake off that vote, and it has only made her seem even less trustworthy, if that is possible.

3) Turnout: Conventional wisdom has been saying that GOP turnout will be down in 2008, and Democrat turnout way up, because the country is so mad at Bush and the Republicans over Iraq, and the GOP base is so upset over illegal immigration and other issues. 

That all may be true. But the specter of Hillary — and Bill — back in the White House will motivate the GOP like nothing we have ever seen. Everyone, and I mean everyone, on the right and in the GOP will come out for one reason: to keep the Clintons out of the White House.

4) The GOP candidate can do with Hillary what he could not do with any of the other Democratic candidates: make her the issue in the race. She has so many negatives — 52 percent in the latest Gallup Poll — that the Republican just have to keep the heat on her all through the race.

Yes, the liberal media loves Hillary and will help her, but the alternative media, talk radio and the Internet, will go after Hillary like no other candidate.

In sum, the Democrats want to win the White House so badly that they can taste it!

Ironically, they are about to nominate the one candidate who can rescue a damaged and diseased Republican Party: Hillary.

From John LeBoutillier

Anyone or anything but hillary.


You'd love that wouldn't you.   Then for the next four years you could blame Hillary for the failures of the repuke president.  You have a sick obsession with the Clintons.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 10, 2007, 05:49:01 AM

Romney's wife donated to Planned Parenthood

Mitt Romney provided a number of responses (imagine that) ranging from "her contributions are for her and not for me" before a speaking engagement and later updated to "I was effectively pro-choice at that time" so he did cover all of the bases, much like his floating beliefs. His second response "I was effectively pro-choice at that time" is troubling though and strikes me as outdated and sexist, as if his wife was simply an extension of himself rather than an individual who may happen to think differently. Is that what he was saying yesterday? Sure seems like it.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 10, 2007, 09:59:12 AM
I wonder if all this flipflopping by Romney can be stated.

What else did he change his view on besides abortion?

I'd sure hope if Mitt gets the nod that the Dems have a better plan of attack than simply calling him a flipflopper (unlike Hillary, pro-war becoming anti when convenient)


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 10, 2007, 10:02:36 AM
Sure would love to get Ms Clinton in a poker game.

"I was MISLED"


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: yankguy on May 10, 2007, 10:09:02 AM
What else did he change his view on besides abortion?

Gay rights/marriage.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 10, 2007, 10:16:20 AM
Already under scrutiny for shifting positions on key issues and his Mormon faith, presidential hopeful Mitt Romney has made a bizarre new flip flop--saying on national TV his favorite novel is Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard's "Battlefield Earth."

The former Massachusetts governor told Fox News his favorite book was the Bible but his favorite novel was the science fiction tome "Battlefield Earth."

The Mark Twain novel "Huckleberry Finn" tops the book list on Romney’s MySpace page. "Battlefield Earth" isn't on the list.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: liquidsilver on May 10, 2007, 10:20:30 AM
Quote
What else did he change his view on besides abortion?

Let's see, he went from campaigning as a pro-choice, gay-friendly moderate candidate for governor in 2002 and four years later is campaigning as a born-again, pro-life, anti-gay marriage conservative who is courting the Republican right wing


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: liquidsilver on May 10, 2007, 10:26:27 AM
Other flip-flops include the "Don't ask, Don't Tell" military policy, immigration, the defense of marriage act, gun control, the importance of capturing/killing Bin Laden....


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: yankguy on May 10, 2007, 10:29:50 AM
Mitt's Daddy was pretty much a Rockefeller Republican so you wonder if the new reactionary Mitt is a mere calculated ploy, or if the apple really has fallen pretty far from the tree like with George W. and Jeb.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 10, 2007, 10:35:57 AM
Mitt's Daddy was pretty much a Rockefeller Republican so you wonder if the new reactionary Mitt is a mere calculated ploy, or if the apple really has fallen pretty far from the tree like with George W. and Jeb.

I don't think there are any Rockefeller Republicans left.  The GOP has been captured by the religious right and controlled by people like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, et al like them.  Moderates are few and far between these days.  But Mitt is just a whore.  He'll be anything anyone wants him to be as long as he's got your vote.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: yankguy on May 10, 2007, 10:39:22 AM
There are a few Rockefeller Republicans left, I think both of Maine's senators can fit that description for example, but they are a dying breed, and seem to be scorned by the rest of the party.  Certainly no Jacob Javits' types out there.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 10, 2007, 11:00:55 AM
Mitt Romney is the single most repellant candidate in the race.  He will say anything to get elected and change his moral values at the drop of a dime if he thinks it will garner him more votes.

I think Romney wears flip flops at least as well as Rudy Giuliani.

My objection to Romney is more along the lines of his first name.

President "Mitt"???? What? Doesn't that imply that he is always on the receiving end of a situation??? Or that he has to "catch" up, somehow? 

Not a name for a real leader, in my opinion. 


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 10, 2007, 11:25:09 AM
There are a few Rockefeller Republicans left, I think both of Maine's senators can fit that description for example, but they are a dying breed, and seem to be scorned by the rest of the party.  Certainly no Jacob Javits' types out there.

Even the Maine senators have been loyal party supporters and Bush supporters in most cases. 


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: prairiepop on May 10, 2007, 12:07:25 PM
As with many of our posters, we're able to differentiate between the scaly critters who have taken over the GOP and the old clean GOPsters of yesteryore...can you imagine the sleazoid assaults these critters would launch against someone like Rockefeller, Taft, Willkie, Eisenhower and even [gulp] Goldwater--if there were any of their ilk still staunch enuf to emerge.  Fred Thompson, who has spent umpteen years on K Street serving the corporations, may seem less like a flaming Holy Warrior than the rest of the candidates--but don't hold your breath.  Romney has trashed himself--running along beside the golden train as he is--McCain may wind up in a padded condo under chemical restraints-- and Giuliani may not be able to relinquish his adored Kerick in time to save himself from more tabloid coverage.  So who do ya got now?  From various sources, I keep picking up that old-line Republicans are sidling towards the exit...their voices unheard, their warnings unheeded.  They must feel like aliens in a strange land by now, bless their hearts.

And meanwhile, the sacred albatross Dubya is hung about their necks.  Maybe impeaching him would save the party after all!


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 10, 2007, 12:11:34 PM
So who do ya got now?  From various sources, I keep picking up that old-line Republicans are sidling towards the exit...their voices unheard, their warnings unheeded.  They must feel like aliens in a strange land by now, bless their hearts.


Well, you can bet yore bippy that IF the dems are so shallow as to make hillary their nominee, you'll see unity amongst the repubs and the religious right like never before---all in the single desire to NOT have the clintons back in the WH. Bank on it!


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 10, 2007, 12:29:27 PM
Quote
What else did he change his view on besides abortion?

Let's see, he went from campaigning as a pro-choice, gay-friendly moderate candidate for governor in 2002 and four years later is campaigning as a born-again, pro-life, anti-gay marriage conservative who is courting the Republican right wing

You think a Republican candidate should shun what you call the "right wing"?

I'm not sure Mitt was every fully pro choice, but you go ahead with it.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 10, 2007, 12:30:25 PM
Born again?

Well, kind of tough to hide he's a Morman.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 10, 2007, 12:33:28 PM
I think most of us here have agreed with you, Ngc, that Hillary is not the right person for the job.  Can you move on now?  Please.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 10, 2007, 12:35:19 PM
Other flip-flops include the "Don't ask, Don't Tell" military policy, immigration, the defense of marriage act, gun control, the importance of capturing/killing Bin Laden....

Better expand on that if youw ant to be seen as more than a party basher.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 10, 2007, 01:36:06 PM
  Maybe impeaching him would save the party after all!

Elaborate on this, if you can. What would the Republican response be?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: Donotremove on May 10, 2007, 01:54:53 PM
MrUtley, I'm lurking, recently, on this discussion, but let me jump in here and ask if you are one of the Utleys, Clifton or Garrick?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 10, 2007, 02:00:42 PM
MrUtley, I'm lurking, recently, on this discussion, but let me jump in here and ask if you are one of the Utleys, Clifton or Garrick?

Neither.
I'm not an Utley.

My name here comes from Chase Utley, a player on my favorite baseball team---the Phillies.

He plays the game the way I'd like to see all Major Leaguers play.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: prairiepop on May 10, 2007, 02:04:48 PM
Thanks, MrUtley, for being the best straight man!  To your inquiry as to what Republicans would do if Bush were to be impeached...

BREATHE A SIGHT OF RELIEF!

Surely it can't have slipped past us that, what with one thing and another, Certain Grim Aspects of the current administration are beginning to appal, alarm and discombobulate the faithful.  Healthy animals survive by purging themselves of poisons...a healthy GOP may eventually do the same.  Sick critters, OTOH, continue to feed on offal - and eventually unlink themselves from the chain of existence.

As might be said [and not a moment too soon] I'm big on metaphor and few on footnotes.  Somebody's got to do it, right?  Riiiiiiiight!


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 10, 2007, 02:11:52 PM
Well, it IS probably a certain thing---the impeachment of bush. I have long been predicting that it will happen just before the 2008 elections.

Aspects of the current administration are beginning to appal, alarm and discombobulate the faithful.

Beginning? That has been happening for some time actually. In reality, I don't know how many conservative bones bush has in his body---but it cannot be many.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: yankguy on May 10, 2007, 02:15:15 PM
probably a certain thing

Well which one is it?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 10, 2007, 02:17:14 PM
Thanks, MrUtley, for being the best straight man!  To your inquiry as to what Republicans would do if Bush were to be impeached...

BREATHE A SIGHT OF RELIEF!

Surely it can't have slipped past us that, what with one thing and another, Certain Grim Aspects of the current administration are beginning to appal, alarm and discombobulate the faithful.  Healthy animals survive by purging themselves of poisons...a healthy GOP may eventually do the same.  Sick critters, OTOH, continue to feed on offal - and eventually unlink themselves from the chain of existence.

As might be said [and not a moment too soon] I'm big on metaphor and few on footnotes.  Somebody's got to do it, right?  Riiiiiiiight!

Organizations of any type that position themselves to learn and relearn do more than survive. They thrive.

Not sure what you mean about "straight man"...but ok...


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 10, 2007, 02:41:46 PM
probably a certain thing

Well which one is it?

Take your pick. I believe it will happen.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 10, 2007, 02:44:55 PM
probably a certain thing

Well which one is it?

Take your pick. I believe it will happen.

It should have happened a long time ago, but at this late date in the Bush presidency, I doubt very much that it will.  Now a Cheney Impeachment, would be good, IMHO.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 10, 2007, 02:58:10 PM
Post # 200


Impeachment creates empathy and sympathy, sometimes...as well as apathy.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: thecap0 on May 10, 2007, 03:40:36 PM
sam,

It should have happened a long time ago, but at this late date in the Bush presidency, I doubt very much that it will. 

An emasculated Bush is better for the Democrats' chances than a dead one.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 10, 2007, 04:38:14 PM
It should have happened a long time ago, but at this late date in the Bush presidency, I doubt very much that it will. 

An emasculated Bush is better for the Democrats' chances than a dead one.


I wish there were some way to wager on this. Impeachment will not create a 'dead bush', as there are not the votes in the senate to convict him. So it will be just an 'emasculating' operation. Many continue to say it won't happen---well, I guess you are hearing it first right here. The liberals in democrat party are controlling what goes on, and as long as that continues to happen, hatred of bush will outweigh all other factors---including worrying about the next elections.



Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 10, 2007, 05:56:42 PM
 The liberals in democrat party are controlling what goes on, and as long as that continues to happen, hatred of bush will outweigh all other factors---including worrying about the next elections.

If you change this to  read
The conservatives of the republican party are controlling what goes on, and as long as that continues to happen, hatred of bush will outweigh all other factors---including worrying about the next elections.

It works!


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on May 10, 2007, 06:15:36 PM
What would be the point in impeaching Bush at this point? What would be accomplished? Cheney would become president. If he is also impeached, we'd be going into the election without an elected president again. Last time that happened, the Dems won. Will history repeat itself? Will we ever learn to distrust the right wingers in this country?

NGC says that the liberals among the Dems are in "control". If this is so, why were those "in control" unable to override Bush's veto? Pretty funny to be "in control" and unable to control the stupid behaviors of the president.

And, NGC, since you are unable to read what I post, let me emphasize again that I do not support Hillary as a candidate. My interest at present is with Barrack Obama, a candidate you seem to be doing a great job of ignoring. Unlike Hillary, Obama does not owe, owe, owe to the business interests who would subvert our national goals for their own profit. Hillary does.

But I find your hatred of Hillary to be more symptomatic of one who disdains and distrusts the leadership of women rather than someone with a reasoned objection to the individual. Last time you tried to "prove" that Dems were financially supported by "communists", your "proof" clearly stated that the Dems DID NOT KNOW the source of the money and thought it was from a legitimate source. It's OK if Bush sends thousands of GIs to their death for relying on "bad intelligence", but not OK for the Dems to get funds based on "bad intelligence".

NGCm you continue to complain about both the Dems and the Reps, but while you prophesy dire consequences if either is elected, you fail to put forth the name of a candidate you favor. Is there one, or are you one of those intending to vote for George Wallace on his platform that there isn't "A Dime's Worth of Difference" between the major candidates.



Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 10, 2007, 06:33:49 PM
who disdains and distrusts the leadership of women rather than someone with a reasoned objection to the individual.

Keep on projecting---it IS what a liberal IS good at. I have said nothing of the kind.

NGCm you continue to complain about both the Dems and the Reps, but while you prophesy dire consequences if either is elected, you fail to put forth the name of a candidate you favor.

Since you bring the question, whom IS it that you favor? I don't think I remember many saying whom they'd like to see. ISn't this one of those "None of your business questions"?    I have said nothing about any 'dire consequences'---you keep on projecting what your liberally biased mind tells you to---for a pitiful and petty political expedicency that you cannot rationalize through definition or reason.


But I find your hatred of Hillary to be...

I do not hate hillary--I dislike what she stands for and IS. I do not trust her. I trust her the least on anyone in either party running for office. You keep up this liberal projecting and I'll have to send you the medal of 'persistence of the week' award.

If you can't stop the projecting, I guess I'll just have to ignore you. You make zero sense when you do it.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 10, 2007, 08:11:22 PM
who disdains and distrusts the leadership of women rather than someone with a reasoned objection to the individual.

Keep on projecting---it IS what a liberal IS good at. I have said nothing of the kind.

NGCm you continue to complain about both the Dems and the Reps, but while you prophesy dire consequences if either is elected, you fail to put forth the name of a candidate you favor.

Since you bring the question, whom IS it that you favor? I don't think I remember many saying whom they'd like to see. ISn't this one of those "None of your business questions"?    I have said nothing about any 'dire consequences'---you keep on projecting what your liberally biased mind tells you to---for a pitiful and petty political expedicency that you cannot rationalize through definition or reason.


But I find your hatred of Hillary to be...

I do not hate hillary--I dislike what she stands for and IS. I do not trust her. I trust her the least on anyone in either party running for office. You keep up this liberal projecting and I'll have to send you the medal of 'persistence of the week' award.

If you can't stop the projecting, I guess I'll just have to ignore you. You make zero sense when you do it.

I don't want to see Hillary as the candidate, but if she is, I'll support her over any of the repukes I've seen so far, and those waiting in the wings are worse that what they've put up so far.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on May 10, 2007, 10:19:08 PM
NGC,

You have characterized reasonable people, including me, as "Bush haters" because we have said he is not a good president. Yet, you have called our objections to his administration as "Bush-hating". You have exhibited far more "hatred" towards Hillary than the "Bush-haters" have exhibited towards Bush. You seem to operate on a double standard - what you do is always right - what others do is whatever you choose to call it.

I have stated several times that my favorite candidate at this point is Barrack Obama. I guess you were too busy composing your diatribes to read what was posted. IF Hillary receives the Democratic nomination, which I do not think will happen, I would vote for her before any of the republicans who are running so far. I would not vote for Fred Thompson, although I enjoy watching him as an actor. We should have learned our lesson on with Reagan that actors make good stand-in presidents, but we really need "the real thing" rather than someone who just follows cues.



Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 11, 2007, 05:52:03 AM
NGC,

You have characterized reasonable people, including me, as "Bush haters" because we have said he is not a good president. Yet, you have called our objections to his administration as "Bush-hating". You have exhibited far more "hatred" towards Hillary than the "Bush-haters" have exhibited towards Bush. You seem to operate on a double standard - what you do is always right - what others do is whatever you choose to call it.

I have stated several times that my favorite candidate at this point is Barrack Obama. I guess you were too busy composing your diatribes to read what was posted. IF Hillary receives the Democratic nomination, which I do not think will happen, I would vote for her before any of the republicans who are running so far. I would not vote for Fred Thompson, although I enjoy watching him as an actor. We should have learned our lesson on with Reagan that actors make good stand-in presidents, but we really need "the real thing" rather than someone who just follows cues.



What's good for the goose is not always good for the gander, eh?  I agree the Ngc's hatred of the Clintons goes way beyond those of us who see Bush as the worst president in history.

Also, to repukes, Ronald Reagan is almost like a godman.  Yet it was Reagan who "cut and ran" from Lebanon.  Odd, the noise makers never mention that.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on May 11, 2007, 07:00:45 AM
It's an "inconvenient truth"....!


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 11, 2007, 09:10:39 AM
There are so many inconvenient truths for liberals that it doesn't merit discussion. Deride, demean, and debase IS all they know. If you think that the D party ISn't being run by these liberals, your blinders are getting the way---definitely an inconvenienet truth.

And if you think that ANY of the current candidates from EITHER party have your best interests at heart, well, you are simply snowed. Calling you bush haters? I call 'em like I see 'em. If the truth sux for you, pucker up!!


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on May 11, 2007, 09:50:00 AM
NGC,

For your information, it is the conservative who tend to ignore "truths" when they are inconvenient. I may not be a liberal, but I have had my share of run-ins with conservatives that have left a bitter taste. I'm reading the Microbe Hunters, originally published in 1938. I wonder if you believe in the Vegetative Force to create new life, as did many "learned philosophers" people did in the 19th century? Facinating how "truth" is so often based on words for you instead of provable facts.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 11, 2007, 09:51:02 AM
NGC,

You have characterized reasonable people, including me, as "Bush haters" because we have said he is not a good president. Yet, you have called our objections to his administration as "Bush-hating". You have exhibited far more "hatred" towards Hillary than the "Bush-haters" have exhibited towards Bush. You seem to operate on a double standard - what you do is always right - what others do is whatever you choose to call it.

I have stated several times that my favorite candidate at this point is Barrack Obama. I guess you were too busy composing your diatribes to read what was posted. IF Hillary receives the Democratic nomination, which I do not think will happen, I would vote for her before any of the republicans who are running so far. I would not vote for Fred Thompson, although I enjoy watching him as an actor. We should have learned our lesson on with Reagan that actors make good stand-in presidents, but we really need "the real thing" rather than someone who just follows cues.



What's good for the goose is not always good for the gander, eh?  I agree the Ngc's hatred of the Clintons goes way beyond those of us who see Bush as the worst president in history.

Also, to repukes, Ronald Reagan is almost like a godman.  Yet it was Reagan who "cut and ran" from Lebanon.  Odd, the noise makers never mention that.

Wasn't this recently noted by your brethren as a positive - that RR "cut and ran" while Dubya will not?

Make up your mind.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 11, 2007, 10:37:42 AM
instead of provable facts.

You mean like concensus being taken for FACT that man IS causing global warming?

rrriiiggghhhttt.....


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 11, 2007, 11:50:19 AM
By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer
Fri May 11, 3:59 AM ET
 


WASHINGTON - Presidential candidate        John Edwards is offering more policy proposals than any other candidate in the primary and his ideas are winning loud applause from Democratic audiences.

The question is whether other voters will cheer when they see the price tag — more than $125 billion a year.

Edwards is quick to acknowledge his spending on health care, energy and poverty reduction comes at a cost, with more plans to come. All told, his proposals would equal more than $1 trillion if he could get them enacted into law and operational during two White House terms.

Edwards says fixing the country's problems takes ***precedence over eliminating the deficit or offering middle-class tax relief*** like he proposed when running for president in the last election.


Another tax and spend liberal waiting to sock it to us.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: liquidsilver on May 11, 2007, 11:54:09 AM
Considering that the final estimated cost of the war in Iraq is between $1 trillion to $2 trillion - I'm not so sure its just the liberals that are socking it to us.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11880954/


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 11, 2007, 12:25:26 PM
The conservatives are robbing our grandchildren to pay for tax cuts for their wealthy friends and a useless, senseless war.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 11, 2007, 12:55:18 PM
Considering that the final estimated cost of the war in Iraq is between $1 trillion to $2 trillion - I'm not so sure its just the liberals that are socking it to us.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11880954/

Wow!

1 to 2 trillion, eh?

But toough to put that in perspective

How is this calculated?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 11, 2007, 01:00:22 PM
Considering that the final estimated cost of the war in Iraq is between $1 trillion to $2 trillion - I'm not so sure its just the liberals that are socking it to us.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11880954/

Oh rest assured that they are not the only ones---it IS just that liberals do NOT see what their own are all about, unless it IS with eyes that see their liberal usurious expenditures as OK, while anything that IS non-liberal IS to be rejected.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 11, 2007, 01:36:08 PM
Considering that the final estimated cost of the war in Iraq is between $1 trillion to $2 trillion - I'm not so sure its just the liberals that are socking it to us.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11880954/

Oh rest assured that they are not the only ones---it IS just that liberals do NOT see what their own are all about, unless it IS with eyes that see their liberal usurious expenditures as OK, while anything that IS non-liberal IS to be rejected.

And you think anythiing that isn't neo-conservative or fascist has got to be liberal, right, comrade?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on May 11, 2007, 01:45:56 PM
Considering that the final estimated cost of the war in Iraq is between $1 trillion to $2 trillion - I'm not so sure its just the liberals that are socking it to us.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11880954/

Oh rest assured that they are not the only ones---it IS just that liberals do NOT see what their own are all about, unless it IS with eyes that see their liberal usurious expenditures as OK, while anything that IS non-liberal IS to be rejected.

And your evidence for this is what?

Oh, I forgot, as long as only a "concensus" of scientist believe the scientific evidence on global warming, you don't have to prove anything. Yeah! Sock it to us, buddy boy!


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 11, 2007, 02:05:51 PM
a "concensus" of scientist believe the scientific evidence on global warming, you don't have to prove anything.

I would love to see some scientific evidence of MAN MADE global warming---you ALWAYS leave out the 'man made' portion---and the concrete holding of warmth around cities IS not global warming.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 11, 2007, 02:18:38 PM
Look out your back door, bud.  Smell the air.  Hopefully, there isn't a fire in your backyard.


Title: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis
Post by: liquidsilver on May 11, 2007, 02:25:15 PM
Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have increased
markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values
determined from ice cores spanning many thousands of years (see Figure SPM-1). The global
increases in carbon dioxide concentration are due primarily to fossil fuel use and land-use change,
while those of methane and nitrous oxide are primarily due to agriculture.


http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/WG1AR4_SPM_PlenaryApproved.pdf



Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: liquidsilver on May 11, 2007, 02:31:49 PM
For the record, that report is released by The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is made up of the top climate scientists from 113 countries.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 11, 2007, 02:34:26 PM
If Storm Field is not among them, I don't wanna hear it.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: liquidsilver on May 11, 2007, 02:34:36 PM
The head of the U.S. delegation, White House associate science adviser Sharon Hays, called the panel's summary "a significant report. It will be valuable to policymakers."

In Washington, Stephen Johnson, Environmental Protection Agency administrator, said the report "marks a great day for the scientific body of knowledge on climate change."



Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on May 11, 2007, 03:57:18 PM
Great evidence.

But it won't convince NGC since he does not even understand that the pavement in the cities is "man-made" let alone the industrial emissions that began with the Industrial Revolution.



Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 11, 2007, 04:12:12 PM
Great evidence.

But it won't convince NGC since he does not even understand that the pavement in the cities is "man-made" let alone the industrial emissions that began with the Industrial Revolution.



By the late 16th Century, Europe and England had pretty much run of of wood as an energy souce and had begun the use of coal.  From what I've read, the sky was black with soot in London from the burning of this new dirty energy source, and many people were sickened by it as well.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 11, 2007, 04:34:15 PM
understand that the pavement in the cities is "man-made"...


Yep---but the degree or two difference from the city compared to the countryside IS hardly global warming, and it does go away within a few hours. It other words, it ain't nothing permanent. Ya got a pretty lame example there, ms. liberal.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 11, 2007, 04:37:50 PM
And the little tad of warming that IS generated by concrete in cities IS hardly related to carbon emissions, IS it, ms. liberal?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on May 11, 2007, 06:23:17 PM
NGC,

Both cement, and smoke stack emissions are man-made, and they BOTH increase the temperature, and, no, it does not go away. There is a constant difference of temps between cities and rural areas with the same weather.

This is but one example of the evidence of man-made warming. If you read the work of the climate scientists, you will find more convincing evidence. I chose to use one that I felt you could test and understand yourself. Sadly, you seem incapable of even that much reasoning.

What is not disputed is that the man is affecting the temperature in developed areas. What is disputed is whether these effects are driving the supposed "global warming" or if the globe is warming irrespective of the man-made activities. Evidence, such as it is for my POV, is that the effects are happening in parts of the globe which are quite distant from human development that is environmentally unfriendly.




Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 11, 2007, 07:17:34 PM
That people would deny the fact that global warming is a reality just points to where they've got their heads!!  If you catch my drift.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on May 11, 2007, 07:38:16 PM
Sam,

Maybe it's just my advanced age, but I seem to remember that a lot of scientists were predicting a comin Ice Age not very long ago. Suddenly it became Global Warming. I'm on the jury that is still out on both. I'll take the weather as it comes.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 11, 2007, 07:53:13 PM
Sam,

Maybe it's just my advanced age, but I seem to remember that a lot of scientists were predicting a comin Ice Age not very long ago. Suddenly it became Global Warming. I'm on the jury that is still out on both. I'll take the weather as it comes.

I believe that is true.  But I do think we, as human beings, have a moral obligation to do what we can to prevent the horrors that are predicted coming from global warm, just in case the science is right.  It is also the right thing to do for the environment.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on May 11, 2007, 09:40:17 PM
Sam,

I really don't think we need to establish whether or not global warming is a threat to tackle the real threat of damage to the environment, especially the air and water supplies to the population. We need to be able to breathe fresh air, drink clean water, and eat unpolluted food in order to survive as a species.

I don't know if you have a pet and have been following the problems in the pet food supply, but the source of the problem has been that some suppliers, in order to boost the protein content of the gluten they were marketing, added ground up plastic, which they otherwise used as a fertilizer, into the gluten and shipped it as pure gluten. I will not be surprised if a bit down the road, we begin to find that the contaminated gluten is in people food. It will probably not cause serious problem for adults, but if it turns up in baby food, there will be a lot of weeping and gnashing of teeth!

Striving for greater and greatere "production" has resulted in polluting our air, our water, and now, our food supply. Global warming is nor as certain a threat to civilization as pollution is. We need to settle on reasonable levels of "production", and stop striving for more, more, and more...


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 11, 2007, 10:37:50 PM
That's a criminal act, pal.  Pure greed.  Different subject altogether - and yeah, quite sad already, worse if humans begin to drop


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 12, 2007, 05:49:58 AM
Romney, seeking to become the first Mormon president, also tries to allay any concerns about his religion.

"What's at the heart of my faith is a belief that there's a creator, that we're all children of the same God, and that fundamentally the relationship you have with your spouse is important and eternal," Romney said over the course of two interviews, one of which was taped at his vacation home in Wolfeboro, N.H.

Meanwhile, Romney also is on the cover of the latest edition of Time magazine.

In its main story, Time writes, "The closest he has ever come to a personal religious crisis, he recalls, was when he was in college and considering whether to go off on a mission, as his grandfather, father and brother had done. ... He says he also felt guilty about the draft deferment he would get for it, when other young men his age were heading for Vietnam."

Romney offered a slightly different tale during an interview with the Boston Herald during his 1994 U.S. Senate campaign.

"I didn't go on a mission to avoid the draft," Romney said at the time. "I never asked my dad (Michigan Gov. George Romney) in any way to be involved with the draft board.

"Romney, however, acknowledged he did not have any desire to serve in the military during his college and missionary days, especially after he married and became a father," the newspaper wrote. "'I was not planning on signing up for the military,' he said. It was not my desire to go off and serve in Vietnam, but nor did I take any actions to remove myself from the pool of young men who were eligible for the draft. If drafted, I would have been happy to serve, and if I didn't get drafted I was happy to be with my wife and new child.'"


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070511/ap_on_el_pr/on_the2008_trail;_ylt=AmHu5nyGxCZgPYxltAb2eM6yFz4D


Phoney as a three dollar bill.
  Not one of his five sons is serving in Iraq.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 12, 2007, 06:11:04 AM
 Rudy comes out. Says that yes, he is pro-choice, pro-gay rights and pro-gun control
by Joe Sudbay (DC) · 5/11/2007 04:33:00 PM ET
Discuss this post here: Comments (78) · digg it · reddit · FARK ·  · Link

This pretty much takes care of Rudy's GOP chances. The right-wing Republican leaders, including like Pat Robertson, James Dobson and Wayne LaPierre from the NRA, will never, ever let Rudy lead their Republican party. And Rudy may not like it, but that's who does control the Republican Party:

    Rudolph W. Giuliani sharpened his liberal credentials before a conservative crowd in Houston today, as he worked to present a more consistent platform on the campaign trail.

    At an appearance at Houston Baptist University, Mr. Giuliani said that he favors abortion rights, certain restrictions on gun ownership and gay rights — he is for civil unions, he said, although not for marriage between people of the same sex.

    During last week’s debate among Republicans vying for their party’s 2008 presidential nomination, the former New York City mayor was criticized for his halting and apparently contradictory responses to questions about his views on abortion rights. Critics have said that he is trying to run from a record that is much more liberal than the views of the Republican Party’s core voters on the issue.

http://www.americablog.com/


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 13, 2007, 07:13:47 AM
Boston.com    THIS STORY HAS BEEN FORMATTED FOR EASY PRINTING
The Boston Globe
Romney says his faith's past is troubling
Calls practice of polygamy 'awful'

By Reuters  |  May 12, 2007

BOSTON -- Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said his Mormon religious faith's history of polygamy could trouble American voters and that he, too, is bothered by it.

The former Massachusetts governor, whose great-grandfather had five wives and whose great-great-grandfather had a dozen, said in an interview to be broadcast tomorrow that the practice banned by the Mormon church in 1890 was "awful."

"That's part of the history of the church's past that I understand is troubling to people," he said, according to comments to be aired on CBS's "60 Minutes."

"I have a great-great grandfather. They were trying to build a generation out there in the desert and so he took additional wives as he was told to do. And I must admit, I can't imagine anything more awful than polygamy," he said.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints distances itself from 30,000 to 60,000 breakaway Mormons in Utah and nearby states who practice polygamy illegally, as well as the many excommunicated Mormons in polygamous marriages.

"What's at the heart of my faith is a belief that there's a creator, that we're all children of the same God, and that fundamentally the relationship you have with your spouse is important and eternal," Romney said over the course of two interviews, one of which was taped at his vacation home in Wolfeboro, N.H.

In the interviews, Romney also defended his opposition to gay marriage by citing the Scriptures.

"This isn't just some temporary convenience here on Earth, but we're people that are designed to live together as male and female and we're gonna have families," he told interviewer Mike Wallace, according to an excerpt CBS released yesterday. "And that, there's a great line in the Bible that children are an inheritance of the Lord and happy is he who has or hath his quiver full of them."

Meanwhile, Romney, who made his fortune as a management consultant, is expected to report financial assets of $190 million to $250 million, an adviser said yesterday. Romney's assets have been held in a blind trust that he and his wife set up when he took office in 2002.

The adviser who provided the estimate of his assets cautioned that the number is based on 2005 and 2006 financial activity and could amount to a bigger total once the disclosure report is filed later this year.

The adviser spoke on condition of anonymity because the totals have not been officially released. The deadline for filing financial disclosures is Tuesday, but Romney obtained an extension.

Romney also has a blind trust for his children and grandchildren that is estimated to hold assets of $70 million to $100 million.

Material from the Associated Press was included in this report. 
© Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company
 

Romney will be interviewed on 60 Minutes tonight.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: thecap0 on May 13, 2007, 07:41:48 AM
Sam,

Romney also has a blind trust for his children and grandchildren that is estimated to hold assets of $70 million to $100 million.

That's just one more reason for taxing estates <$10M at 100%.

What has Romney's kids ever done to deserve such a windfall except to choose the right parents?

For that matter, it would be instructive to determine how much of Mitt's holdings were a legacy from his old man, George, who made his pile of dough by being the CEO of the old American Motors.

Let's see if Mitt's campaign against the "unearned, unmerited advantage" of race also extends to the elimination of the equally "unearned, unmerited advantage" of inherited wealth.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 13, 2007, 08:41:03 AM
Sam,

Romney also has a blind trust for his children and grandchildren that is estimated to hold assets of $70 million to $100 million.

That's just one more reason for taxing estates <$10M at 100%.

What has Romney's kids ever done to deserve such a windfall except to choose the right parents?

For that matter, it would be instructive to determine how much of Mitt's holdings were a legacy from his old man, George, who made his pile of dough by being the CEO of the old American Motors.

Let's see if Mitt's campaign against the "unearned, unmerited advantage" of race also extends to the elimination of the equally "unearned, unmerited advantage" of inherited wealth.

I thought you'd find that interesting.  Not one of them have served in the military either.  Nor did Mitt.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 13, 2007, 10:47:11 AM
So---some candidates are to be trashed because they haven't served in the military...I wonder where the criticism of hillary will begin? She cannot count serving in that apologist 'clintonista' army as service.

But, liberals just cannot SEE the folly of so many things they spew and spout.

Anyone or ANYTHING but hillary.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 13, 2007, 11:17:11 AM
So---some candidates are to be trashed because they haven't served in the military...I wonder where the criticism of hillary will begin? She cannot count serving in that apologist 'clintonista' army as service.

But, liberals just cannot SEE the folly of so many things they spew and spout.

Anyone or ANYTHING but hillary.

I have not seen anyone here who says that Hillary is their candidate.  You have this obsession (a sick one, BTW) about Hillary and liberals.  You really need to take a walk and smell the roses, dumbo.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 13, 2007, 11:57:29 AM
Sam,

Romney also has a blind trust for his children and grandchildren that is estimated to hold assets of $70 million to $100 million.

That's just one more reason for taxing estates <$10M at 100%.

What has Romney's kids ever done to deserve such a windfall except to choose the right parents?

For that matter, it would be instructive to determine how much of Mitt's holdings were a legacy from his old man, George, who made his pile of dough by being the CEO of the old American Motors.

Let's see if Mitt's campaign against the "unearned, unmerited advantage" of race also extends to the elimination of the equally "unearned, unmerited advantage" of inherited wealth.

So, you hate rich people and white people. Got it.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 13, 2007, 12:27:10 PM
Sam,

Romney also has a blind trust for his children and grandchildren that is estimated to hold assets of $70 million to $100 million.

That's just one more reason for taxing estates <$10M at 100%.

What has Romney's kids ever done to deserve such a windfall except to choose the right parents?

For that matter, it would be instructive to determine how much of Mitt's holdings were a legacy from his old man, George, who made his pile of dough by being the CEO of the old American Motors.

Let's see if Mitt's campaign against the "unearned, unmerited advantage" of race also extends to the elimination of the equally "unearned, unmerited advantage" of inherited wealth.

So, you hate rich people and white people. Got it.

Sure sounds like it. Jealousy could just be twisting his guts. If it wouldn't turn it into an oxymoron, I'd say this guy IS a sick liberal. But liberal just sorta says it all.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on May 13, 2007, 01:07:04 PM
Mr Utley and NGC,

Why does Cap speaking about the excesses of unearned wealth lead to the conclusion that he "hates" anyone at all? If that wealth was being spent on his classroom and his students, I'm sure he's love the particular rich white man/woman who was doing the gifting! Let's bury the term "hate" and look at the POV involved.

Mr. Utley, you have asserted that if there was a cap (which there is anyway) on the amount of money you can leave to your heirs or your favorite charities, that you would not have the incentive to become super-wealthy. Can you provide examples of those who stopped striving for excessive wealth because it would be taxed away from them on their death? Or is it just your personal POV?

NGC, what is your take on the issue of unearned wealth?

Is a real issues for either of you? Do you have wealth in excess of $10million dollars at stake? Or is it just posturing and your own love of being "in control".


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: thecap0 on May 13, 2007, 02:08:45 PM
Anne,

Why does Cap speaking about the excesses of unearned wealth lead to the conclusion that he "hates" anyone at all? If that wealth was being spent on his classroom and his students, I'm sure he's love the particular rich white man/woman who was doing the gifting!

JUST SO!!

Last school year, five of my students won Gates Millenium Scholarships that will pay their way through higher education as far as they want to go, through med school in one student's case.

This year, at least two of my students won full ride scholarships from the Daniels Fund.  That's the same Daniels whose millions went to establish the Daniels School of Business at the University of Denver.

This year, John Kluge gave $100M to Columbia to create a scholarship fund for those who were accepted and qwho, but for this assistance, could never attend.

I personally benefited years ago from the wealth of one Leopold Schepp, whose Foundation made it possible for this slum kid to make it through Columbia.

I don't hate WEALTH, but I do despise GREED!

And I see no need for any estate to be valued <$10M.  If any heir needs more than that to get established, they are a wastrel.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 13, 2007, 03:01:07 PM

Published on Wednesday, February 14, 2001 in the New York Times
Dozens of the Wealthy Join to Fight Estate Tax Repeal
by David Cay Johnston
 
SEATTLE, Feb. 13 — Some 120 wealthy Americans, including Warren E. Buffett, George Soros and the father of William H. Gates, are urging Congress not to repeal taxes on estates and gifts.

President Bush has proposed phasing out those taxes by 2009. But a petition drive being organized here by Mr. Gates's father, William H. Gates Sr., argues that "repealing the estate tax would enrich the heirs of America's millionaires and billionaires while hurting families who struggle to make ends meet."

The billions of dollars in government revenue lost "will inevitably be made up either by increasing taxes on those less able to pay or by cutting Social Security, Medicare, environmental protection and many other government programs so important to our nation's continued well-being," the petition says.

In addition to the loss of government revenue, the petition says, repeal would harm charities, to which many of the affluent make contributions as a way of reducing the size of their estates.

"The estate tax," it says, "exerts a powerful and positive effect on charitable giving. Repeal would have a devastating impact on public charities."

Mr. Buffett, the Omaha investor who ranks fourth on the Forbes magazine list of the richest Americans, said in an interview that he had not signed the petition itself because he thought it did not go far enough in defending "the critical role" that he said the estate tax played in promoting economic growth, by helping create a society in which success is based on merit rather than inheritance.

Mr. Buffett said repealing the estate tax "would be a terrible mistake," the equivalent of "choosing the 2020 Olympic team by picking the eldest sons of the gold-medal winners in the 2000 Olympics."

"We would regard that as absolute folly in terms of athletic competition," he said.

"We have come closer to a true meritocracy than anywhere else around the world," he said. "You have mobility so people with talents can be put to the best use. Without the estate tax, you in effect will have an aristocracy of wealth, which means you pass down the ability to command the resources of the nation based on heredity rather than merit."


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 13, 2007, 03:04:25 PM
Mr. Utley, you have asserted that if there was a cap (which there is anyway) on the amount of money you can leave to your heirs or your favorite charities, that you would not have the incentive to become super-wealthy. Can you provide examples of those who stopped striving for excessive wealth because it would be taxed away from them on their death? Or is it just your personal POV?


You are misinterpreting my previous remarks.

I don't feel that the government has a right to set a limit on what a person can leave to his family, or what a person can inherit.

And that has nothing to do with providing you with "examples of those who stopped striving" for wealth in a situation that doesn't currently exist.  


AS for the ARBITRARY ASSIGNMENT of the number $10 million, this does not account for inflation, and devaluation of the dollar---etc....JUST A FACT to consider.

My personal POV is: whatever income that is yours should pretty much stay yours and be yours to determine as to where it goes once you have departed the planet.  And I am not sure why that simple concept is so confusing to you or to anyone else.

 


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 13, 2007, 05:30:56 PM
Scientists predict that glaciers will vanish within the next 20 years because of global

warming.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2006/05/03/LI2006050300853.html

This is for comrade ngc.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: thecap0 on May 13, 2007, 07:22:17 PM
ngc,

So---some candidates are to be trashed because they haven't served in the military.

And of course you never EVER criticized President Clinton's lack of military service, did you?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on May 13, 2007, 07:24:30 PM
Utley,

I suspect that the quote from Sam about those with that wealth saying the estate tax provides benefits more than it takes away anything.

There is an old saying "you can't take it with you", and it seems that is what you want to do. Perhaps I misunderstand you, but you seem to believe that since the wealth is yours during your lifetime, you should be the only one to decide what to do with it after you are gone. Indeed you can, but one of those decisions include allowing for the tax man.


NGC, Go back and re-read what Cap said. You have totally confused his POV. He is asking why that should be an issue, not saying it should be. You've got it backwards.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 14, 2007, 05:41:25 AM
APARECIDA, Brazil, May 13 — In a major speech on Sunday, Pope Benedict XVI condemned capitalism and Marxism as “systems that marginalize God” and urged the Latin American clergy to feed people’s spiritual hunger as the way to ease poverty and halt the Roman Catholic Church’s steady decline in the region.

Speaking to Latin American bishops here for a conference on the church’s direction for the next decade, the pope also condemned abortion and contraception and laws that permit them. Such laws, he said, are “threatening the future of peoples.”


Isn't this contray to all that we stand for?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 14, 2007, 05:49:34 AM
(Columbus, Ohio) Hillary Rodham Clinton criticized President Bush on Saturday as running a "government of the few, for the few and by the few."

"For six long years the hardworking families of our middle class have been invisible to this president," she said, promising to be a president who again sets goals for the country.

Democrats attending the Ohio state party's annual dinner gave a rousing cheer when the senator from New York asked, "Are you ready to end the war in Iraq and restore America's reputation around the world?


Wow.  Imagine a President who was concerned about the people in the middle and not the people at the top.  Way to go, Hillary.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on May 14, 2007, 06:35:16 AM
Sam,

The pope is not expected to project American values. He's supposed to question the secular values wherever the crop up. And, despite the protestations of the Christian Right, capitalism is an enemy to good Christan living. I'm not sure that opposing birth control is a good way to offset poverty. Seems that would be the cause of more misery. I do wonder what form of government the pope supports, other than a theocracy.

As to Hillary, when Bill was in office, he pandered rather much to the big business interests. I don't know if Hillary will depart from that trend and set her own agenda, or if she will continue to support management over labor and business over government controls and regulations.



Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 14, 2007, 08:42:05 AM
And of course you never EVER criticized President Clinton's lack of military service, did you?

As a matter of fact, I did not. But, like a good liberal, you will call me a liar--even tho you will have zero evidence to this fact. I was merely pointing out that right now, during beginnings of the campaign season, that an R "IS" being criticized, while hillary, a D, IS not. It "IS" quite simply a double standard. Something that you, being a liberal, do not mind---as long as some other liberal "IS" not on the suffering end of that double standard. Pathetic.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 14, 2007, 08:47:49 AM
capitalism is an enemy to good Christan living.

rrriiiggghhhttt....I suppose you have eschewed paying taxes, stopped working for gains to make your family better off, refusing to be voting for any candidate that espouses capitalism (And here IS a hint for you: they all do!!), I can't take it anymore----LMAO!!!!

Enemy to good christian living? RRRIIIGGGHHHTTT...........Only in that pathetic little liberal brain you've got there. REAL moderate comment that was, ms. liberal!!! Ya think you're 'Holier than thou' now?

Cast the log from your own eye before you complain of the splinter in mine.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: thecap0 on May 14, 2007, 09:03:28 AM
ngc,

Enemy to good christian living? RRRIIIGGGHHHTTT...........Only in that pathetic little liberal brain you've got there.

Your argument is not with anyone on this form, fool; it's with the Pope.

Why not take it up with him and see how far you get, troll!


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 14, 2007, 09:06:38 AM
Taxing inheritances of over $10M at the rate of 100% "IS" merely theft inspired by acute jealousy. "A man's rights can be trampled on by an elected legislature as easily as they could be by a tyrranical king in England". I can see teddy kennedy saying he's going for this---or kerry---or algore and his global crossing stocks. What would liberal candidates do w/o soros and his billions to lead the charge of slander and lies for them? What would it have meant for the klyntons not have terry mcawfuliffe around? How would moveon.org survive? Would they then get federal tax dollars? I can see the liberal hollywood 'elites' reactions now at not being able to leave what they have made for their own next generations.

What you liberals seem to forget "IS" that taxes have already been paid on the money that these rich people have---and what they choose to do with what they have made IS their choice. If my father has a $15M house he cannot leave it to me? If he also has estates in a dozen other locations they are all going to be appropriated by the state? My own opinion IS that you should not be attacking what people already have, but the windfall profits that get made at the expense of the populace.

Wake up---take off your blinders, liberals. I know it ain't gonna happen because you will forever believe that your way IS right and any other way IS wrong---and that IS eternally pitiful. So your financial jealousy will just have to eat away at you on a daily basis.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 14, 2007, 09:09:32 AM
Well, mr. liberal, here IS her sentence---her own---NOT the pope's.

And, despite the protestations of the Christian Right, capitalism is an enemy to good Christan living.

Being the atheist you are anyway, why should you care about anything that someone that IS religious says? Ya just got so much bile in that liberal stomach that it sours your every waking moment, right?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 14, 2007, 09:52:11 AM
Well, mr. liberal, here IS her sentence---her own---NOT the pope's.

And, despite the protestations of the Christian Right, capitalism is an enemy to good Christan living.

Being the atheist you are anyway, why should you care about anything that someone that IS religious says? Ya just got so much bile in that liberal stomach that it sours your every waking moment, right?

Christ said, "Give away all your worldly possession, and follow me."  Christianity is pure communism.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 14, 2007, 10:36:14 AM
 There is an old saying "you can't take it with you", and it seems that is what you want to do. Perhaps I misunderstand you, but you seem to believe that since the wealth is yours during your lifetime, you should be the only one to decide what to do with it after you are gone. Indeed you can, but one of those decisions include allowing for the tax man.

Well, weezo, you either aren't getting this on purpose or by nature's design.

I am not arguing for takig it with me. I am stating clearly that it should be up to me what happens to the wealth I accumulate. Don't confuse the issue.

The tax man has already collected taxes on that money earned. Now he wishes to collect it again...BUT that wasn't the basis of the original criticism, either.

capo's plan is not to TAX but to TAKE AWAY ALL the accumulated wealth that goes beyond $10,000,000, and that would be robbery, not taxation.

He calls it "excessive" and says that the heirs don't deserve it.

He has yet to make a case for that.

 A person should retain the right to determine where his worldly possessions be directed.

Not sure why you continue to misread and overinterpret that simple premise.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 14, 2007, 10:50:12 AM
Bloomberg for Prez: 

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2007/05/14/2007-05-14_uh_mike_about_all_those_im_not_running_r.html

 Poll says he’d beat Rudy:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2007/05/14/2007-05-14_bloomy_tops_rudy_in_battle_of_the_titans-2.html

and Chuck Hagel says he Bloomy would make a great team:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/2007/05/14/2007-05-14_wed_make_one_great_ticket_nebraska_senat.html


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 14, 2007, 10:53:40 AM
Newtie in the running:

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/stories/2007/05/06/0507gingrichcamp.html


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 14, 2007, 11:02:46 AM
Bloomberg for Prez: 

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2007/05/14/2007-05-14_uh_mike_about_all_those_im_not_running_r.html

 Poll says he’d beat Rudy:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2007/05/14/2007-05-14_bloomy_tops_rudy_in_battle_of_the_titans-2.html

and Chuck Hagel says he Bloomy would make a great team:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/2007/05/14/2007-05-14_wed_make_one_great_ticket_nebraska_senat.html


I saw this earlier today, and I think these two could possibly be a winning team.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 14, 2007, 11:50:50 AM
Moderation is the new black in politics.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 14, 2007, 12:10:37 PM
So anyway, Tommy Thompson claims that the reason he said people should be free to fire gays for being gay was because he had to pee and his hearing aid was malfunctioning.  Why is it that these two explanations make me actually more afraid of the guy that I was when I thought he was merely a homophobe.  "Nuke Iran?  I thought you said Luke Myron.  I'd've asked who he was, but I had to pee."


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: liquidsilver on May 14, 2007, 12:13:03 PM
What did Thompson think he was saying I wonder....


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 14, 2007, 12:18:21 PM
Moderation is the new black in politics.

What was the old black in politics?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on May 14, 2007, 12:26:52 PM
Mr. Utley,

I can't say I advocate taxing 100% as Cap says, but I also do not want to see the estate taxes go away. Anytime you use your money, it is taxed again. If you make a purchase, you pay taxes on the purchase, and the business (theoretically at least) pays taxes on it. If you pay someone who works for you, you pay their social security taxes and they pay income tax on what you pay them. When you die, your money changes hands again. A tax is appropriate.

It is not that I do not understand, it is more that I am in agreement with the tax man taking a share of large estates. Yes, I know it poses a hardship in the case of large real estate holdings, but there is a solution, in the form of insurance policies, that can protect the heirs. I've had this argument with folks on a history list who are concerned that the large original plantations have grown so much in value due to the huge jump in real estate values, that these large estates are going to developers instead of heirs who will preserve the old homesteads. If the heirs were going to use the huge estates as originally patented, I may have more sympathy, but since they tend not to put the land to any use, it may as well pass into new hands and become productive. It is my POV, and I'm stuck with it. I prefer to see old estates put into new uses than remain as symbols of some "royalty" to another generation.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: thecap0 on May 14, 2007, 12:30:51 PM
Garrick,

capo's plan is not to TAX but to TAKE AWAY ALL the accumulated wealth that goes beyond $10,000,000, and that would be robbery, not taxation.

Perhaps you have an estate worth <$10M
Otehrwise it won't affect you one bit - unless, of course, you are a suck-up to the rich.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: yankguy on May 14, 2007, 12:34:29 PM
It would seem to me that the same logic you're applying to liquidating estates (and presumably turning over to the public coffers) estates worth greater than 10 million dollars can be applied to estates worth 10 cents, i.e., that the beneficiaries of such "wealth" really did nothing to earn it and that the government has a right to take it away. 

 


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 14, 2007, 01:12:21 PM
* The federal estate tax exemption amount is $2,000,000 in 2006 increasing to $3,500,000 in 2009. The highest federal estate tax rate is 46% in 2006 and decreases to 45% in 2007-2009. The federal estate tax will be repealed on 1/1/10 until 12/31/10. Beginning 2011, the federal estate tax will be reinstated with a federal estate tax exemption amount of $1,000,000 and a maximum estate tax rate of 55%. Currently, bills are pending in Congress that, if passed, would permanently repeal or otherwise lessen the impact of the federal estate tax.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: thecap0 on May 14, 2007, 01:19:00 PM
Yank,

It would seem to me that the same logic you're applying to liquidating estates (and presumably turning over to the public coffers) estates worth greater than 10 million dollars can be applied to estates worth 10 cents, i.e., that the beneficiaries of such "wealth" really did nothing to earn it and that the government has a right to take it away. 

JUST SO!!

If American society is opposed to color and/or race-based preferences on the grounds that the beneficiaries did nothing to earn them, then logic dictates that the same treatment be given to the equally unearned benefit of inherited wealth.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: yankguy on May 14, 2007, 01:20:17 PM
Okay fair enough.  Your position is "no inheritances." 


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 14, 2007, 01:28:56 PM
But the law exempts over 3M today and taxes the balance at 46%.  That means the estate keeps 54%.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: yankguy on May 14, 2007, 01:33:18 PM
You're talking what the law IS.  We're talking WHAT IT SHOULD BE.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 14, 2007, 01:36:49 PM
Yank,

It would seem to me that the same logic you're applying to liquidating estates (and presumably turning over to the public coffers) estates worth greater than 10 million dollars can be applied to estates worth 10 cents, i.e., that the beneficiaries of such "wealth" really did nothing to earn it and that the government has a right to take it away. 

JUST SO!!

If American society is opposed to color and/or race-based preferences on the grounds that the beneficiaries did nothing to earn them, then logic dictates that the same treatment be given to the equally unearned benefit of inherited wealth.
So you think there should be no small businesses, family farms, corporate stock ownership?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: liquidsilver on May 14, 2007, 01:37:55 PM
Personally I prefer the dead be taxed more than the living -- but if someone related to me died with a sizable inheritance than perhaps I'd change my tune.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 14, 2007, 01:41:28 PM
You're talking what the law IS.  We're talking WHAT IT SHOULD BE.

I also believe you are talking about 1% of the population whose estates fall into this category.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: yankguy on May 14, 2007, 01:43:46 PM
NO I'M NOT.  What I'm arguing is thecap0's logic is EQUALLY APPLICABLE to estates of 10 CENTS as it would be to estates of 10 MILLION. 

I know what the law is.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: liquidsilver on May 14, 2007, 01:47:59 PM
You're talking what the law IS.  We're talking WHAT IT SHOULD BE.

I also believe you are talking about 1% of the population whose estates fall into this category.

While we do live in quite a debt heavy society, I'm fairly sure there are more than one percent of estates worth over a dime.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: yankguy on May 14, 2007, 01:55:23 PM
It's not that hard a concept, folks.  Thecap0 is arguing that all estates over 10 million should be expropriated because nobody has a right to unearned wealth.  My argument is that his logic (i.e. nobody has a right to unearned wealth) would apply to estates at 10 cents as well.  That's the sole basis of the discussion.  I don't care where the law sets it and I recognize that a line has to be drawn somewhere.  Thecap0 seems to argue that the line should be zero inherited wealth.   


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 14, 2007, 02:04:03 PM
If American society is opposed to color and/or race-based preferences on the grounds that the beneficiaries did nothing to earn them, then logic dictates that the same treatment be given to the equally unearned benefit of inherited wealth.

That IS just plain crazy. Not a bit of 'logic' there. Just more liberalism being desired in one the most pathetic forms I have seen yet. But, what IS expected from a liberal will usually be expressed. And you sure have done it here. Even other liberals seem to be disagreeing with you. LMAO!!


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: liquidsilver on May 14, 2007, 02:07:06 PM
If a liberal expresses a certain viewpoint and other liberals disagree then which viewpoint is the liberal one?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 14, 2007, 02:23:10 PM
If a liberal expresses a certain viewpoint and other liberals disagree then which viewpoint is the liberal one?

ISn't it quite obvious? Liberals themselves are all over the place politically---one way today, different tomorrow, back to the other way the next....it seems like they themselves would SEE the folly of their ranks. Just because one has a differeing view LIBERALLY, doesn't mean that if they way they state something ISn't also liberal....liberalism has extremes as well, like not jailing child molesters, wanting communism, seeing nothing wrong with gay 'marriage', wanting 100% tax rates on inheritances, promoting homosexuality in public schools, defending the UN, you know, really STUPID stuff.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: liquidsilver on May 14, 2007, 02:27:38 PM
If liberals are all over the place politically then how can you lump them all together?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: yankguy on May 14, 2007, 02:29:05 PM
Because Rush Limbaugh does it.  Dammit!

And it's fun...and it doesn't require any thought..or any effort....


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 14, 2007, 02:35:18 PM
Because Rush Limbaugh does it.  Dammit!

And it's fun...and it doesn't require any thought..or any effort....

So true.  Neocons have to get their jollies someway; they're not suppose to in the bedroom.  Breeding is for making babies only.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: thecap0 on May 14, 2007, 04:55:43 PM
ngc,

Even other liberals seem to be disagreeing with you. LMAO!!

Rhett Butler's riposte to Scarlett seems especially appropriate.

BTW, we liberals (of whom I am proud to be one) differ because we can think for ourselves.

We do not have to quote the latest received wisdom from Gush Limpbutt.

Figured out Occam's Razor yet, genius?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 14, 2007, 05:53:47 PM
ngc,

Even other liberals seem to be disagreeing with you. LMAO!!

Rhett Butler's riposte to Scarlett seems especially appropriate.

BTW, we liberals (of whom I am proud to be one) differ because we can think for ourselves.

We do not have to quote the latest received wisdom from Gush Limpbutt.

Figured out Occam's Razor yet, genius?

Is it any wonder we have a home grown drug problem in this country?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 14, 2007, 07:36:15 PM
It's not that hard a concept, folks.  Thecap0 is arguing that all estates over 10 million should be expropriated because nobody has a right to unearned wealth.  My argument is that his logic (i.e. nobody has a right to unearned wealth) would apply to estates at 10 cents as well.  That's the sole basis of the discussion.  I don't care where the law sets it and I recognize that a line has to be drawn somewhere.  Thecap0 seems to argue that the line should be zero inherited wealth.   

Well, you put it better than me, when I was arguing this point last week.

I just don't think the government has a right to get into the redistribution of wealth business, just to appease capO's and his communist sense of fairness.

If you let them take away property under the basis of some arbitrary view of how much a person should be able to have or leave to his/her heirs, the gov't can turn around and say, "Well, let's see. You can't have any of it. it's all ours to begin with."

I think we've seen how that "logic" extended has worked out for the human race. Karl Marx was wrong about human nature, and Adam Smith was a lot closer to an accurate understanding of what makes a man (or woman) tick.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: thecap0 on May 14, 2007, 08:45:49 PM
Yank,

Your position is "no inheritances."

You and your Reichwing buddies are just being this dense for the sake of the forum, right.  In real life you're not this way.  Or...?

Let's try this one more time, shall we, just to see how badly you can distort it.

I am against ALL unearned, unmerited advantages.  That includes affirmative action in college and grad school admissions, legacy admits to colleges, separate admissions standards for college athletes, AND inherited wealth.

Now, could that be any plainer, or will you distort this one as well?



Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on May 14, 2007, 09:17:11 PM
I just don't think the government has a right to get into the redistribution of wealth business, just to appease capO's and his communist sense of fairness.

If you let them take away property under the basis of some arbitrary view of how much a person should be able to have or leave to his/her heirs, the gov't can turn around and say, "Well, let's see. You can't have any of it. it's all ours to begin with."

Um, Have you forgotten that little piece the Supreme Court took away from all property owners, so that if you own a piece of land that some big corporation or other wants to "develop", you are not allowed to refuse to sell it. It will be taken from you under "emminant domain". And, this is a conservative court?

So what makes Cap's proposal so difficult to swallow in light of that Supreme Court decision?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 14, 2007, 10:19:10 PM
Two wrongs don't make a right.

As for cap0's latest dismissive missive, I get what he's "against", I just want to know what he's for...

 


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: thecap0 on May 15, 2007, 04:27:27 AM
Garrick,

As for cap0's latest dismissive missive, I get what he's "against", I just want to know what he's for...

Try this on for size, sweetie.

I'm for equality of opportunity with no unearned, unmerited advantages.

Think you can distort that one?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 15, 2007, 05:50:34 AM
Garrick,

As for cap0's latest dismissive missive, I get what he's "against", I just want to know what he's for...

Try this on for size, sweetie.

I'm for equality of opportunity with no unearned, unmerited advantages.

Think you can distort that one?

In a perfect world, that would be the case.  But unfortantely, we don't live in a perfect world.  Some are born with a silver spoon in their mouths, and others are born into unbelievable poverty.  The worse part is that the guys with the silver spoons want to keep it that way.  They have no problem being advantaged.  Just look at Bush.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 15, 2007, 06:48:33 AM
Garrick,

As for cap0's latest dismissive missive, I get what he's "against", I just want to know what he's for...

Try this on for size, sweetie.

I'm for equality of opportunity with no unearned, unmerited advantages.

Think you can distort that one?

I see.

So, you are against Nature itself. 

Not surprising.



Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 15, 2007, 06:50:40 AM
 Some are born with a silver spoon in their mouths, and others are born into unbelievable poverty.  The worse part is that the guys with the silver spoons want to keep it that way.  They have no problem being advantaged.  Just look at Bush.

Yes. The rich spend their days and nights plotting against the poor. Just look at Ted Kennedy.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 15, 2007, 08:29:48 AM
Yes, look at Ted Kennedy.  No windmill farms off his beach in Hyanis.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: yankguy on May 15, 2007, 09:14:31 AM
theCap0

Launching the word "reichwing" against individuals who might have lost family in the Holocaust is probably not a great idea.  Just for the record, of course.  Referring to opponents (and I'm not really an opponent- I tend to agree with you on your view-not quite as draconian but I have no problem with a reasonable estate tax) as somehow being the equivalent of Nazis is among the most revolting developments in politics today.   

I am against ALL unearned, unmerited advantages.  That includes affirmative action in college and grad school admissions, legacy admits to colleges, separate admissions standards for college athletes, AND inherited wealth.

Now, could that be any plainer, or will you distort this one as well?
.

I don't see how my assessment of your viewpoint as one of "no inheritances" is inconsistent with this or a "distort[ion]" of your views.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: liquidsilver on May 15, 2007, 09:23:10 AM
Isn't there some rule in online debates that as soon as you invoke a comparison to Nazis or Hitler, you lose the argument?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: yankguy on May 15, 2007, 09:25:56 AM
Yeah it's called Godwin's Law.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 15, 2007, 09:34:54 AM
Yes. The rich spend their days and nights plotting against the poor. Just look at Ted Kennedy.



And kerry, and soros, and streisand, and baldwin, and the long list of those that live by the "Do as I say not as I do" regimen.

Doesn't kennedy keep his money outside the US in a carribean bank? How are you going to 100% tax his estate? OR the myriad of the wealthy that keep their funds AWAY from the fingers of the IRS? 100% tax? All you are doing IS penalizing those that are NOT wealthy! As soon as that idiocy starts to even SMELL like reality, there will be such an exodus of $$$ from this country like your mind cannot imagine. Can you imagine what will happen after that?



Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 15, 2007, 09:47:27 AM
I am against ALL unearned, unmerited advantages.  That includes affirmative action in college and grad school admissions,....

I have to agree with this part. Any race or quota based advantages that are given, whether in the scholastic arena or the work force, are wrong, imho. This type of action automatically excludes some that simply are better performers. Institutions of higher learning should be basing admissions solely off of performance---if not, such much for being all that you can be. Same thing for the work force---there should be no law that says you must have a percentage of men or women or whites or blacks or foreigners, whatever, as, again, it automatically excludes some that simply have better performance records.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: liquidsilver on May 15, 2007, 09:51:21 AM
I am against ALL unearned, unmerited advantages.  That includes affirmative action in college and grad school admissions,....

I have to agree with this part. Any race or quota based advantages that are given, whether in the scholastic arena or the work force, are wrong, imho. This type of action automatically excludes some that simply are better performers. Institutions of higher learning should be basing admissions solely off of performance---if not, such much for being all that you can be. Same thing for the work force---there should be no law that says you must have a percentage of men or women or whites or blacks or foreigners, whatever, as, again, it automatically excludes some that simply have better performance records.

Couldn't you extend this to include immigrants?  Why should companies be forced to pay higher wages for lesser quality work.  Giving preference to citizens undermines a free market economy.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 15, 2007, 10:00:33 AM
I am against ALL unearned, unmerited advantages.  That includes affirmative action in college and grad school admissions,....

I have to agree with this part. Any race or quota based advantages that are given, whether in the scholastic arena or the work force, are wrong, imho. This type of action automatically excludes some that simply are better performers. Institutions of higher learning should be basing admissions solely off of performance---if not, such much for being all that you can be. Same thing for the work force---there should be no law that says you must have a percentage of men or women or whites or blacks or foreigners, whatever, as, again, it automatically excludes some that simply have better performance records.

Couldn't you extend this to include immigrants?  Why should companies be forced to pay higher wages for lesser quality work.  Giving preference to citizens undermines a free market economy.


It says right above 'foreigners'. I have no problems with immigrants---legal ones that IS. We are either a nation of laws or we are not---that simple. Exceptions should NOT be made for political convenience or political expediency. Where does it say that an immigrant IS automatically going to give a superior quality of work? Where did I say giving preference to anyone---except those that demonstrate records of better performance? I have repeatedly said to 'the more/better' qualified...period---w/o regard to race, gender, creed, or national origin.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: liquidsilver on May 15, 2007, 10:03:35 AM
What about guest workers?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: thecap0 on May 15, 2007, 10:14:22 AM
Yank,

 Launching the word "reichwing" against individuals who might have lost family in the Holocaust is probably not a great idea.

Sorry you're offended, Jack, but as one who is only three generations removed from the shtetl, I am convinced that the term is applicable regardless of what particular religious sect one may adhere to.

If it quacks like a duck...


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: yankguy on May 15, 2007, 10:15:50 AM
Alright, tough guy.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 15, 2007, 10:17:19 AM
yankguy -

I think it is a tremendous honor to be considered "riechwinger" by cap0 and "liberal" by comrade NGC.  I'm proud of you!  Not everyone fits so easily and readily into seemingly mutually exclusive knee jerk categorizations.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: yankguy on May 15, 2007, 10:18:33 AM
I work hard at being unclassifiable.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 15, 2007, 10:23:15 AM
What about guest workers?


What about them?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 15, 2007, 10:23:45 AM
I am against ALL unearned, unmerited advantages.  That includes affirmative action in college and grad school admissions,....

I have to agree with this part. Any race or quota based advantages that are given, whether in the scholastic arena or the work force, are wrong, imho. This type of action automatically excludes some that simply are better performers. Institutions of higher learning should be basing admissions solely off of performance---if not, such much for being all that you can be. Same thing for the work force---there should be no law that says you must have a percentage of men or women or whites or blacks or foreigners, whatever, as, again, it automatically excludes some that simply have better performance records.

I like college admissions the way they stand

If minorities that are "less deserving" get in over the second level whites, so be it.

Diversity of campus is a great thing.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 15, 2007, 10:28:46 AM
Quote
I am against ALL unearned, unmerited advantages.  That includes affirmative action in college and grad school admissions, legacy admits to colleges, separate admissions standards for college athletes, AND inherited wealth.
Great.  And parents who can affor to send their kids to better schools?  You would be against that whole Ivy League thingy?  And, of course, getting kids involved in the family business - an opportunity that few if any kids from the inner city would have, right?  And that whole supportive parents vs. absentee parent thing....  You want this country to turn into a little Romania, with the kids taken from parents and raised by the state so every one succeeds, or rises and falls, by their own merit.  In theory.

You cannot undo social injustice caused by prior unearned advantages - it's not even a good idea to try - without going down the road to the nightmare state ngc advocates.  You can make smooth the path to equality in the future, but you cannot do anything about the past.  Some people (I among them) are simply more advantaged than others.  We can work with the results of that advantage, but we can never undo it.

Confiscating estates would destroy small businesses, family farms.  And corporations as well.  What happens with the shares of stock after a person's death?  Over 10 mil, they resort to the state?  How are you ever going to infuse investment money into the economy if that money winds up in government hands?

Taxation is necessary, but a completely confiscatory tax is at least as bad as no tax for the economy.  Intelligent Liberals and conservatives (which exludes ngc and everyone he cuts and pastes from) can debate where the best line is for taxation.  But to say we take everything after point X is not only arbitrary, as yankguy noted, it is profoundly bad economics.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: liquidsilver on May 15, 2007, 10:44:38 AM
Quote
Some people (I among them) are simply more advantaged than others.  We can work with the results of that advantage, but we can never undo it.

Next we are going to reverse genetics and as it does not promote true equality among men (and women).  Why should someone with higher intelligence have more opportunities than someone with lower intelligence? 



Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: thecap0 on May 15, 2007, 10:53:54 AM
ngc,

Any race or quota based advantages that are given, whether in the scholastic arena or the work force, are wrong, imho.

I find it more than passing strange that you approve of all forms of unearned, unmerited advantage except that of race.

Scratch a Reichwinger (YES!), find a bigot every time.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 15, 2007, 11:24:31 AM
ngc,

Any race or quota based advantages that are given, whether in the scholastic arena or the work force, are wrong, imho.

I find it more than passing strange that you approve of all forms of unearned, unmerited advantage except that of race.

Scratch a Reichwinger (YES!), find a bigot every time.


Typical liberal. You fail to SEE that the post said RACE OR QUOTA. But, your liberal bias induces you to the pathetic---as usual. You appear to be a liberal financial failure that has an intense jealousy of those that are a success---that IS made even more obvious as you call for families possessions to be appropriated by the state upon expiration of a senior member of that family. Why don't you go to cuba or N Korea to live where you can have the lifestyle you so desperately desire? Why deprive yourself of happiness? If you live close to Canada, you can get a ticket to Cuba today! Enjoy your state.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: liquidsilver on May 15, 2007, 11:26:13 AM
You guys are quite the pair, one for calling for families possessions to be appropriated by the state and the other calling for non-renewable resources to be appropriated by the state.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 15, 2007, 11:27:53 AM
You guys are quite the pair, one for calling for families possessions to be appropriated by the state and the other calling for non-renewable resources to be appropriated by the state.
Mao and Lenin....


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 15, 2007, 11:30:57 AM
I am against ALL unearned, unmerited advantages.  That includes affirmative action in college and grad school admissions,....

I have to agree with this part. Any race or quota based advantages that are given, whether in the scholastic arena or the work force, are wrong, imho. This type of action automatically excludes some that simply are better performers. Institutions of higher learning should be basing admissions solely off of performance---if not, such much for being all that you can be. Same thing for the work force---there should be no law that says you must have a percentage of men or women or whites or blacks or foreigners, whatever, as, again, it automatically excludes some that simply have better performance records.

I like college admissions the way they stand

If minorities that are "less deserving" get in over the second level whites, so be it.

Diversity of campus is a great thing.


IMHO, this kind of attitude destroys incentive. It "IS" a pathetic thing to exclude those that have worked harder and studied more intensely to better themselves to be outted because of skin color or ethnicities or national origin or gender or whatever bias/quota "IS" being applied. If you wanted to enter a school with a 4.0 GPA and you were refused admission because someone was from a foreign country or of a non-white race, or a different sex---whatever--- with a 3.5 GPA and was going to be admitted instead, what would you feel? So much for merit, huh?

Truly pathetic, ISn't it?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: liquidsilver on May 15, 2007, 11:37:14 AM
Its a good thing that most good schools take into account more than GPA, isn't it?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 15, 2007, 11:37:53 AM
You guys are quite the pair, one for calling for families possessions to be appropriated by the state and the other calling for non-renewable resources to be appropriated by the state.


I have called for nothing, sir. I have merely made a suggestion. And permitting the companies, oil for example, to continue to pump, refine, and transport combustibles, IS hardly a complete take-over/appropriation by the state. The existing companies should be paid something for pumping, transporting, refining---but not at the current rate of what they are charging today (IE--TO WIT---not the windfall/usurious method being applied now). The non-renewable natural resource, imho, should not be the property of an individual or group of individuals. This "IS" merely a suggestion, as I have continuously said. I feel like others that gas pricing "IS" at the gouging point, and this "IS" one way of counter-acting that effect. And more taxes "IS" not the way to go.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 15, 2007, 11:42:45 AM
Its a good thing that most good schools take into account more than GPA, isn't it?


No, it "IS" not. Merit should be the deciding factor, not skin color or gender or origin or creed---if you have quotas of ANY kind, it just "IS" not fair to those that have exerted themselves to superior achievements. If you need brain surgery, God forbid, do you want a 3.5 GPA doing the slicing instead of a 4.0? If you do, IMHO that "IS" a bit of tortured logic taking place. You can get that 2nd class kind of treatment BTW in Cuba---where even castro himself leaves his 'superior' medical system in favor of treatment in other nations. Or did you miss that?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: thecap0 on May 15, 2007, 11:50:14 AM
ngc,

Why don't you go to cuba or N Korea to live where you can have the lifestyle you so desperately desire? Why deprive yourself of happiness? If you live close to Canada, you can get a ticket to Cuba today! Enjoy your state.

Ah, yes, the barbaric yawp of the frustrated Reichwinger when his quiver quivers for the lack of the arrows of substance.

Perhaps you could enlighten the forum as to how you resolve your cognitive disonance created by simulatneously favoring one type of unearned, unmerited advantage while lamenting another.

Perhaps you could employ Occam's Razor in coming to your response.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: liquidsilver on May 15, 2007, 11:55:56 AM
Most good schools do not rely solely on GPA to make their decisions.  Beyond standardized tests like the SATs and ACTs, most good schools will also take into account extracurriculars as well as the interview process. 

GPA is not a great gauge of the quality of student that is applying.  There is no national standard that justifies GPA.  Some schools are more competitive than others.  What if the applicant with the 3.5 GPA went to a far more competitive school than the applicant with the 4.0 - should this not be taken into account in making a decision?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 15, 2007, 11:57:31 AM
ngc,

Why don't you go to cuba or N Korea to live where you can have the lifestyle you so desperately desire? Why deprive yourself of happiness? If you live close to Canada, you can get a ticket to Cuba today! Enjoy your state.

Ah, yes, the barbaric yawp of the frustrated Reichwinger when his quiver quivers for the lack of the arrows of substance.

Perhaps you could enlighten the forum as to how you resolve your cognitive disonance created by simulatneously favoring one type of unearned, unmerited advantage while lamenting another.

Perhaps you could employ Occam's Razor in coming to your response.

Gets the pitiful post of the day award. Nuthin' but rant.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 15, 2007, 12:01:28 PM
Most good schools do not rely solely on GPA to make their decisions.  Beyond standardized tests like the SATs and ACTs, most good schools will also take into account extracurriculars as well as the interview process. 

GPA is not a great gauge of the quality of student that is applying.  There is no national standard that justifies GPA.  Some schools are more competitive than others.  What if the applicant with the 3.5 GPA went to a far more competitive school than the applicant with the 4.0 - should this not be taken into account in making a decision?



You can try to pick apart this philosophy ad nauseum---but fact remains, for me anyway, that merit should be the deciding factor for admissions---not some artificially applied quota that, more often than not, will cut out someone more deserving of the admission. And my opinion of this will not change---as you are likely to continue with yours.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: liquidsilver on May 15, 2007, 12:05:37 PM
Excuse the pun but rarely are college admissions black and white. 


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 15, 2007, 12:07:39 PM
Quote
artificially applied quota
You are under the impression that schools are using quotas?  Because they have been illegal since Bakke.

I know that the intellectual dishonest voices on the right you listen to solely for your facts and arguments like to use the term "quota" whanever they talk about the use of racial preferences or affirmative action in admissions, but they are not the same thing anywhere outside of, say, Sean Hannity's shrivelled and distorted brain.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 15, 2007, 01:20:34 PM
ngc,

Why don't you go to cuba or N Korea to live where you can have the lifestyle you so desperately desire? Why deprive yourself of happiness? If you live close to Canada, you can get a ticket to Cuba today! Enjoy your state.

Ah, yes, the barbaric yawp of the frustrated Reichwinger when his quiver quivers for the lack of the arrows of substance.

Perhaps you could enlighten the forum as to how you resolve your cognitive disonance created by simulatneously favoring one type of unearned, unmerited advantage while lamenting another.

Perhaps you could employ Occam's Razor in coming to your response.

Gets the pitiful post of the day award. Nuthin' but rant.
Gets the ironic post of the day award - criticizing the rant of someone replying to his rant.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 15, 2007, 01:28:36 PM
Quote
I am against ALL unearned, unmerited advantages.  That includes affirmative action in college and grad school admissions, legacy admits to colleges, separate admissions standards for college athletes, AND inherited wealth.
Great.  And parents who can affor to send their kids to better schools?  You would be against that whole Ivy League thingy?  And, of course, getting kids involved in the family business - an opportunity that few if any kids from the inner city would have, right?  And that whole supportive parents vs. absentee parent thing....  You want this country to turn into a little Romania, with the kids taken from parents and raised by the state so every one succeeds, or rises and falls, by their own merit.  In theory.

You cannot undo social injustice caused by prior unearned advantages - it's not even a good idea to try - without going down the road to the nightmare state ngc advocates.  You can make smooth the path to equality in the future, but you cannot do anything about the past.  Some people (I among them) are simply more advantaged than others.  We can work with the results of that advantage, but we can never undo it.

Confiscating estates would destroy small businesses, family farms.  And corporations as well.  What happens with the shares of stock after a person's death?  Over 10 mil, they resort to the state?  How are you ever going to infuse investment money into the economy if that money winds up in government hands?

Taxation is necessary, but a completely confiscatory tax is at least as bad as no tax for the economy.  Intelligent Liberals and conservatives (which exludes ngc and everyone he cuts and pastes from) can debate where the best line is for taxation.  But to say we take everything after point X is not only arbitrary, as yankguy noted, it is profoundly bad economics.

You are SO GOOD! Dude's advocating Communism while pining for the shtetl...

OY!


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 15, 2007, 01:42:39 PM
You are under the impression that schools are using quotas?


Check out Duke University. Truth sukks, duzn't it?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 15, 2007, 01:43:15 PM
Excuse the pun but rarely are college admissions black and white. 

Too true---and it IS so sad.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: yankguy on May 15, 2007, 01:50:11 PM
Jerry Falwell died today. 


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: bankshot1 on May 15, 2007, 01:53:27 PM
will Pat Robertson interpret that as a message from God?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: liquidsilver on May 15, 2007, 01:57:35 PM
Jerry Falwell died today. 

May God show him more mercy than Falwell did during his ministration


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 15, 2007, 02:03:31 PM
Falwell story: http://www.thestate.com/136/story/64716.html

Hardly the picture of health, was he??


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 15, 2007, 02:30:38 PM
You are under the impression that schools are using quotas?


Check out Duke University. Truth sukks, duzn't it?
Got a cite for Duke using quotas?  According to what I can find, they use "race sensitive admissions standards" but not quotas.  I can only assume you got that from another of your imaginary friends, or from some right wing blog that has no qualms about misrepresenting race sensitive standards with quotas.

Truth to you is like garlic to Dracula.   

By the way, sukks?  What's with the potty mouth?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 15, 2007, 02:32:10 PM
Jerry Falwell died today. 
May God look with favor on his virtues and with compassion on his faults.  As with all of us.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 15, 2007, 02:48:07 PM
Though I must say the urge to make Tinky Winky jokes may drown out my normal compassion for the dead....


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 15, 2007, 02:51:13 PM
Jerry Falwell died today. 
May God look with favor on his virtues and with compassion on his faults.  As with all of us.

I quite agree.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 15, 2007, 02:54:26 PM
May he rest in hell where he belongs.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 15, 2007, 02:55:25 PM
May he rest in hell where he belongs.

Ahhhhh... the certainty that some folks have about others...


and from so far away...


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 15, 2007, 02:56:12 PM
You are under the impression that schools are using quotas?


Check out Duke University. Truth sukks, duzn't it?
Got a cite for Duke using quotas?  According to what I can find, they use "race sensitive admissions standards" but not quotas.  I can only assume you got that from another of your imaginary friends, or from some right wing blog that has no qualms about misrepresenting race sensitive standards with quotas.

Truth to you is like garlic to Dracula.   

By the way, sukks?  What's with the potty mouth?



LMAO! How about if I am living in the research triangle park for the last 19 years and seeing on the local TV stations the videos of duke students chanting during class "Quota, quota" to the blacks sitting in the front rows!

"race sensitive admissions standards"

Geeze----CAN YOU NOT SAY QUOTAS? For crying out loud---what the blazes do you think RACE SENSITIVE "IS"? What parsing! What an apologist for the pathetic system!


L-M-A totally O!


You are absolutely a liberal!


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 15, 2007, 02:59:42 PM
May he rest in hell where he belongs.

Ahhhhh... the certainty that some folks have about others...


and from so far away...



You now have seen with your own eyes just one sampling of why I no longer respond to this ******* (Fill in the blank with your own assessment of the poster). She/he/it "IS" not worth the bandwidth.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 15, 2007, 03:01:16 PM
How about if I am living in the research triangle park for the last 19 years and seeing on the local TV stations the videos of duke students chanting during class "Quota, quota" to the blacks sitting in the front rows!


Have you seen them chanting that at the basketball court, too?

Apparently, a few chanters here and there make a good enough case for you.

 


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 15, 2007, 03:02:51 PM
May he rest in hell where he belongs.

Ahhhhh... the certainty that some folks have about others...


and from so far away...



You now have seen with your own eyes just one sampling of why I no longer respond to this ******* (Fill in the blank with your own assessment of the poster). She/he/it "IS" not worth the bandwidth.

You no longer respond because you are a dullard without a brain.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on May 15, 2007, 03:05:16 PM
Most good schools do not rely solely on GPA to make their decisions.  Beyond standardized tests like the SATs and ACTs, most good schools will also take into account extracurriculars as well as the interview process. 

GPA is not a great gauge of the quality of student that is applying.  There is no national standard that justifies GPA.  Some schools are more competitive than others.  What if the applicant with the 3.5 GPA went to a far more competitive school than the applicant with the 4.0 - should this not be taken into account in making a decision?


As a teacher of those who didn't earn the high GPA's I tend to agree with you. None of my students set a goal to become a brain surgeon, they set realistic goals, and several as I have learned, have greatly exceeded them. If a 4.0 GPA wants to be a surgeon but has a nervous disorder, do you want them cutting on you in lieu of the 3.5 GPA with steady hands? There is much more than GPA that goes into success in life.

Same goes for "past performance". Anyone who reads ANYTHING about the stock market quickly learns that "past performance" is never a guarantee of future performance. It is the same with people. I was a good teacher, but my health has declined so much since I was, that I would be embarrassed to try to take a job from someone who is still healthy and able to keep up the needed pace, even if they had lower intellectual skills, applied for the same job. With the exception of Bill Gates (who did drop out of college, if I remember correctly), which other CEOs are chosen for their high academic skills? Look at our president, a walking "C", yet he is the "leader" of our country (and we are paying for it through the nose and with our rights!)

As I am learning from my reading, the path to Fascism is paved by wedding the corporations to the government. Handing regulation to the corporate leaders to the detriment of the workers and consumers, and providing "corporate welfate" to support corporations that flounder. Both are things that Bush & co. have done, even as he has deprived individuals of their "rights" for "suspicion" of being a "terrorist", calling the teacher org a "terrorist organization", and loading the court so that even the supreme court begins to recognize non-person, i.e. corporations as having "rights" which infringe on the rights of the people.

I will repeat. The solution to the gasoline problem is for the Congress to set a fair gasoline price and fine/jail anyone who exceeds it. Otherwise, tax the oil companies and let them pay to clean up the environment their product is destroying. Either one will solve the problem. Regulate the oil companies, don't get in bed with them!






Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 15, 2007, 03:06:37 PM
You are under the impression that schools are using quotas?


Check out Duke University. Truth sukks, duzn't it?
Got a cite for Duke using quotas?  According to what I can find, they use "race sensitive admissions standards" but not quotas.  I can only assume you got that from another of your imaginary friends, or from some right wing blog that has no qualms about misrepresenting race sensitive standards with quotas.

Truth to you is like garlic to Dracula.   

By the way, sukks?  What's with the potty mouth?



LMAO! How about if I am living in the research triangle park for the last 19 years and seeing on the local TV stations the videos of duke students chanting during class "Quota, quota" to the blacks sitting in the front rows!

"race sensitive admissions standards"

Geeze----CAN YOU NOT SAY QUOTAS? For crying out loud---what the blazes do you think RACE SENSITIVE "IS"? What parsing! What an apologist for the pathetic system!


L-M-A totally O!


You are absolutely a liberal!
As I suspected.  You do not understand the difference between using race as a factor among many - including economic background, geography, miliatry service, gender - in admissions and quotas, which are set aside spots based upon race, or another factor.  Race as a factor is legal, quotas are not.  Just because your fellow mendacious fools who write the blogs and deliberately twisted articles you rely upon deliberately lie and try to equate one with the other does not mean they are the same.  I refer you to Bakke again.  Quotas are illegal.  Race as a factor in achieving diversity is not.

Oh, and great - racist white students at Duke making unsupported claims in an effort to marginalize the few African Americans who get into to Duke is evidence of a quota system.  You are such a doofus.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: yankguy on May 15, 2007, 03:11:47 PM
solution to the gasoline problem is for the Congress to set a fair gasoline price and fine/jail anyone who exceeds it.

If you're going to regulate prices, you might as well nationalize the industry.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on May 15, 2007, 03:21:12 PM
Yank,

I do not think so. Especially not under ngc's notion of nationalizing. It will end up being the oil companies owning the government instead of the other way around. Regulation keeps the control in the hands of the people --- or--- it would if we could be sure that our legislators weren't owned by the oil companies already.




Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 15, 2007, 03:24:52 PM
Race as a factor in achieving diversity is not.


So you cannot say quotas? Only the parse fits here----the rose by any other name.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 15, 2007, 03:28:11 PM
I do not think so. Especially not under ngc's notion of nationalizing.


It IS not a true nationalization---it more of one of controls. If not, well, there are other ways to insure the obscene profits of these companies cease. But---taxations are NOT the answer. We need to be getting rid of taxes in all forms--not incrementing them.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: yankguy on May 15, 2007, 03:32:10 PM
You can regulate prices, sure, and then you can be certain to have shortages and lines.



Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 15, 2007, 03:36:46 PM
You can regulate prices, sure, and then you can be certain to have shortages and lines.



We do need to build a couple more refineries. That much IS certain. Regulation does not cause lines. Stoppages like the ones we tasted back in the 70's causes lines. There won't be any shortages of oil---only refined gasolines...but not due to regulations.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 15, 2007, 03:36:59 PM
You can regulate prices, sure, and then you can be certain to have shortages and lines.



That's the commie way.  Ngc is a commie.  No wonder he likes that idea.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: liquidsilver on May 15, 2007, 03:37:02 PM
Trying to control the supply is a losing proposition in the long run.  Focus on reducing the demand.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: srnich on May 15, 2007, 03:43:02 PM
I do not believe the homosexual community deserves minority status. One's misbehavior does not qualify him or her for minority status. Blacks, Hispanics, women, etc., are God-ordained minorities who do indeed deserve minority status.-- Rev Jerry Falwell, USA Today Chat, quoted from The Religious Freedom Coalition

I don't hold out much hope for folks that say this kind of thing.

Except that God supposedly loves us all.

RIP


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: yankguy on May 15, 2007, 03:45:36 PM
I agree with you, Liq.  Focusing on the oil companies might appeal viscerally, but it's been demonstrated to be pretty poor economics.  


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 15, 2007, 03:46:33 PM
I do not believe the homosexual community deserves minority status. One's misbehavior does not qualify him or her for minority status. Blacks, Hispanics, women, etc., are God-ordained minorities who do indeed deserve minority status.-- Rev Jerry Falwell, USA Today Chat, quoted from The Religious Freedom Coalition

I don't hold out much hope for folks that say this kind of thing.

Except that God supposedly loves us all.

RIP

Falwell was a true homophobe and he used his homophobic nature to hurt thousands of people in his struggle for politcal power.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 15, 2007, 03:50:59 PM
Race as a factor in achieving diversity is not.


So you cannot say quotas? Only the parse fits here----the rose by any other name.
No, you can say quotas when there are quotas.  But you cannot lie and call something that is not a quota a quota simply because it fits your blind agenda.  You are not Humpty Dumpty, and you do not get to redefine words to fit your argument.

That which we call a rose, by any other name, is not skunk weed.  Calling anything other than a set aside based on race a quota is a lie.  Flatly, simpoly, a lie.  That's not parsing, that's definitional.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on May 15, 2007, 05:30:57 PM
Not only was Falwell's take on homosexuality unrealistic, his description of women as a "minority" is without a factual basis. Yes, women were not given equal rights, but they were only a "minority" in the early years at Jamestown, and even then, there were plenty of Indian women around.

With Falwell out of the picture, we need to look at the rest of the wayward monkeys and strive mightily to keep to the narrow path of democracy.


Title: quotes from candidates on Falwell's passing, plus a quandary for Dem senators:
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 15, 2007, 05:34:35 PM
http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/


Title: Re: quotes from candidates on Falwell's passing, plus a quandary for Dem senator
Post by: samiinh on May 15, 2007, 06:55:54 PM
http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/

Thanks for the link.  Most are saying what you'd expect. 


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 15, 2007, 10:14:46 PM
Race as a factor in achieving diversity is not.


So you cannot say quotas? Only the parse fits here----the rose by any other name.
No, you can say quotas when there are quotas.  But you cannot lie and call something that is not a quota a quota simply because it fits your blind agenda.  You are not Humpty Dumpty, and you do not get to redefine words to fit your argument.

That which we call a rose, by any other name, is not skunk weed.  Calling anything other than a set aside based on race a quota is a lie.  Flatly, simpoly, a lie.  That's not parsing, that's definitional.


Well, mr. liberal, you can parse aaalllll ya want to. Whatever ya wanna call it, some of the people that are more deserving are being left out for sick politically correct artificialities. So much for being all you can be.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 15, 2007, 10:16:20 PM
With Falwell out of the picture, we need to look at the rest of the wayward monkeys...


What a tolerant statement you have there, ms. liberal. Truly sick post there---reflecting a truly sick mind.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 15, 2007, 10:18:27 PM
I do not believe the homosexual community deserves minority status. One's misbehavior does not qualify him or her for minority status. Blacks, Hispanics, women, etc., are God-ordained minorities who do indeed deserve minority status.-- Rev Jerry Falwell, USA Today Chat, quoted from The Religious Freedom Coalition

I don't hold out much hope for folks that say this kind of thing.

Except that God supposedly loves us all.

RIP


In the immortal words of a passed away senator, as far as gays go, "Sir, your lifestyle IS not normal".


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on May 15, 2007, 10:24:03 PM
NGC,

If you lived where I live, and experienced what I have experienced from the pope in Lynchburg, you would understand my relief that he is gone. As to the rest of the monkeys he left behind, well, maybe they will continue to scratch each others' backs.

Oh, if you saw my post from a few minutes ago, you would know that I will no longer be insulted by being called a liberal. A liberal is one who believe in the power of the people to provide their own best government.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 16, 2007, 05:59:03 AM
I do not believe the homosexual community deserves minority status. One's misbehavior does not qualify him or her for minority status. Blacks, Hispanics, women, etc., are God-ordained minorities who do indeed deserve minority status.-- Rev Jerry Falwell, USA Today Chat, quoted from The Religious Freedom Coalition

I don't hold out much hope for folks that say this kind of thing.

Except that God supposedly loves us all.

RIP


In the immortal words of a passed away senator, as far as gays go, "Sir, your lifestyle IS not normal".

Neither is yours, comrade.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 16, 2007, 07:17:22 AM
Do we have a candidate that will do away with ALL of the Executive Orders and run this country according to the Constitution? Do we have one that will do away with the ILLEGAL Federal Reserve and put us back on REAL MONEY? Do we have a canditate with any real backbone or just another bunch of P/C puppets? If so please speak now. We need a president that will put America and Americans FIRST and then aide others that need it when the job at HOME is done.

Answer, no.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 16, 2007, 07:49:41 AM
A new TIME poll, conducted by SRBI Inc., finds that while a vast majority of voters (65%) think the Democrats will probably win the 2008 Presidential election, hypothetical matchups of actual candidates paint a very different picture. Specifically: the Democratic front-runner, Hillary Clinton, has a comfortable lead over Barack Obama for the party's nomination, but loses to the G.O.P. leader, Rudy Giuliani, by 5 points and to John McCain (in second place for the Republican nomination) by 2 (within the margin of error).

Good! Anyone or ANYTHING but hillary.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 16, 2007, 12:31:51 PM
Do we have a candidate that will do away with ALL of the Executive Orders and run this country according to the Constitution? Do we have one that will do away with the ILLEGAL Federal Reserve and put us back on REAL MONEY? Do we have a canditate with any real backbone or just another bunch of P/C puppets? If so please speak now. We need a president that will put America and Americans FIRST and then aide others that need it when the job at HOME is done.

Answer, no.
 

Answer.  Yes indeed.  Her name is Hillary R. Clinton.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 16, 2007, 12:45:24 PM
Do we have a candidate that will do away with ALL of the Executive Orders and run this country according to the Constitution? Do we have one that will do away with the ILLEGAL Federal Reserve and put us back on REAL MONEY? Do we have a canditate with any real backbone or just another bunch of P/C puppets? If so please speak now. We need a president that will put America and Americans FIRST and then aide others that need it when the job at HOME is done.

Answer, no.
 

Answer.  Yes indeed.  Her name is Hillary R. Clinton.
No, go back to what comrade ngc said.  He's out in Malitiaville.  Probably just one internet search away from serving common law writs and fulminating about how the SCOTUS and the federal court system is illegal because the US Constitution calls for "One Supreme Court."

Both the Federal Reserve and Executive Orders have been found Constitutional.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 16, 2007, 01:41:59 PM
Do we have a candidate that will do away with ALL of the Executive Orders and run this country according to the Constitution? Do we have one that will do away with the ILLEGAL Federal Reserve and put us back on REAL MONEY? Do we have a canditate with any real backbone or just another bunch of P/C puppets? If so please speak now. We need a president that will put America and Americans FIRST and then aide others that need it when the job at HOME is done.

Answer, no.
 

HILLARY Clinton

Answer.  Yes indeed.  Her name is Hillary R. Clinton.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 16, 2007, 01:55:21 PM
Do we have a candidate that will do away with ALL of the Executive Orders and run this country according to the Constitution? Do we have one that will do away with the ILLEGAL Federal Reserve and put us back on REAL MONEY? Do we have a canditate with any real backbone or just another bunch of P/C puppets? If so please speak now. We need a president that will put America and Americans FIRST and then aide others that need it when the job at HOME is done.

Answer, no.
 

Answer.  Yes indeed.  Her name is Hillary R. Clinton.

Yes? Hillary? Probably fewer candidates are as compromised and in love with her own press clippings as much as HIllary Clinton has shown herself to be. Other than Rudy Giuliani, of course.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 16, 2007, 02:56:12 PM
Anyone that thinks that hillary IS not a complete and total narcissist IS suffering from their blinders being way too tight on their skulls. Ds just do not realize that if they nominate her, it will galvanize the Rs like nothing before.

Anyone or ANYTHING but hillary.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on May 16, 2007, 03:00:00 PM
NGC,

Why do you suppose to advise the Dems on who to offer as a candidate if you are opposed to both Dems and Reps as leading the country? If Dems choose to run Hillary, and she wins, what will you do? Move on?



Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: srnich on May 16, 2007, 03:03:37 PM
NGC,

Why do you suppose to advise the Dems on who to offer as a candidate if you are opposed to both Dems and Reps as leading the country? If Dems choose to run Hillary, and she wins, what will you do? Move on?


No way will the people put this country in the hands of a republican for another 4 years.

BETS?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: liquidsilver on May 16, 2007, 03:17:38 PM
Anyone that thinks that hillary IS not a complete and total narcissist IS suffering from their blinders being way too tight on their skulls. Ds just do not realize that if they nominate her, it will galvanize the Rs like nothing before.

Anyone or ANYTHING but hillary.

Aren't all politicians narcissists?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 16, 2007, 03:57:39 PM
Hillary Clinton, she's our man, if anyone can do it, Hillary can!!!!! Yeh, Hillary.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: liquidsilver on May 16, 2007, 04:03:01 PM
I very much doubt Hillary will win the Presidency.  Frankly, if she wins the nomination, I think the Republicans take the White House


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 16, 2007, 04:10:35 PM
I very much doubt Hillary will win the Presidency.  Frankly, if she wins the nomination, I think the Republicans take the White House

I certainly hope so---not just to get a repub, but anyone or anything will be better than that woman.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: ngc321 on May 16, 2007, 04:11:08 PM
Anyone that thinks that hillary IS not a complete and total narcissist IS suffering from their blinders being way too tight on their skulls. Ds just do not realize that if they nominate her, it will galvanize the Rs like nothing before.

Anyone or ANYTHING but hillary.

Aren't all politicians narcissists?


Not to the extent that she IS.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 16, 2007, 05:29:58 PM
I very much doubt Hillary will win the Presidency.  Frankly, if she wins the nomination, I think the Republicans take the White House

I only say that to get comrade Ngc's goat.  He's so easy.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on May 16, 2007, 07:15:03 PM
NGC,

Please explain, if you can, how Hillary is more narcisstic than other politicians and then explain why that is a bad thing.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 16, 2007, 10:54:28 PM
True

Know narcicism is only a negative when Bush is the subject.

HILLARY Clinton. No R.  She dumped it.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 17, 2007, 05:48:19 AM
NGC,

Please explain, if you can, how Hillary is more narcisstic than other politicians and then explain why that is a bad thing.
He hates her beyond all reason.  Which answers both halves of the question.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 17, 2007, 05:49:30 AM
True

Know narcicism is only a negative when Bush is the subject.

I don't recall that as part of anyone's critique of George II, frankly.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: Dzimas on May 17, 2007, 10:13:52 AM
I can't say I'm overly thrilled by the prospect of a Hillary nomination. I think she is just fine where she is.  We don't need her in the White House. And, sad to say, Obama has a name recognition problem that is going to be very hard to overcome in November. Has Clark declared himself yet?


Title: A Bloomberg and Hagel ticket?
Post by: liquidsilver on May 17, 2007, 10:17:07 AM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18678886/


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: thecap0 on May 17, 2007, 10:54:39 AM
hydroargentum,

Blumberg-Hegel, eh?

Hegel reminds me of Robert Taft, Ev Dirksen, Ham Fish and all the real conservatives who used to serve so honorably and well until the current crop besmirched the name.

Sounds like the ultimate fusion ticket.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 17, 2007, 07:23:28 PM
I can see a Hagel Bloomberg ticket.  Sounds intersting to me.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 17, 2007, 08:32:09 PM
In a blistering online column, Focus on the Family founder James Dobson wrote that, should the former New York mayor become the nominee, "I will either cast my ballot for an also-ran - or if worse comes to worst - not vote in a presidential election for the first time in my adult life."

"Many liberal Americans will agree with the social positions espoused by Giuliani. However, I don't believe conservative voters whose support he seeks will be impressed," Dobson said on WorldNetDaily, a conservative news Web site.

Another hate monger.


Title: Re: A Bloomberg and Hagel ticket?
Post by: srnich on May 18, 2007, 09:59:48 AM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18678886/

Dangerous to the dems if they go independent. Probably won't happen.

As repubs, they'll never win in that authoritarian party.

Remember dems, just as with McCain in 2000, they are CONSERVATIVES.



Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on May 18, 2007, 01:13:34 PM
I don't suppose Dobson ever considered his right to write in a candidate he favors instead of the candidates listed on the ballot. When I am faced with a slate I don't like, I write in a candidate of my own choosing, often hubby. I know he won't win, but my vote counts as an opposition to those on the ballot. I register my disapproval in a countable manner, unlike those who choose not to vote at all.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 18, 2007, 01:17:21 PM
weezo -

Actually, I think that they do not count write-in ballots unless there are a lot of them, or there is a declared write-in condidate.  So it is just the same as if you hadn't voted at all.

I came within a whisker of voting for Bill the Cat on a write-in in 1984, but decided I didn't want to waste my anti-Reagan vote.  Though I guess in the larger course of things, I sort of did.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: srnich on May 18, 2007, 03:39:37 PM
The problem with MY anti-Reagan vote is that I did have enough of them.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 18, 2007, 03:53:13 PM
I know that Hillary is looking for a song for her campaign. I think this one works:

http://www.lyricsdownload.com/annie-get-your-gun-anything-you-can-do-i-can-do-better-lyrics.html

Anyone else with ideas for songs for each of the candidates?



Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: thecap0 on May 18, 2007, 09:11:55 PM
Garrick,

Anyone else with ideas for songs for each of the candidates?

How about Dancing in the Dark for Brownback and Tancredo?

You're Once, Twice, Three Times a Lady for Mitt.

Mambo Italiano for Rudy-Poo.

and

The Twist for McCain.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 19, 2007, 07:37:13 AM
Garrick,

Anyone else with ideas for songs for each of the candidates?

How about Dancing in the Dark for Brownback and Tancredo?

You're Once, Twice, Three Times a Lady for Mitt.

Mambo Italiano for Rudy-Poo.

and

The Twist for McCain.

Excellent, Cap.  LMAO.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: prairiepop on May 19, 2007, 06:42:50 PM
I add my bravo to the Cap...brilliant selections!

Now to the meat 'n taters tonight...a little dream is struggling thru my skull, a Gore-Obama ticket!?!?  Can you imagine the electricity in the tired old air of the Dem convention as [hey, why not?] green GREEN balloons and toy polar-bears waft down over the cheering throng...imagine having a candidate who has already caught both hardball and softball assaults over the years and understands the system...imagine having a candidate who has NOT been a part of voting for [or against] the damn Eye Rack Mess...imagine having a candidate who knows where all the skeletons are and in what closets they reside...imagine having a candidate who can read and write!?!  Color me giddy-headed...or color me desperate [pick one] but wouldn't THAT be a slate or what?

Maybe I just want to see that dear chubby guy do the Macarena in an earth-tone shirt again...but what are our alternate options?  Madam Hillary, lugging an animal-carrier with hubby peering thru the wire mesh ["Gee, Mrs. Clinton, you're bringing an AWFUL lot of baggage aren't you?"] returning to the White House to change curtains and sneer at Laura's decor...nahhhh.  Obama on the top of the ticket with who?  Obama going to flitter-wit spaz attacks when he realizes what he's gone and went and done 8 years too soon?

Gore's da man.  The real surge may be starting around the country...no, silly-billy, not the Eye Rack one...the tsunami of sheer relief when a grown-up with authentic [and earned] chops takes center stage.  Gimme a G, gimme an O...gimme an R-for-relief...and gimme an E for ELECTABLE.



Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on May 19, 2007, 07:01:36 PM
Pairie,

I like Obama, and I am not opposed to Gore, but I wonder if the ticket would be better reversed, with Gore as Obama's running mate?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 19, 2007, 08:32:48 PM
Pairie,

I like Obama, and I am not opposed to Gore, but I wonder if the ticket would be better reversed, with Gore as Obama's running mate?

then the campaign song might be "Ebony and Ivory".


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: thecap0 on May 20, 2007, 03:29:01 AM
Garrick,

then the campaign song might be "Ebony and Ivory".

For the sake of non-partisanship, how about these titles for the Democrats?

Hillary: Whatever Lola Wants, Lola Gets

Edwards: Kookie, Kookie, Lend Me your Comb 

Gore: Sixteen Tons

Obama: Jumpin' Jack Flash


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 20, 2007, 09:41:54 AM
Garrick,

then the campaign song might be "Ebony and Ivory".

For the sake of non-partisanship, how about these titles for the Democrats?

Hillary: Whatever Lola Wants, Lola Gets

Edwards: Kookie, Kookie, Lend Me your Comb 

Gore: Sixteen Tons

Obama: Jumpin' Jack Flash

These are good too.  Especially the one for Hillary.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: chauncey.g on May 21, 2007, 08:24:15 AM
Ron Paul: Crazy by Myself

http://www.cowboylyrics.com/lyrics/pam-tillis/crazy-by-myself-21445.html

http://www.strike-the-root.com/71/allport/allport19.html



Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 21, 2007, 02:29:08 PM
Ron Paul: Crazy by Myself

http://www.cowboylyrics.com/lyrics/pam-tillis/crazy-by-myself-21445.html

http://www.strike-the-root.com/71/allport/allport19.html



I do believe that Ron Paul is right...that the US foreign policy over the last 60 years in the Middle East was responsible for the the attack on 9/11.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on May 21, 2007, 02:48:33 PM
It is clear from the information provided on that "root" site, that the US, some of its military, ans some of it's officials, including George W. Bush are guilty of international crimes under the Geneva Convention. What is holding up the arrest and trial of same? Why hasn't the UN intervened in Guatanamo and released the illegally-treated prisoners, especially those who have no obvious ties to Al Quada? How come we are so quick to cite International Law when it suits our purposes, yet ignore same when it suits our small-minded politicians? A war criminal is a war criminal and deserves what he/she has dished out or allowed/encouraged to be dished out. Picture our own president being subjected to water-boarding and see how HE likes it! He certainly has "information" to be brought out!


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: chauncey.g on May 21, 2007, 02:53:00 PM
I do believe that Ron Paul is right...that the US foreign policy over the last 60 years in the Middle East was responsible for the the attack on 9/11.


What is holding up the arrest and trial...


http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/swanson1.html

Two decades ago, Carl Sagan popularized the title of this essay; and yet it remains as germane today as it did when he first coined it. (Though, sociologist Marcello Truzzi is said to have actually invented the original version of the quote.)

Before leveling anymore claims against a principled contrarian, bellicose pundits and their sycophants should do their due diligence and find extraordinary evidence. Or maybe just evidence in general.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 21, 2007, 06:59:10 PM
It is clear from the information provided on that "root" site, that the US, some of its military, ans some of it's officials, including George W. Bush are guilty of international crimes under the Geneva Convention. What is holding up the arrest and trial of same? Why hasn't the UN intervened in Guatanamo and released the illegally-treated prisoners, especially those who have no obvious ties to Al Quada? How come we are so quick to cite International Law when it suits our purposes, yet ignore same when it suits our small-minded politicians? A war criminal is a war criminal and deserves what he/she has dished out or allowed/encouraged to be dished out. Picture our own president being subjected to water-boarding and see how HE likes it! He certainly has "information" to be brought out!


What's holding up the arrests?

The leader of the free world is in a fight for all of our lives and the masses feel that at this time caving to the rants of Pissy McGullicuddy of Scranton is not in anyone's best interest


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on May 21, 2007, 07:13:50 PM
Kid,

A fight for all of our lives? Surely you jest!


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: thecap0 on May 21, 2007, 08:12:59 PM
kid,

"Leader of the free world"?

Surely you jest.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: tjaxon on May 22, 2007, 12:14:54 AM
kid

...and the masses feel that at this time caving to the rants of Pissy McGullicuddy of Scranton is not in anyone's best interest

Surely you jest?



Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 22, 2007, 06:56:52 AM
I do believe that Ron Paul is right...that the US foreign policy over the last 60 years in the Middle East was responsible for the the attack on 9/11.

This reflects a level of ignorance of the Middle East and its denizens that heretofore few have witnessed.

Ron Paul is an isolationist. His views are well-suited for the 19th century, but not the 21st.

The roots of 9/11 lie primarily in the failed domestic policies of countries like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iran and not exclusively in the foreign policy of the USA.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 22, 2007, 07:55:20 AM
Asked about his opposition to the invasion and occupation of
Iraq, Paul repeated his oft-expressed concern that instead of making the U.S. safer, U.S. interventions in the Middle East over the years have stirred up anti-American sentiment. As he did in the previous Republican debate, the Texan suggested that former President
Ronald Reagan's decisions to withdraw U.S. troops from the region in the 198Os were wiser than the moves by successive Republican and Democratic presidents to increase U.S. military involvement there.


Even the fabled Reagan saw things differently than you, Utley.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: tjaxon on May 22, 2007, 09:06:27 AM

Ron Paul is an isolationist. His views are well-suited for the 19th century, but not the 21st.

The roots of 9/11 lie primarily in the failed domestic policies of countries like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iran and not exclusively in the foreign policy of the USA.

It seems to me that you are judging the man based on a sound bite, rather than listening to what he was actually saying. Of course, it is difficult in a debate such as that to explain in detail - it might even require some reading up about a person to fully understand where they are coming from.

Do you not think the US installing a puppet government in Iran influenced Iran's policies? Does American support (and military bases) not affect Saudi Arabia's? Most of the ME does, along with much of the rest of the world. Mr. Paul was not justifying OBL's motivations (neither do most Muslims), just explaining one major factor.

Rejecting military solutions to diplomatic problems does not make one an Isolationist. One can't help but wonder what kind of support the OBLs and Saddams of the world would get had the US provided humanitarian aid (food and medicine) to prevent the deaths of over 600,000 Iraqi children while simultaneously speaking out against the practices of Saddam, rather than a 10 year long bombing campaign that killed thousands of civiians?

At one time we believed that the US should lead by example. The example now seems to be that Might Makes Right; that BP, Exxon Mobil, and Halliburton have a divine right to profits; and that Democracy can be spread by force rather than education and example.

Nikita Khrushchev was almost right when he stated we would be destroyed from within. He was wrong about communism doing it - instead ignorance and avarice are, abetted by the ideal My Country, Right or Wrong.



Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: liquidsilver on May 22, 2007, 09:32:34 AM
I do believe that Ron Paul is right...that the US foreign policy over the last 60 years in the Middle East was responsible for the the attack on 9/11.

This reflects a level of ignorance of the Middle East and its denizens that heretofore few have witnessed.

Ron Paul is an isolationist. His views are well-suited for the 19th century, but not the 21st.

The roots of 9/11 lie primarily in the failed domestic policies of countries like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iran and not exclusively in the foreign policy of the USA.

The United States clearly started the ball rolling during WWII when the Persian Gulf was first proclaimed to be of national interest to the United States.  FDR proclaimed that Saudi Arabia's defense was vital to our own.  The Truman Doctrine strengthened the security of Iran and Saudi Arabia with military aid. 

Eisenhower and Nixon continued such a policy as a means to protect U.S. interests from the Soviet Union.  Nixon sought to pressure Iraq by announcing that the Shah could buy any non-nuclear weapons it wished from the United States.  Under Nixon/Ford, the CIA collaborated with Israel and Iran to ensure that Kurds had a steady supply of weapons in their insurgency in Iraq.

The Carter Doctrine pledged military intervention in the event of a threat to US interests in the Middle East and created the Rapid Deployment Force for action in the region.    The Carter administration encouraged the border dispute between Iraq and Iran which led to Iran-Iraq war.  The separate peace that Carter negotiated between Israel and Egypt in 1978 is another example of United States interference.

The last 60 years American imperialism very much laid the groundwork for 9/11 and our current situation in the Middle East.



Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 22, 2007, 09:44:26 AM
I do believe that Ron Paul is right...that the US foreign policy over the last 60 years in the Middle East was responsible for the the attack on 9/11.

This reflects a level of ignorance of the Middle East and its denizens that heretofore few have witnessed.

Ron Paul is an isolationist. His views are well-suited for the 19th century, but not the 21st.

The roots of 9/11 lie primarily in the failed domestic policies of countries like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iran and not exclusively in the foreign policy of the USA.

The United States clearly started the ball rolling during WWII when the Persian Gulf was first proclaimed to be of national interest to the United States.  FDR proclaimed that Saudi Arabia's defense was vital to our own.  The Truman Doctrine strengthened the security of Iran and Saudi Arabia with military aid. 

Eisenhower and Nixon continued such a policy as a means to protect U.S. interests from the Soviet Union.  Nixon sought to pressure Iraq by announcing that the Shah could buy any non-nuclear weapons it wished from the United States.  Under Nixon/Ford, the CIA collaborated with Israel and Iran to ensure that Kurds had a steady supply of weapons in their insurgency in Iraq.

The Carter Doctrine pledged military intervention in the event of a threat to US interests in the Middle East and created the Rapid Deployment Force for action in the region.    The Carter administration encouraged the border dispute between Iraq and Iran which led to Iran-Iraq war.  The separate peace that Carter negotiated between Israel and Egypt in 1978 is another example of United States interference.

The last 60 years American imperialism very much laid the groundwork for 9/11 and our current situation in the Middle East.



This is right on.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 22, 2007, 09:50:09 AM
I do believe that Ron Paul is right...that the US foreign policy over the last 60 years in the Middle East was responsible for the the attack on 9/11.

This reflects a level of ignorance of the Middle East and its denizens that heretofore few have witnessed.

Ron Paul is an isolationist. His views are well-suited for the 19th century, but not the 21st.

The roots of 9/11 lie primarily in the failed domestic policies of countries like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iran and not exclusively in the foreign policy of the USA.

The United States clearly started the ball rolling during WWII when the Persian Gulf was first proclaimed to be of national interest to the United States.  FDR proclaimed that Saudi Arabia's defense was vital to our own.  The Truman Doctrine strengthened the security of Iran and Saudi Arabia with military aid. 

Eisenhower and Nixon continued such a policy as a means to protect U.S. interests from the Soviet Union.  Nixon sought to pressure Iraq by announcing that the Shah could buy any non-nuclear weapons it wished from the United States.  Under Nixon/Ford, the CIA collaborated with Israel and Iran to ensure that Kurds had a steady supply of weapons in their insurgency in Iraq.

The Carter Doctrine pledged military intervention in the event of a threat to US interests in the Middle East and created the Rapid Deployment Force for action in the region.    The Carter administration encouraged the border dispute between Iraq and Iran which led to Iran-Iraq war.  The separate peace that Carter negotiated between Israel and Egypt in 1978 is another example of United States interference.

The last 60 years American imperialism very much laid the groundwork for 9/11 and our current situation in the Middle East.



Different world than the 17-1800s, eh?

But maybe we shouldn't have changed any.  LOL


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 22, 2007, 10:33:26 AM
Imperialism is a wrong foreighn policy, IMHO.


Title: warning: satire
Post by: chauncey.g on May 22, 2007, 11:43:08 AM
http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s2i18931

"There are several good, dedicated Republican candidates who reflect the Republican party line as dictated by the currently elected Republicans," Martinez continued. "When a candidate such as Mr. Paul refuses to follow that party line and insists upon making statements that embarrass more favored candidates, it only results in confusion in the minds of potential voters who are so easily led astray by the truth."


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 22, 2007, 12:21:02 PM
I do believe that Ron Paul is right...that the US foreign policy over the last 60 years in the Middle East was responsible for the the attack on 9/11.

This reflects a level of ignorance of the Middle East and its denizens that heretofore few have witnessed.

Ron Paul is an isolationist. His views are well-suited for the 19th century, but not the 21st.

The roots of 9/11 lie primarily in the failed domestic policies of countries like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iran and not exclusively in the foreign policy of the USA.

The United States clearly started the ball rolling during WWII when the Persian Gulf was first proclaimed to be of national interest to the United States.  FDR proclaimed that Saudi Arabia's defense was vital to our own.  The Truman Doctrine strengthened the security of Iran and Saudi Arabia with military aid. 

Eisenhower and Nixon continued such a policy as a means to protect U.S. interests from the Soviet Union.  Nixon sought to pressure Iraq by announcing that the Shah could buy any non-nuclear weapons it wished from the United States.  Under Nixon/Ford, the CIA collaborated with Israel and Iran to ensure that Kurds had a steady supply of weapons in their insurgency in Iraq.

The Carter Doctrine pledged military intervention in the event of a threat to US interests in the Middle East and created the Rapid Deployment Force for action in the region.    The Carter administration encouraged the border dispute between Iraq and Iran which led to Iran-Iraq war.  The separate peace that Carter negotiated between Israel and Egypt in 1978 is another example of United States interference.

The last 60 years American imperialism very much laid the groundwork for 9/11 and our current situation in the Middle East.



The last 60 years would only be a part of the 9/11 groundwork, but most of it is rooted in the domestic situations and poor policy of the countries that I mentioned before. It seems like folks wish to ignore the Saudi Kings--Jordanian Kings...Egypt leading the world in Anti-Semitic and Anti=American literature publication and distribution---Iranian Shah followed by the Ayotollah Kohmeini,etc....

I think that is a mistake to look at the complexity of the Middle East in the simple terms that the neo-cons have, but I think it would be equally stupid to embrace the isolationist views of Ron Paul and the real conservatives of the GOP.

And in that vein, read this piece from today's Newark Star-Ledger: [url]http://www.nj.com/columns/ledger/mulshine/index.ssf?/base/columns-0/117980934539710.xml&coll=1[url]


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 22, 2007, 12:21:59 PM
It seems to me that you are judging the man based on a sound bite,

Well, that would be a bad assumption on your part.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 22, 2007, 12:24:14 PM
Asked about his opposition to the invasion and occupation of
Iraq, Paul repeated his oft-expressed concern that instead of making the U.S. safer, U.S. interventions in the Middle East over the years have stirred up anti-American sentiment. As he did in the previous Republican debate, the Texan suggested that former President
Ronald Reagan's decisions to withdraw U.S. troops from the region in the 198Os were wiser than the moves by successive Republican and Democratic presidents to increase U.S. military involvement there.


Even the fabled Reagan saw things differently than you, Utley.

There you go again, misrepresenting people's expressed thoughts on the subject at hand. The question is: DO you do this purposively or because you lack the intelligence to understand views that don't necessarily match your own?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: tjaxon on May 22, 2007, 06:59:27 PM

I think that is a mistake to look at the complexity of the Middle East in the simple terms that the neo-cons have, but I think it would be equally stupid to embrace the isolationist views of Ron Paul and the real conservatives of the GOP.

And in that vein, read this piece from today's Newark Star-Ledger:


Thanks for the link, an interesting perspective. I would remind you, however, that being anti-war is not the same as being an isolationist.

I was never a big Eisenhower fan, but there was one quote of his I really like.

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who are hungry and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. The world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, is humanity hanging from a cross of iron." - Dwight Eisenhower



Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 22, 2007, 09:16:01 PM
Asked about his opposition to the invasion and occupation of
Iraq, Paul repeated his oft-expressed concern that instead of making the U.S. safer, U.S. interventions in the Middle East over the years have stirred up anti-American sentiment.


I, for one, believe this to be the case.  We are less safe today than ever before; somewhere in this world today are the people who will attack us for revenge of their dead.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 23, 2007, 10:55:20 AM
Yep - scary times

Yet there are groups ranting against $$$ spent and methods used on intelligence missions.

I offer great thanks and praise for the men and women worldwide working intelligence.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: liquidsilver on May 23, 2007, 11:00:54 AM
Yes, especially Valerie Plame Wilson


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 23, 2007, 12:54:34 PM
I would remind you, however, that being anti-war is not the same as being an isolationist.


Duh. Who said it was? Ron Paul is an isolationist. I think that some anti-war people attach themselves to what he says, without realizing fully what he is saying.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 23, 2007, 12:59:41 PM
Asked about his opposition to the invasion and occupation of
Iraq, Paul repeated his oft-expressed concern that instead of making the U.S. safer, U.S. interventions in the Middle East over the years have stirred up anti-American sentiment.


I, for one, believe this to be the case.  We are less safe today than ever before; somewhere in this world today are the people who will attack us for revenge of their dead.

I don't necessarily agree with you.  There's a long history of people around the world having a bug up their ass about the USA. You'd think some of us would get used to that, instead of crying the sky is falling every ten minutes.

I think it's past time we took a long look at developing a Foreign policy in terms of how constructive and progressive we can be around the world, and not so much approaching it by acting out of fear and/or aggression. 


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 23, 2007, 04:25:33 PM
I would remind you, however, that being anti-war is not the same as being an isolationist.


Duh. Who said it was? Ron Paul is an isolationist. I think that some anti-war people attach themselves to what he says, without realizing fully what he is saying.

George Washington was an isolationist.  George Bush believes in US Imperialism.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: tjaxon on May 23, 2007, 05:36:18 PM
There's a long history of people around the world having a bug up their ass about the USA. You'd think some of us would get used to that, instead of crying the sky is falling every ten minutes.

There is a long history of people around the world having a bug up their ass about the USA with some justification. Do you think we should get used to that, or would it be better to evaluate why they have bugs up thier asses? Are you one of those America Right or Wrong types?

Quote
I think it's past time we took a long look at developing a Foreign policy in terms of how constructive and progressive we can be around the world, and not so much approaching it by acting out of fear and/or aggression. 

This comment makes sense to me.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 23, 2007, 06:35:57 PM
There's a long history of people around the world having a bug up their ass about the USA. You'd think some of us would get used to that, instead of crying the sky is falling every ten minutes.

There is a long history of people around the world having a bug up their ass about the USA with some justification. Do you think we should get used to that, or would it be better to evaluate why they have bugs up thier asses? Are you one of those America Right or Wrong types?

Quote
I think it's past time we took a long look at developing a Foreign policy in terms of how constructive and progressive we can be around the world, and not so much approaching it by acting out of fear and/or aggression. 

This comment makes sense to me.

Right or wrong?the second comment with which you agree ought to give you the answer to your question


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 23, 2007, 07:15:48 PM
I don't think we've heard enough about a new policy from the '08 candidates so far. 


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: srnich on May 24, 2007, 02:26:05 PM
As a candidate for the presidency in 2000, George W. Bush insisted that, if elected, he would not allow U.S. military forces to engage in "nation building."

No way would he follow President Bill Clinton's foray into nation building in the Balkans, Bush declared.

Famous last words.

I guess he was just "fibbing."



Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 24, 2007, 02:49:25 PM
As a candidate for the presidency in 2000, George W. Bush insisted that, if elected, he would not allow U.S. military forces to engage in "nation building."

No way would he follow President Bill Clinton's foray into nation building in the Balkans, Bush declared.

Famous last words.

I guess he was just "fibbing."



Is Bush running again? Hadn't realized.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: srnich on May 24, 2007, 03:30:20 PM
What, we can't learn from the past?

Learned:

Don't trust Republicans.

Especially with the US Military.



Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 24, 2007, 03:51:31 PM
If he were nation building, he'd support the "divide into three" scenario.

But of course now we are there to build a nation, where firstt it was for oil.  Next it'll be something else entirely.  Whatever the other party feels the stance of critique should be that day.

OY


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 24, 2007, 04:45:53 PM
If he were nation building, he'd support the "divide into three" scenario.

But of course now we are there to build a nation, where firstt it was for oil.  Next it'll be something else entirely.  Whatever the other party feels the stance of critique should be that day.

OY

I think you know that that knife cuts both ways, kid. Lest you forget the original reasons given for going to Iraq...Something about weapons of mass destraction???er--destruction! Something about an "imminent threat" adn "yellowcake"....and I don't think that was a reference to Betty Crocker.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 24, 2007, 05:05:29 PM
Poll Shows Opposition to Iraq War at All Time High
By DALIA SUSSMAN 1:49 PM ET

Six in 10 Americans say the U.S. should have stayed out of Iraq and more than three in four say things are going badly there.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 24, 2007, 05:18:53 PM
If he were nation building, he'd support the "divide into three" scenario.

But of course now we are there to build a nation, where firstt it was for oil.  Next it'll be something else entirely.  Whatever the other party feels the stance of critique should be that day.

OY

I think you know that that knife cuts both ways, kid. Lest you forget the original reasons given for going to Iraq...Something about weapons of mass destraction???er--destruction! Something about an "imminent threat" adn "yellowcake"....and I don't think that was a reference to Betty Crocker.

spilt milk


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: thecap0 on May 24, 2007, 06:44:56 PM
kidc,

spilt milk

Sp let it dry and bring the troops home before a single one more gets killed.

Why should American boys and girls die for what Iraqi boys and girls should be dying for?

As President Clinton used to say, "We don't have a dog in this fight."


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 24, 2007, 07:33:18 PM
American kids should not be dying, but many more will.  It is an immoral crime.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 24, 2007, 09:26:43 PM
kidc,

spilt milk

Sp let it dry and bring the troops home before a single one more gets killed.

Why should American boys and girls die for what Iraqi boys and girls should be dying for?

As President Clinton used to say, "We don't have a dog in this fight."

Well, now, they did volunteer. That does make this far different than the View Nam scenario you're playing out here.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 24, 2007, 09:29:15 PM
If he were nation building, he'd support the "divide into three" scenario.

But of course now we are there to build a nation, where firstt it was for oil.  Next it'll be something else entirely.  Whatever the other party feels the stance of critique should be that day.

OY

I think you know that that knife cuts both ways, kid. Lest you forget the original reasons given for going to Iraq...Something about weapons of mass destraction???er--destruction! Something about an "imminent threat" adn "yellowcake"....and I don't think that was a reference to Betty Crocker.

spilt milk

The point was, you can't throw the stones from inside the glass house.

I continue to urge you and the dickheads like capon and drive-by to separate the politics from what would be good policy, if you dare.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: thecap0 on May 25, 2007, 06:18:06 AM
Garrick,

I continue to urge you and the dickheads like capon and drive-by to separate the politics from what would be good policy, if you dare.

OK why doesn't one, just ONE, of you warmongers define once and for all what Victory in Iraq will look like?

We are already faced with a Moon Is Down scenario there, just as we were in Vietnam 35 years ago.

We are already faced with an Ugly American scenario there, just as we were in Vietnam 45 years ago.

We are the Pitiful helpless giant there, just as we were in Vietnam 40 years ago.

We are at the total mercy of "Towel Heads" there, just as we were at the mercy of "straw hat cone heads" 35 years ago in Vietnam.  Anything to dehumanize a dedicated nationalist.

American soldiers are dying for causes that Iraqi soldiers should be dying for, just as we died for what Vietnamese soldiers should have died for 40 years ago.

American soldiers from 40 years ago are today visiting theor former enemies in Vietnam, just as we will do in 40 years in Iraq.

And yet you say the situations are different.  HOW?

How many more brave American young people are you willing to sacrifice on your personal altar of Moloch?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 25, 2007, 07:41:54 AM
The fact that we have a voluntary military today instead of a draft means that America's poor are paying a higher price; but that is true of most of America's wars, where wealth and connections have saved those who belong to the upper classes from fulfilling their moral responsibility.  Like Bush in Viet Nam...getting an appointment to the ANG, rather than serving in the regular military, and then going AWOL.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 25, 2007, 01:34:10 PM
Garrick,

I continue to urge you and the dickheads like capon and drive-by to separate the politics from what would be good policy, if you dare.

OK why doesn't one, just ONE, of you warmongers define once and for all what Victory in Iraq will look like?

We are already faced with a Moon Is Down scenario there, just as we were in Vietnam 35 years ago.

We are already faced with an Ugly American scenario there, just as we were in Vietnam 45 years ago.

We are the Pitiful helpless giant there, just as we were in Vietnam 40 years ago.

We are at the total mercy of "Towel Heads" there, just as we were at the mercy of "straw hat cone heads" 35 years ago in Vietnam.  Anything to dehumanize a dedicated nationalist.

American soldiers are dying for causes that Iraqi soldiers should be dying for, just as we died for what Vietnamese soldiers should have died for 40 years ago.

American soldiers from 40 years ago are today visiting theor former enemies in Vietnam, just as we will do in 40 years in Iraq.

And yet you say the situations are different.  HOW?

How many more brave American young people are you willing to sacrifice on your personal altar of Moloch?

Some would say there is already victory, with Hussein and family toppled, HOPE in its place


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on May 25, 2007, 01:49:12 PM
If this is already victory in Iraq, what are we doing still there. After the victory in Europe in WWII, we stayed a bit to get the reconstuction started, but there were no more daily death tolls coming in on the news. The conflict was over. Why are are children still dying in Iraq? What is our goal there now?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 25, 2007, 01:53:22 PM
Stability


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on May 25, 2007, 02:01:52 PM
Our young people are dying for "stability" in a part of the world that has traditionally been most instable? Can we say "waste" here?  I don't care if they are volunteers. They volunteered to serve, not to be slaughtered and their lives wasted.  Do the fact that policement "volunteer" for their jobs make it OK to kill a cop?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 25, 2007, 02:12:26 PM
I think we'd see troops staret coming home if wise thought said in the end we wouldn't deeply regret it.

The current administration is not hellbent on staying just to be stubborn, as many would have you believe.

Misinformation is quite dangerous.  Wildfire of emotions could rage off misstatement.  For example the popular rage directed at President G W Bush for WANTING this war as repasyment for his Dad's circumstance, as a statement, a defining of his presidency (wanted badly to be a wartime prez), etc


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: srnich on May 25, 2007, 03:05:23 PM
How many more brave American young people are you willing to sacrifice on your personal altar of Moloch?

cap, it IS interesting to note how many of the rats have jumped, are jumping ship, despite the lingering  loyalty of some.

I bet you can't find 10 that will claim to have voted for these facists in 2000 and in 2004 today...


I remember bill proudly proclaiming American hegemony in 2003.

Wonder where HE went.   ;D


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 25, 2007, 07:00:30 PM
Garrick,

I continue to urge you and the dickheads like capon and drive-by to separate the politics from what would be good policy, if you dare.

OK why doesn't one, just ONE, of you warmongers define once and for all what Victory in Iraq will look like?

We are already faced with a Moon Is Down scenario there, just as we were in Vietnam 35 years ago.

We are already faced with an Ugly American scenario there, just as we were in Vietnam 45 years ago.

We are the Pitiful helpless giant there, just as we were in Vietnam 40 years ago.

We are at the total mercy of "Towel Heads" there, just as we were at the mercy of "straw hat cone heads" 35 years ago in Vietnam.  Anything to dehumanize a dedicated nationalist.

American soldiers are dying for causes that Iraqi soldiers should be dying for, just as we died for what Vietnamese soldiers should have died for 40 years ago.

American soldiers from 40 years ago are today visiting theor former enemies in Vietnam, just as we will do in 40 years in Iraq.

And yet you say the situations are different.  HOW?

How many more brave American young people are you willing to sacrifice on your personal altar of Moloch?

Some would say there is already victory, with Hussein and family toppled, HOPE in its place

I'm no warmonger. Just a pragmatist. You know the Viet Nam analogy doesn't stick..

disagre????.BACK IT UP!


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 25, 2007, 08:50:08 PM
Quote
Some would say there is already victory, with Hussein and family toppled, HOPE in its place
Some would probably be full of shit.  Some would probably not be seeing their loved ones blown apart bodies at a market somewhere.  Some would probably not be having their father dragged out of his house and murdered for being a member of the wrong sect.

Mission accomplished.  Just a line for us to swallow from people with no respect for reality.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: thecap0 on May 26, 2007, 06:17:54 AM
kidc,

Some would say there is already victory, with Hussein and family toppled, HOPE in its place

Would you be one of them?

I would say that the only hope the Iraqis have as a result of our meddling is the hope each one has which says, "I HOPE I live another day."



Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: thecap0 on May 26, 2007, 06:27:31 AM
Garrick,

You know the Viet Nam analogy doesn't stick..

You're right.  I forgot.  Vietnam has no oil; Iraq sits on top of a pool of the stuff.

That's why my grandkids will still be seeing Iraqi body counts when they are old enough to refuse to enlist.

BTW, now that Saddam is gone, is there any longer any doubt in your mind that we will stay in the desert until we control not only the surface area of Iraq but also what lies beneath?

Just exactly why are we doing for the Iraqis what they should be doing for themselves?

If you doubt that the phony war was, is, and forever will be about our controlling Iraqi oil, you are even dumber than I already thought you were.

Nevertheless, I have no doubt that you and the other warmongers will come up with the excuse du jour as to why you believe it's OK for American boys and girls to die not for our country but for theirs.

The USA's oil policy has people around the world furious with us and has Chavez smiling to himself.



Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 26, 2007, 07:34:37 AM
Quote
Some would say there is already victory, with Hussein and family toppled, HOPE in its place
Some would probably be full of shit.  Some would probably not be seeing their loved ones blown apart bodies at a market somewhere.  Some would probably not be having their father dragged out of his house and murdered for being a member of the wrong sect.

Mission accomplished.  Just a line for us to swallow from people with no respect for reality.

If I remember correctly, it was Bush who said Mission Accomplished in 2003 in a staged show on an military carrier in San Diego Harbor.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 26, 2007, 07:35:45 AM
War of words heats up over Iraq
May 26, 2007 - 7:04am.



McCain, Obama get down and dirty over a dirty war

By STEPHEN COLLINSON

Senators John McCain & Barack Obama (AFP)In a fiery preview of a possible 2008 election match-up, US Senators Barack Obama and John McCain traded political potshots over Iraq Friday, and Hillary Clinton also faced a Republican barrage.

A day after the US Congress sent President George W. Bush a new 100 billion dollar war budget, stripped of Democratic troop withdrawal dates, raw emotions over the war spiced up the already simmering 2008 White House race.

Republican candidate McCain complained that Senate votes by Democrats Clinton and Obama against the mammoth funding measure Thursday night were tantamount to "waving a white flag to Al-Qaeda."

Obama shot back in a written statement, ridiculing former Vietnam prisoner-of-war McCain for his recent stroll around a Baghdad neighborhood, and also lashed out at another Republican 2008 hopeful, Mitt Romney.

"Governor Romney and Senator McCain clearly believe the course we are on in Iraq is working, but I do not," Obama said.

"If there ever was a reflection of that, it's the fact that Senator McCain required a flack jacket, ten armored Humvees, two Apache attack helicopters, and 100 soldiers with rifles by his side to stroll through a market in Baghdad just a few weeks ago."

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cont/node/2575


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: chauncey.g on May 26, 2007, 11:44:09 AM
Came across an interesting video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWyJJQbFago

"Our aim is to ensure that the views and values of the world's people--and not just political elites and unaccountable corporations--shape global decisions."


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 26, 2007, 04:08:43 PM
Garrick,

You know the Viet Nam analogy doesn't stick..

You're right.  I forgot.  Vietnam has no oil; Iraq sits on top of a pool of the stuff.

That's why my grandkids will still be seeing Iraqi body counts when they are old enough to refuse to enlist.

BTW, now that Saddam is gone, is there any longer any doubt in your mind that we will stay in the desert until we control not only the surface area of Iraq but also what lies beneath?

Just exactly why are we doing for the Iraqis what they should be doing for themselves?

If you doubt that the phony war was, is, and forever will be about our controlling Iraqi oil, you are even dumber than I already thought you were.

Nevertheless, I have no doubt that you and the other warmongers will come up with the excuse du jour as to why you believe it's OK for American boys and girls to die not for our country but for theirs.

The USA's oil policy has people around the world furious with us and has Chavez smiling to himself.



Well, capon, when did I say the war wasn't about oil, among other things? YOU really ought to take some time off from memorizing & spitting back out moveon.org talking points and maybe start recognizing what people have to say for themselves, instead of ASSUMING you know what is their minds...

I'll await your VIABLE solutions to the Iraq war, as always...

 


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on May 26, 2007, 05:18:17 PM
utley,

There is but one solution to the Iraq war. GET OUT NOW! Let the Iraqis rebuilt their own communities. They do not need either our help or our money. If they want to kill each other, it is better than them killing us. If they want to keep their oil to themselves, or give it to countries they don't like, it is no problem. We can get it from Venezuela and our own Alaska. There is nothing in Iraq that we have to have. If we don't have enought to keep up our one person, one SUV/one occupant driving habits, we will be forced either to send our workforce home to cottage industries, or to develop mass transportation. Whichever way we go, will be an improvement over our current lifestyle.

BTW, where is your evidence that Cap is getting his views from a website? How insulting! Do you not think it possible for different people to come to the same conclusions on Iraq? Not everyone is a puppet. People DO think for themselves. When they think alike, it is a consensus, not a web site.



Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 26, 2007, 05:39:28 PM
utley,

There is but one solution to the Iraq war. GET OUT NOW! Let the Iraqis rebuilt their own communities. They do not need either our help or our money. If they want to kill each other, it is better than them killing us. If they want to keep their oil to themselves, or give it to countries they don't like, it is no problem. We can get it from Venezuela and our own Alaska. There is nothing in Iraq that we have to have. If we don't have enought to keep up our one person, one SUV/one occupant driving habits, we will be forced either to send our workforce home to cottage industries, or to develop mass transportation. Whichever way we go, will be an improvement over our current lifestyle.

BTW, where is your evidence that Cap is getting his views from a website? How insulting! Do you not think it possible for different people to come to the same conclusions on Iraq? Not everyone is a puppet. People DO think for themselves. When they think alike, it is a consensus, not a web site.


Uh, weezle: Bring something to the table or butt out.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 26, 2007, 08:11:18 PM
I agree.  It is time to bring the troops home now.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: thecap0 on May 26, 2007, 10:11:26 PM
Garrick,

I'll await your VIABLE solutions to the Iraq war, as always...

There is only one solution, GET OUT NOW!

Let the Iraqis settle their own hash.

I frankly don't give a rat's patootie what solution they come up with, as long as it's their solution.

There never was a good war or a bad peace.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on May 26, 2007, 11:27:47 PM
Utley,

Butt yourself out, please. I'll comment as I choose.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: incadove0 on May 27, 2007, 12:58:01 AM
Vietnam didn't have oil, but I understand it had rubber.

Not to mention that Americans troops faced a form of combat and terrain that could not be dealt with via conventional warfare.  Like Iraq.

The world is changing.  We need to find new ways to solve our problems.

The same way we tell our children how to settle their differences.

Time to practice what we preach.  And bring them home now.


Title: Re: Bring Them Home
Post by: incadove0 on May 27, 2007, 03:37:59 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yApAg0hl490


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: chauncey.g on May 27, 2007, 08:47:22 AM
"The release of atom power has changed everything except our way of thinking...the solution to this problem lies in the heart of mankind. If only I had known, I should have become a watchmaker." Albert Einstein


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 28, 2007, 01:49:54 AM
Vietnam didn't have oil, but I understand it had rubber.

Not to mention that Americans troops faced a form of combat and terrain that could not be dealt with via conventional warfare.  Like Iraq.

The world is changing.  We need to find new ways to solve our problems.

The same way we tell our children how to settle their differences.

Time to practice what we preach.  And bring them home now.

Let me ask you -

Are you surprised THE U.S. has not been hit again since 9/11?

Do you expect we will be?

Are you then comfortable with being a pin cushion?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 28, 2007, 06:09:43 AM
Quote
Are you surprised THE U.S. has not been hit again since 9/11?
You mean, of course, hit in the US.  We are hit every freaking day now, unless like the departed comrade ngc you consider the troops no more than cannon fodder, who don't count.  It was, what, eight years between the last terrorist attack in the US and 9/11?  No, I am not surprised.

Quote
Do you expect we will be?
Of course.  Whether we stay in Iraq or not, because the war in Iraq is not the main battle ground in the war on terror.

Quote
Are you then comfortable with being a pin cushion?
Of course not.  We need to be directing our resources into battling international terrorism.  Not in chasing neo-con wet dreams.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 28, 2007, 06:44:47 AM
Quote
Are you surprised THE U.S. has not been hit again since 9/11?
You mean, of course, hit in the US.  We are hit every freaking day now, unless like the departed comrade ngc you consider the troops no more than cannon fodder, who don't count.  It was, what, eight years between the last terrorist attack in the US and 9/11?  No, I am not surprised.

Quote
Do you expect we will be?
Of course.  Whether we stay in Iraq or not, because the war in Iraq is not the main battle ground in the war on terror.

Quote
Are you then comfortable with being a pin cushion?
Of course not.  We need to be directing our resources into battling international terrorism.  Not in chasing neo-con wet dreams.

Well said.  Iraq is just the training grounds for the really serious terrorists to come.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 28, 2007, 10:17:02 AM
Quote
Are you surprised THE U.S. has not been hit again since 9/11?
You mean, of course, hit in the US.  We are hit every freaking day now, unless like the departed comrade ngc you consider the troops no more than cannon fodder, who don't count.  It was, what, eight years between the last terrorist attack in the US and 9/11?  No, I am not surprised.

Quote
Do you expect we will be?
Of course.  Whether we stay in Iraq or not, because the war in Iraq is not the main battle ground in the war on terror.

Quote
Are you then comfortable with being a pin cushion?
Of course not.  We need to be directing our resources into battling international terrorism.  Not in chasing neo-con wet dreams.

Attaboy

Got it about 40% right.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on May 28, 2007, 02:43:32 PM
Aren't you one of those wet dreams, kid?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: srnich on May 29, 2007, 10:08:07 AM
The big hit came on Bush's watch.

And HE was warned....


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: srnich on May 29, 2007, 02:42:07 PM
Here's a perspective:

Why suicide attackers haven't hit U.S. again

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-08-07-suicide-attacks-cover_x.htm

And:

Reasons They Haven’t Hit Us Again

http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/features/10560/


You may not like what you read...


Title: Audit finds Kerry broke 2004 spending limit by $1.4 million
Post by: liquidsilver on May 30, 2007, 09:08:54 PM
Sen. John Kerry broke spending limits by nearly $1.4 million during his 2004 presidential bid, including some funds spent on customizing his campaign jets, a Federal Election Commission draft audit concludes.

The FEC could rule that Kerry's campaign must reimburse the government. Because his general election campaign was taxpayer funded, Kerry would have to pay back the U.S. Treasury.


http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2007/05/30/audit_finds_kerry_broke_2004_spending_limit_by_14_million/


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: yankguy on May 31, 2007, 09:32:48 AM
I'm sure Kerry can take 1.4 million out of petty cash...or underneath the seat cushions on his sofa.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 31, 2007, 10:45:35 AM
I'm sure Kerry can take 1.4 million out of petty cash...or underneath the seat cushions on his sofa.

There's probably at least 57 varieties of methods of payment available to him.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 31, 2007, 10:53:52 AM
Edwards kicking ass in Iowa:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aA7d.8t77lUk&refer=politics


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: prairiepop on June 03, 2007, 06:12:54 PM


DON'T FORGET, PILGRIMS---WATCH THE DEMOCRATIC DEBATES TONIGHT, 7:00 P.M. EDT!


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on June 04, 2007, 01:38:22 PM
I actually thought both Dodd, Richardson and Biden were all very good.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: kidcarter8 on June 04, 2007, 03:57:28 PM
Both of em, eh?

Putz


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on June 04, 2007, 07:00:35 PM
Both of em, eh?

Putz

Good catch, there.  I wondered who see that. 


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: jbottle on June 05, 2007, 12:19:09 AM
Despite the Media Wisdom, I view Thomson outside of scripted scenarios, as a guy who looks like the bottle of bourbon won the night before, and I find him old and disconcerting as a Presidential candidate, if anybody thinks he can debate anybody in the Democratic field with deftness, intelligence, and charm is thinking more of a TV show representation, rather than his tired and doddering old man appearance and delivery that I've observed.  I think he is gift to the Dems, as a handicapper, and not a political analyist, but that may be just me:  He seems like the best possible interruption to a realistic winnable ticket such as Guliani/midwesterner.    I'm not buying at all, the reality will not meet with the expectation, my best guess.  I think his ascention is a potential landslide victory for the Dems judging from his presentation as a person vs. a character, he really does look hungover, haggard, old, and pathetic, really:  As a counterpunch to the Donkey, he looks more ass than elehant.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on June 05, 2007, 06:27:16 AM
Despite the Media Wisdom, I view Thomson outside of scripted scenarios, as a guy who looks like the bottle of bourbon won the night before, and I find him old and disconcerting as a Presidential candidate, if anybody thinks he can debate anybody in the Democratic field with deftness, intelligence, and charm is thinking more of a TV show representation, rather than his tired and doddering old man appearance and delivery that I've observed.  I think he is gift to the Dems, as a handicapper, and not a political analyist, but that may be just me:  He seems like the best possible interruption to a realistic winnable ticket such as Guliani/midwesterner.    I'm not buying at all, the reality will not meet with the expectation, my best guess.  I think his ascention is a potential landslide victory for the Dems judging from his presentation as a person vs. a character, he really does look hungover, haggard, old, and pathetic, really:  As a counterpunch to the Donkey, he looks more ass than elehant.

I would agree with this assessment of Fred Thompson.  I do not see another Ronald Reagan here, and his nomination would be a gift to the democratic nominee.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: srnich on June 05, 2007, 09:53:12 AM
Both of em, eh?

Putz

Good catch, there.  I wondered who see that. 

No catch, just another whiff by someone who should have retired long ago.





Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on June 05, 2007, 12:49:04 PM
Both of em, eh?

Putz

Good catch, there.  I wondered who see that. 

No catch, just another whiff by someone who should have retired long ago.





ROTFLMAO


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: kidcarter8 on June 05, 2007, 04:01:33 PM
Sure it's not

ROTFWADUMA?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on June 05, 2007, 05:24:41 PM
The Repuke debate  here in NH tonight.  One wonders how civil that will be.  Repukes tend not to be too civil, eh kid?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: kidcarter8 on June 05, 2007, 05:28:40 PM
I don't generalize like that - nor should you

Got the DVR set.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on June 05, 2007, 05:40:15 PM
I don't generalize like that - nor should you

Got the DVR set.

Just going from what we see and hear from you folks. 


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: prairiepop on June 05, 2007, 06:31:45 PM
Oh boy oh boy...tonite we get to see some riveting rascals on CNN...check it out:  the multi-married sweetheart of Mister Kerick--Rudy the Champeen; the stalwart believer in those golden plates [hint: he wears weird undies]; the flip-flopper extraordinaire [whose Straight Talk Express broke an axle somewhere]; a couple of Creationists and possibly someone will tap-dance while playing "America the Beautiful" on a kazoo.  Lord knows we've had everything else, right?  Poor Wolf Blitzer, he's gonna feel like the last of the cat-wranglers trying to get anything sensible out of these poor schmucks.

And out in the heartland, crouched around the flickering campfire at the No Hope Rancho, are the die-hards who still buh-leeve and wonder why 70% of the rest of us just plain can't.  My daddy [PBUH] would puke if he could see this year's cadre...I'll just bet that St. Ron of Reagan, perched in a glowing pink cloud Up Yonder, is depicting an actorly puzzlement on his grand old phiz.  "Who ARE these people, Mommie?" he wonders..."Why do they keep invoking me?" 

When all the party has got is a dead president and a berserker live one, ya gotta feel compassion...


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: kidcarter8 on June 05, 2007, 06:40:06 PM
Too bad there are no intelligent Republicans on this board.  I'd like to ask what happened to J C Watts.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: kidcarter8 on June 05, 2007, 06:48:37 PM
Pretty good stuff from ol' Al.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on June 05, 2007, 07:50:32 PM
Gore - Obama is the ticket.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: prairiepop on June 05, 2007, 10:23:49 PM
Yo, kidcarter8...I googled up ol' J.C. Watts [remembering him from the 2000 primary debates] and boy howdy...there's a fascinating website all about separation of church & state, and an article about ol' J.C. Watts wherein he is depicted as a particularly sleazy character [the info on his financial shenanigans alone is worth the price of admission] so far out there he may be breathing pure helium off of Neptune.  I think he became toxic to the mainstream uberrightniks and lost his place at the trough.  He's an ordained Baptist minister, BTW...what IS it about those guys that seems to attract so many loose nuts?

On a happier note, I must say that Mike Huckabee stayed the course during the debate tonight... everyone else seemed to be speaking in bumper stickers, but Huckabee was actually forthright and spoke from his own feelings.  The rest of those clowns were spinning like crazy.  Must say that the neighborhood shrink would have been fascinated with McCain...if he were a horse, the stewards would demand a saliva test.  Romney is already posing for Mt. Rushmore [chiseled, e.g., new dye-job, etc.] and Ron Paul gave the impression that after the debate, his keeper would put him back in the bariatric chamber...or take out the batteries and put him back in the toy-box.  Bunch of really strange guys, these guys. 

The only grown-up not requiring 4-point restraints [besides Huckabee] is Duncan Hunter.  He appears to be using his own voice; i.e., I don't think his talking-points were written by consultants on his shirt-cuff. 


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on June 06, 2007, 05:50:59 AM
10 white angry christian men afraid to say anything that could come back to haunt them.  I agree that Hunter and Huckabee were the most honest, it appeared.  I also like Tandaro's comment about what he'd do with Pres. Bush...LOL...he'd tell Bush not to darken his door.  But none of those guys will be the nominee.

Guilanni looks like a member of the mob; Romney looks like he just strolled off a Hollywood sound stage; and McCain looks like he should be playing golf in Sun City, AZ, with all the rest of the old people.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: thecap0 on June 06, 2007, 07:05:58 AM
sam,

10 white angry christian men afraid to say anything that could come back to haunt them. 

Did you catch the theme music as they arrived; it was Send in the Clowns!


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on June 06, 2007, 07:10:54 AM
sam,

10 white angry christian men afraid to say anything that could come back to haunt them. 

Did you catch the theme music as they arrived; it was Send in the Clowns!

No, I didn't.  How appropriate.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: Dzimas on June 07, 2007, 01:18:00 AM
He (Romney) said the next president must not only re-engage Middle East and European leaders — labeling France's new conservative leader Nicolas Sarkozy as a potential "blood brother" — but also Latin American nations.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070606/ap_on_el_pr/romney_diplomacy

It would seem the Republican Party has become a mafia.


Title: Blood Brothers
Post by: Dzimas on June 07, 2007, 03:54:02 AM
Reminds me of the time Bush looked Putin in the eyes and saw what a good man he is.  I guess Bush will have an opportunity to patch that relationship up this week.


Title: Re: Blood Brothers
Post by: samiinh on June 07, 2007, 06:01:31 AM
Reminds me of the time Bush looked Putin in the eyes and saw what a good man he is.  I guess Bush will have an opportunity to patch that relationship up this week.

Or finish it off.  It will be interesting to see if Putin accepts Bush's invitation to visit the Bush family compound in Kennebunkport, ME.


Title: Happy Trails
Post by: Dzimas on June 07, 2007, 06:20:02 AM
I thought Bush did all his entertaining at the Crawford Ranch, where he can put on his jeans, boots and big hat and pretend to be a cowboy.  It was interesting to read that he purchased the 1600 acres in 1999, shortly before he made his run for the presidency.  Always struck me that he was trying to emulate LBJ, adopting that phony Texas swagger.  Atleast, LBJ's swagger was real.  Bush may even call persons into the toilet to discuss pressing matters, which was apparently one of the more inhumane things LBJ did to his underlings.


Title: Re: Happy Trails
Post by: samiinh on June 07, 2007, 01:05:27 PM
I thought Bush did all his entertaining at the Crawford Ranch, where he can put on his jeans, boots and big hat and pretend to be a cowboy.  It was interesting to read that he purchased the 1600 acres in 1999, shortly before he made his run for the presidency.  Always struck me that he was trying to emulate LBJ, adopting that phony Texas swagger.  Atleast, LBJ's swagger was real.  Bush may even call persons into the toilet to discuss pressing matters, which was apparently one of the more inhumane things LBJ did to his underlings.

I also understand Bush has bought a ranch in Paraguay where there is no extradition treaties with the USA.  Or so the they say.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on June 07, 2007, 01:10:26 PM
Dzimas,

Your comment about LBJ having conferences in the bathroom reminded me of a fact from the Governor's Mansion in Virginia from when hubby was a plumber. When Chuck Robb was Governor, and he and Linda Johnson Robb occupied the Mansion, there was an autographed picture of LBJ hanging above the toilet in the bathroom. I wonder if it was a reference to LBJ's conferences in there. There was also a phone in the bathroom. Not sure if there still is. Hubby went into HVAC work and was assigned other buildings than the mansion in later years.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: liquidsilver on June 07, 2007, 01:15:49 PM
I thought Bush did all his entertaining at the Crawford Ranch, where he can put on his jeans, boots and big hat and pretend to be a cowboy.  It was interesting to read that he purchased the 1600 acres in 1999, shortly before he made his run for the presidency.  Always struck me that he was trying to emulate LBJ, adopting that phony Texas swagger.  Atleast, LBJ's swagger was real.  Bush may even call persons into the toilet to discuss pressing matters, which was apparently one of the more inhumane things LBJ did to his underlings.

I also understand Bush has bought a ranch in Paraguay where there is no extradition treaties with the USA.  Or so the they say.

I believe that report was picked up by conspiracy theorists awhile back -- however the origination of the story came from  Prensa Latina, Cuba's state-run news agency -- not exactly the most reputable source.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on June 08, 2007, 08:05:22 AM
The Republican presidential candidates have a big problem, which is why they spent the last debate criticizing George Bush.

Consider what these presidential candidates said about the incompetence, mismanagement and negligence of George Bush's failures for the first four years of the Iraq war.

The core problem for Republican presidential candidates is this: They are forced to continue to support the escalation of the war, while they are forced to appeal to a hard-core, right-wing base that is far out of touch with American opinion.

What do they do? They start talking about the option of dropping nuclear bombs on Iran.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on June 08, 2007, 09:24:08 AM
I didn't watch the debate. So, I will ask, What has Iran done to us that deserves a nuclear bomb dropped on them?

This is exactly why we should have a clear international understanding NOT to develop or continue to hold nuclear bombs of any kind, size, shape, or effect. It is entirely too much power placed in the hands of people who do not explore the options of diplomacy to resolve problems.

If there is any moral issue in this country that stands out, it is our williingness to consider the murder to solve diplomatic issues.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: kidcarter8 on June 08, 2007, 09:29:51 AM
What has Iran done to us?

Wel, they are killing our men and women in Iraq.

But that's not the reason.

Get a debate transcript, maybe you'll see the context and see the light.

Nah - forget it - not a chance.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: srnich on June 08, 2007, 09:44:33 AM
I didn't watch the debate. So, I will ask, What has Iran done to us that deserves a nuclear bomb dropped on them?

This is exactly why we should have a clear international understanding NOT to develop or continue to hold nuclear bombs of any kind, size, shape, or effect. It is entirely too much power placed in the hands of people who do not explore the options of diplomacy to resolve problems.

If there is any moral issue in this country that stands out, it is our williingness to consider the murder to solve diplomatic issues.

Didn't you know, they "might" have centrifuges.

Republican presidential candidates back nuclear strike against Iran

Blitzer: If it came down to a preemptive US strike against Iran’s nuclear facility, if necessary would you authorize as president the use of tactical nuclear weapons?

Hunter: I would authorize the use of tactical nuclear weapons if there was no other way to preempt those particular centrifuges.


http://inteldaily.com/?c=144&a=2276


MY questions would be as pointed out in the article:

"Is it also acceptable for India and Pakistan to have nukes?"

"Is the use of nuclear weapons, in whatever form, against a densely populated country of 75 million, an act of mass murder?"





Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 08, 2007, 09:46:45 AM
Wel, they are killing our men and women in Iraq.


You been talking to comrade ngc's imaginary friends?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: kidcarter8 on June 08, 2007, 10:05:42 AM
I didn't watch the debate. So, I will ask, What has Iran done to us that deserves a nuclear bomb dropped on them?

This is exactly why we should have a clear international understanding NOT to develop or continue to hold nuclear bombs of any kind, size, shape, or effect. It is entirely too much power placed in the hands of people who do not explore the options of diplomacy to resolve problems.

If there is any moral issue in this country that stands out, it is our williingness to consider the murder to solve diplomatic issues.

Didn't you know, they "might" have centrifuges.

Republican presidential candidates back nuclear strike against Iran

Blitzer: If it came down to a preemptive US strike against Iran’s nuclear facility, if necessary would you authorize as president the use of tactical nuclear weapons?

Hunter: I would authorize the use of tactical nuclear weapons if there was no other way to preempt those particular centrifuges.


http://inteldaily.com/?c=144&a=2276


MY questions would be as pointed out in the article:

"Is it also acceptable for India and Pakistan to have nukes?"

"Is the use of nuclear weapons, in whatever form, against a densely populated country of 75 million, an act of mass murder?"





Read the responses of Brownbeck and Guiliani - and of course MITT.  All woiuld tell you that using nukes, as with Truman, is a last resort - and that, as Romney stated - "no optins should be taken off the table:

Brownbeck:  "Iran needs to be confronted aggressively as what they are - the leading sponsor of terrorism in the world"


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on June 08, 2007, 10:44:00 AM
I don't believe that any country is going to use nuclear weapons, other than the possibility of another neocon republican administration in the USA.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: kidcarter8 on June 08, 2007, 10:48:22 AM
We all pray you are right, despite any reasoning that may have gotten you there


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: yankguy on June 08, 2007, 10:50:35 AM
I don't believe that any country is going to use nuclear weapons, other than the possibility of another neocon republican administration in the USA.

Why would other countries build them and possess them?  I don't doubt for a second if those Scuds launched by Saddaam Hussein into Israel contained poison gas, Israel would have used them then, and I don't doubt that other countries, if similarly provoked, would use them now. 


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: bankshot1 on June 08, 2007, 11:03:38 AM
I never really understood why the fire-bombing of Dresden occupies a higher moral ground that of the A-bomb attacks on Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Unfortunately eventually we use the weapons we build.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: liquidsilver on June 08, 2007, 11:09:54 AM
Cluster bombs are among the worst of the conventional weapons.  The U.S. and Britain used thousands of them in the invasion.  Beyond the initial onslaught, many of the unexploded sub munitions turn communities into minefields


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on June 08, 2007, 12:08:39 PM
How do we know that the "intelligence" that suggests that Iranians are killing American soldiers in Iraq is accurate. Weren't we fooled once by "intelligence" that Saddam Hussein was building bigger bombs? Is this "intelligence" that Iran is a "terrorist nation" the same sort of intelligence that led us to an immoral pre-emptive strike against Iraq? How do we know?

I cannot justify us using nuclear weapons with the excessive collateral damage (outrite murder) except in a defensive situation. If they drop a nuclear bomb on us, then retaliation in kind is appropriate. Otherwise, we are just plain old murderers. The blood is on our hands.

Look at the constitution! Where in the constitution are we authorized, as a nation, or within the roles of either the Congress or the Presidency to make a pre-emptive strike against anyone for any reason?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: kidcarter8 on June 08, 2007, 12:14:36 PM
How do we know that the "intelligence" that suggests that Iranians are killing American soldiers in Iraq is accurate. Weren't we fooled once by "intelligence" that Saddam Hussein was building bigger bombs? Is this "intelligence" that Iran is a "terrorist nation" the same sort of intelligence that led us to an immoral pre-emptive strike against Iraq? How do we know?

I cannot justify us using nuclear weapons with the excessive collateral damage (outrite murder) except in a defensive situation. If they drop a nuclear bomb on us, then retaliation in kind is appropriate. Otherwise, we are just plain old murderers. The blood is on our hands.

Look at the constitution! Where in the constitution are we authorized, as a nation, or within the roles of either the Congress or the Presidency to make a pre-emptive strike against anyone for any reason?

They ARE speaking of a defensive situation.

I think you confuse defensive with retaliatory.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on June 08, 2007, 12:22:33 PM
I see no "defense" based on fictional "intelligence". Iran has not attacked us. We have not right to commit murder.

If someone calls you a "Sorry SOB", murdering them is not legal, it is not a "defensive" posture, it is immoral and indefensible.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 08, 2007, 12:23:30 PM
Quote
Look at the constitution! Where in the constitution are we authorized, as a nation, or within the roles of either the Congress or the Presidency to make a pre-emptive strike against anyone for any reason?
The Constitution does not set out the grounds for war.  The limitation on the war making power is democracy, not a Consitutional prohibition.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: kidcarter8 on June 08, 2007, 12:24:35 PM
Further:

You have no problem at all parading the number of dead to point out how Mr  Bush erred in commanding our troops into Iraq

Yet what if the U.S. or Israel or another nation were nuked, where we had reason to believe it was to occur??  What would you have to say to those families - that you THOUGHT you could defeat the threat without all of our force?

Tough calls, the dropping of any bombs - quite true.  Quite, quite true - though many in your midst like to paint the current administration or a 2008-elected Republican leader as having their itchy finger already on the button for the nuclear weapon.

If we knew Japan was to attack Pearl Harbor, what was to be our plan?  Wait, then retaliate?

Yes - because this is what the Constitution says?

Wow.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: kidcarter8 on June 08, 2007, 12:26:10 PM
I see no "defense" based on fictional "intelligence". Iran has not attacked us. We have not right to commit murder.

If someone calls you a "Sorry SOB", murdering them is not legal, it is not a "defensive" posture, it is immoral and indefensible.

"Iran has not attacked us"

And we're not attacking them today.  It was a hypothetical.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on June 08, 2007, 12:30:33 PM
Kid,

That is exactly what was done. We had intelligence that Japan was going to hit Pearl Harbor, and we let it happen.

The rhetoric of the candidates is more threatening than anything that Iran is doing.

The constitution states that we are to have a army ONLY for defense. Not to make pre-emptive strikes. It was not the intention of the Founding Fathers that we become an aggressive nation. We are supposed to be a peace-loving people. Why are we now, in the 21st century, trying to get away from the goal of peace? We are taking a posture similar to that of Germany in the World Wars of the 20th century. Have we learned nothing from the study of history?
 


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: kidcarter8 on June 08, 2007, 12:37:45 PM
Kid,

That is exactly what was done. We had intelligence that Japan was going to hit Pearl Harbor, and we let it happen.

The rhetoric of the candidates is more threatening than anything that Iran is doing.

The constitution states that we are to have a army ONLY for defense. Not to make pre-emptive strikes. It was not the intention of the Founding Fathers that we become an aggressive nation. We are supposed to be a peace-loving people. Why are we now, in the 21st century, trying to get away from the goal of peace? We are taking a posture similar to that of Germany in the World Wars of the 20th century. Have we learned nothing from the study of history?
 

"The rhetoric of the candidatesa............................"

You disagree with "aggressively confront Iran for what they are, the leading proponent of terrorism in the world today"?

By this, Senator Brownbeck did not mean dropping bombs.  This was about diplomacy first.

If the republicans are the party of non-appeasement, then BRAVO!


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on June 08, 2007, 03:08:22 PM
We all pray you are right, despite any reasoning that may have gotten you there

It's simply.  It is mutual self destruction. 

Listening to Randi Rhodes playing Rusty Warren....LOL.  Knockers Up!!!!!  Bounce Your Bobbies.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: srnich on June 08, 2007, 03:22:16 PM
Kid... what a buncha strawmen bombs!


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: srnich on June 08, 2007, 03:26:04 PM
Bush and the republicans "appeased" the Saudis and Bin laden in 2003, when they left Prince Sultan Air Base.





Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on June 08, 2007, 03:30:09 PM
Look up the meaning of "aggressive", Kid.

Didn't we have a cold war because the communists were being "aggressive" and it scared us into building bigger and longer range bombs which now we have absolutely no good use for?

If you're really that much into "aggression" why don't you sign up, go on over, shoot off your mouth, and get "aggressed".



Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on June 08, 2007, 05:36:01 PM
Look up the meaning of "aggressive", Kid.

Didn't we have a cold war because the communists were being "aggressive" and it scared us into building bigger and longer range bombs which now we have absolutely no good use for?

If you're really that much into "aggression" why don't you sign up, go on over, shoot off your mouth, and get "aggressed".



ROTFLMAO


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: Dzimas on June 11, 2007, 08:45:13 AM
So, Hillary apparently covered up her abusive father in her autobiography, according to Carl Bernstein.  Shame on her.  He sounded a bit too sanctamonius last night on CNN.  But, what gets me is all the revisionist history taking place in regard to Bill Clinton, the great campaigner.  Seemingly lost in all the reappraisals of Clinton's presidential runs is the role Ross Perot played in assuring him one if not both elections.  It is safe to say that Ross's 19% of the vote in 1992 drew many more votes away from Bush than Clinton.  And Ross split the vote again in 96 with 7%, which was more than the difference between the Clinton and Dole.  Clinton was unable to muster a clear popular majority in either election.  Like most things in his unremarkable life, Bill Clinton took advantage of the situation.  One could hardly say he put a bold foot forward on any issue, even when it came to whether he wore boxers or briefs.  But, it seemed a lot of people identified with his "profound ambivalence."  I loved that appraisal of himself.   One thing Bill had going for him that Hillary does not is a self-deprecating appeal. 


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on June 11, 2007, 08:53:58 AM
So, Hillary apparently covered up her abusive father in her autobiography, according to Carl Bernstein.  Shame on her.  He sounded a bit too sanctamonius last night on CNN.  But, what gets me is all the revisionist history taking place in regard to Bill Clinton, the great campaigner.  Seemingly lost in all the reappraisals of Clinton's presidential runs is the role Ross Perot played in assuring him one if not both elections.  It is safe to say that Ross's 19% of the vote in 1992 drew many more votes away from Bush than Clinton.  And Ross split the vote again in 96 with 7%, which was more than the difference between the Clinton and Dole.  Clinton was unable to muster a clear popular majority in either election.  Like most things in his unremarkable life, Bill Clinton took advantage of the situation.  One could hardly say he put a bold foot forward on any issue, even when it came to whether he wore boxers or briefs.  But, it seemed a lot of people identified with his "profound ambivalence."  I loved that appraisal of himself.   One thing Bill had going for him that Hillary does not is a self-deprecating appeal. 

I, for one, would like to see someone other than a Clinton as the nominee.  It is time to move beyond the Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Bush Era.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: Dzimas on June 11, 2007, 09:00:02 AM
I see them all as pretty much birds of a feather.  W is closer to Reagan than he ever was his father, and Clinton was close to Bush, promoting much the same agenda during his 8 years.  We desperately need to make a clean break, and I think this was one of the things Gore realized after losing the 2000 election, running pretty much on the same platform that had carried Clinton.  We are entering a new era and it takes a bolder leader to embrace the issues of this era.  Hillary just doen't cut it as far as I'm concerned, especially hearing her toe pretty much the conservative line when it comes to national security.  She may have more progressive ideas, but I think her attempt to promote a national health care system in the early days of the Clinton administration pretty much stole her thunder and she has never been able to find it since.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 11, 2007, 09:08:27 AM
Quote
It is safe to say that Ross's 19% of the vote in 1992 drew many more votes away from Bush than Clinton.  And Ross split the vote again in 96 with 7%, which was more than the difference between the Clinton and Dole.
First, you are wrong about 1996.  Clinton got  47,402,357 total votes.  Dole got 39,198,755, and Perot 8,085,402.  Even if everyone who voted for Perot voted for Dole, Clinton would have had roughly 200,000 more votes.

And, of course, not everyone who voted for Perot would have voted for Dole.  I've heard people argue that Perot cost Bush I the election, but I've never seen any numbers to back it.  Remember, Perot's appeal was not primarily ideological.  He was a candidate whose popularity mostly derived from the "I'm not a politician, let's throw the bums out" world view.  If they were people upset with the current state of government, why would you assume that they would vote for the incumbent?  I remember looking at the numbers once; even if you assume every Perot voter would have gone to the polls, Bush would have needed 2/3 of the vote to have more popular votes than Clinton.  


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 11, 2007, 09:17:14 AM
Also, given the nature of Perot's candidacy, I suspect a number of his voters in 1992 would have either stayed home or blanked the presidential ballot.  If even 10% stayed home, Bush would have needed close to 70% of Perot's vote to win the popular vote.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: Dzimas on June 11, 2007, 09:56:17 AM
Perot spent most of his time attacking Bush, not Clinton.  Bill wisely did his best to stay out of the fray.  I think there is very little doubt that Perot's candidacy greatly aided Clinton in 1992.  Clinton had a 5.8 million vote advantage over Bush nationwide, while Perot polled 19.7 million votes.  But, as we know with the electoral college, raw numbers mean nothing.  One has to look at pivotal states where Perot probably split the vote in Clinton's favor.  So, it is not a simple accounting process.  You can see by this accounting that there were 17 states where the difference was less than 5% between Bush and Clinton,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1992


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 11, 2007, 10:03:37 AM
Quote
Perot spent most of his time attacking Bush, not Clinton.
Well, yeah, that was my point.  Perot was a draw for people who did not like Bush but were queasy about Clinton.  To speculate that he would have drawn twice as many votes from Bush as Clinton seems to be off based on that.


Title: 92 Campaign
Post by: Dzimas on June 11, 2007, 10:05:51 AM
The most famous gimmick of Perot's during the 92 campaign was his voodoo wand, which he waved around during his info-ads as he attacked Bush's economic policies.  Perot was a one-trick pony when it came to the economy, strenuously promoting a balanced budget.  He appealled primarily to fiscal conservatives, who were attacking the years of Reagan-Bush deficit spending, so in that sense it was an ideological campaign.  Of course, fiscal conservatives cut across party lines, but the most vocal (and most numerous) ones tend to be Republicans.


Title: 92 Campaign
Post by: Dzimas on June 11, 2007, 10:13:31 AM
Whiskey, look at the Wiki link and you will see that Perot drew heavily from the conservative ranks.  I think it is pretty safe to say that many of Perot's voters would have taken Bush over Clinton if Perot hadn't been on the ballot.  The devil you know is better than the one you don't know, which is what we saw with Bush-Kerry in 2004, where many Republicans stuck behind W rather than cross party lines to support Kerry, despite widespread disapproval with Bush's policies within the Republican ranks.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: liquidsilver on June 11, 2007, 10:14:49 AM
I wonder how many would have showed up to vote if not for Perot


Title: Re: 92 Campaign
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 11, 2007, 10:29:35 AM
Whiskey, look at the Wiki link and you will see that Perot drew heavily from the conservative ranks.  I think it is pretty safe to say that many of Perot's voters would have taken Bush over Clinton if Perot hadn't been on the ballot.  The devil you know is better than the one you don't know, which is what we saw with Bush-Kerry in 2004, where many Republicans stuck behind W rather than cross party lines to support Kerry, despite widespread disapproval with Bush's policies within the Republican ranks.
But did you read the article?  It indicated that exit polls showed that Perot drew from Bush and Clinton equally, with a fair chunk staying home.  Which is pretty much what I was saying. 

The wiki article also links to this one, which looks at the closer votes state by state, and concludes that the electoral vote would have been closer, but Clinton still would have won:  http://www.fairvote.org/plurality/perot.htm (http://www.fairvote.org/plurality/perot.htm)


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: Dzimas on June 11, 2007, 10:30:15 AM
Perot added much needed life to the campaign, that's for sure.  It was a rather colorless affair otherwise.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: Dzimas on June 11, 2007, 10:39:54 AM
I still think you miss the point, whiskey, that had not Perot so strenuously attacked Bush, the voters would have probably been content to vote for Bush over Clinton.  By aiming his campaign directly at Bush's economic record, he opened the door for concern.  Before there really hadn't been that much concern.  Clinton (or should I say Carville) chimed in with the clever, "it's the economy, stupid," but only after Perot had already done the damage.  Had Perot not shot himself in the foot by claiming Bush was out to destroy his family, it would have remained a two-way race between Perot and Bush.  At his peak, it was a dead heat between Bush and Perot with Clinton 5-10 points back.  Of course, Picking Stockdale as his VP didn't help his candidacy either.


Title: Perot's Affect on Vote Outcome
Post by: liquidsilver on June 11, 2007, 11:29:15 AM
Ross Perot's presence on the 1992 presidential ballot did not change the outcome of the election, according to an analysis of the second choices of Perot supporters.

The analysis, based on exit polls conducted by Voter Research & Surveys (VRS) for the major news organizations, indicated that in Perot's absence, only Ohio would have have shifted from the Clinton column to the Bush column. This would still have left Clinton with a healthy 349-to-189 majority in the electoral college.

And even in Ohio, the hypothetical Bush "margin" without Perot in the race was so small that given the normal margin of error in polls, the state still might have stuck with Clinton absent the Texas billionaire.


In House races, Perot voters split down the middle: 51 percent said they backed Republicans, 49 percent backed Democrats. In the presidential contest, 38 percent of Perot supporters said they would have supported Clinton if Perot had not been on the ballot and 37 percent said they would have supported Bush.

An additional 6 percent of Perot voters said they would have sought another third-party candidate, while 14 percent said they would not have voted if Perot had not run.


The Voter Research and Surveys poll, a joint project of the four major television networks, found 38 percent of Perot voters would have voted for Clinton and 37 percent would have voted for Bush if Perot had not been on the ballot. Fifteen percent said they would not have voted, and 6 percent listed other candidates.

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh062905.shtml


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: yankguy on June 11, 2007, 12:29:18 PM
I like to think that my vote for Andre Marrou cost G.H.W. Bush that election. 


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 11, 2007, 12:31:10 PM
I like to think that my vote for Andre Marrou cost G.H.W. Bush that election. 
We are all in your debt.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: yankguy on June 11, 2007, 12:34:47 PM
As theoretical philosophy there's nothing more appealing to me than Libertarianism.  As a practical, everday, way to govern Libertarianism is most bogus political theory of them all.  Which is the reason, needless, to say that I always vote for the Libertarian candidate.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: kidcarter8 on June 11, 2007, 01:02:36 PM
Look up the meaning of "aggressive", Kid.

Didn't we have a cold war because the communists were being "aggressive" and it scared us into building bigger and longer range bombs which now we have absolutely no good use for?

If you're really that much into "aggression" why don't you sign up, go on over, shoot off your mouth, and get "aggressed".



The current administration has taken its' shots at killing OBL.

The former had a clear shot and drew back.  I've hesitated to be critical of that Clinton policy, but wonder why your head is so far off in the clouds on the matter.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on June 11, 2007, 05:36:19 PM


The current administration has taken its' shots at killing OBL.


But, they haven't gotten him, have they.  He's more powerful now than ever.  There are more terrorist today than there were in 2000, thanks to your Lord King George, aren't there, Kid.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: Dzimas on June 12, 2007, 12:13:34 AM
It took me a moment to figure out what OBL was.  Seems Bin Laden is far out of the US sights in Afghanistan, simply because he never really mattered to them in the first place.  All they wanted was a pretext for invading Afghanistan and later Iraq on the phony allegations that Hussein supported al Qaeda.  The US has long needed these bogeymen to further its imperial ambitions.  OBL has served these purposes magnificently.  He is more important to Bush alive than he would dead, and I doubt much effort has ever been expended trying to find him.  They had their ritual sacrifice in Hussein and his sons.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on June 12, 2007, 06:00:28 AM
It took me a moment to figure out what OBL was.  Seems Bin Laden is far out of the US sights in Afghanistan, simply because he never really mattered to them in the first place.  All they wanted was a pretext for invading Afghanistan and later Iraq on the phony allegations that Hussein supported al Qaeda.  The US has long needed these bogeymen to further its imperial ambitions.  OBL has served these purposes magnificently.  He is more important to Bush alive than he would dead, and I doubt much effort has ever been expended trying to find him.  They had their ritual sacrifice in Hussein and his sons.

I have a feeling that Afghanistan would never have been attacked if it hadn't been for 9-11; but I do believe that the Bush regime would have attacked Iraq no matter.  That was the war the neocons wanted and they wait today for the Iraqi Parliament to give them the access to the OIL, and then the war will be over.  OH, we'll probably have troops there for years just to protect the oil.


Title: Afghanistan
Post by: Dzimas on June 12, 2007, 07:05:07 AM
The US has long had an interest in Afghanistan, as has Britain dating back to the  Great Game.  It isn't so much the oil as the potential supply lines which Afghanistan affords.  This wasn't lost on the Bush administration, nor will it be on subsequent administrations.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: srnich on June 12, 2007, 10:10:54 AM
It's always about the oil isn't it?

What a myopic nation we are.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: srnich on June 12, 2007, 10:12:30 AM
A good start toward the future.

http://www.teslamotors.com/index.php


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: Dzimas on June 12, 2007, 10:14:01 AM
Nice looking car, but I imagine it doesn't come cheap.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: srnich on June 12, 2007, 02:48:55 PM
Nice looking car, but I imagine it doesn't come cheap.

If we weren't so myoptic it wouldn't be.

There are plans for a less sporty type in the future inthe $35-$40K range.



Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on June 12, 2007, 04:39:49 PM
I understand that Honda will have an electric/hydrogen hybrid on the market around 2010; at least that's their goal.  The problem will be enough hydrogen fueling station.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: Dzimas on June 13, 2007, 07:37:10 AM
BMW has similar plans, but I imagine the cars will come with a high price tag.  It takes time and courage to go with a mass production model that will bring the cost down.  The funny thing is that Ford designed the initial Model A to run on ethanol.  Hybrid engines have been around for a long time as well.  Of course, bio-fuel brings with it problems, such as too much cropland being devoted to fuel sources.  The key is to cut down on the level of consumption, not keep looking for some panacea. 


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: Dzimas on June 13, 2007, 07:58:20 AM
Rather than profess their faith in god, maybe some of the candidates should drive around in a Prius or take a bus or do something that shows at least a modicum of commitment to the environment, rather than just blabbering about it.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: srnich on June 13, 2007, 03:33:18 PM
Rather than profess their faith in god, maybe some of the candidates should drive around in a Prius or take a bus or do something that shows at least a modicum of commitment to the environment, rather than just blabbering about it.

You just got my vote!

Now how do we get the REST of the people to vote for someone that expects the oil companies to play by the same set of rules everyone else plays by?



Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: thanatopsy on June 14, 2007, 08:22:24 AM
political video gem from cute girl who adores Obama:


http://one.revver.com/watch/298339


 ;D ;D ;D


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on June 14, 2007, 08:05:08 PM
BMW has similar plans, but I imagine the cars will come with a high price tag.  It takes time and courage to go with a mass production model that will bring the cost down.  The funny thing is that Ford designed the initial Model A to run on ethanol.  Hybrid engines have been around for a long time as well.  Of course, bio-fuel brings with it problems, such as too much cropland being devoted to fuel sources.  The key is to cut down on the level of consumption, not keep looking for some panacea. 

I recently read a book titled "Internal Combustion." http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0312359071/interactiveda498-20

Ford and Edison had planned to have electric vehicles, but because of politicians and other crooks, we ended up with gasoline driven engines.  It was a major decision that had affected the course of mankind and his possible extinction.  Excellent history.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: lulu on June 15, 2007, 10:10:18 AM
Just curious:

How many people vote by following endorsements?  How many will vote because Clinton was endorsed by Gov. Spitzer and now Steven Spielberg.

As much as I love the Times, their endorsement will weigh very little with me.  It will be Edwards, whether he gets the nominationor I have to write his name in.  I'm done with people saying I'm a spoiler.  I've done the party thing for decades; no more.  I'm not enabling the Dems to continue to be spineless.

In the meantime, the press is doing it's job to get Clinton.  How abouve more coverage of Edwards and Obama and Dodd.  They accuse Edwards of being rich; Pres. Clinton made $10 million on speeches last year and sits on some company's board making unknown money.  She too has money.  Estimates range from $5 million to $50 million.  their not poor.  And only know are they divesting funds having ties to corporations, etc.  So, it didn't stop her while she was senator!

Nope, Clinton gets no vote from me.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on June 15, 2007, 02:42:27 PM
I'm no fan of HRC, but I would support her if she got the nomination, and the basic reason is that her husband could be one of only a very few people in this country who could possibly turn around the world's opinion of us after the Bush 8 year debacle.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: chauncey.g on June 16, 2007, 08:42:04 AM
http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north538.html

What happened immediately after the debates in May is bad news for the Republican Establishment. They have dismissed this as irrelevant. They will forget about it when Ron Paul fails to win the nomination. But there is no question in my mind that the Republican Party will move toward the right – the non-interventionist, limited-government Old Right – over the next three or four decades. This will take place at the bottom, i.e., at the local level, not at the top: New York City’s financial district and Washington, D.C. The move toward the Old Right will accelerate when the checks from Washington don’t buy much because of inflation. That day is coming.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: madupont on June 16, 2007, 11:18:22 AM
Chauncy.g

Ah, I see, you've been reading the input of kidcarter8 who gives us the handwriting on the wall straight from the bottom. He's on tip-toe now. If he'd put up a scaffolding with his top-down mentality for his mural; but, now, he's stretching with his spray-cans to graffitti up.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: chauncey.g on June 16, 2007, 11:52:52 AM
Chauncy.g

Ah, I see, you've been reading the input of kidcarter8 who gives us the handwriting on the wall straight from the bottom. He's on tip-toe now. If he'd put up a scaffolding with his top-down mentality for his mural; but, now, he's stretching with his spray-cans to graffitti up.

Actually, what I saw was a well written essay by Gary North that I believed to be relevant to the Campaign Trail forum.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: Detective_Winslow on June 16, 2007, 03:01:43 PM
If any of you watched Law & Order, you would know that Freddy T will come out on top.   He's gonna bitchslap Hillary.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: madupont on June 16, 2007, 08:07:46 PM
Chauncy.g

Ah, I see, you've been reading the input of kidcarter8 who gives us the handwriting on the wall straight from the bottom. He's on tip-toe now. If he'd put up a scaffolding with his top-down mentality for his mural; but, now, he's stretching with his spray-cans to graffitti up.

Actually, what I saw was a well written essay by Gary North that I believed to be relevant to the Campaign Trail forum.

I agreed with your post, but did not know it was by Gary North? If Gary North is not you then he gave a rather accurate description of something the kid recognizes rather better than the opposition wants to admit.  I believe that this inner belief often indoctrinated by a previous generation informs the position that a recognizer posts at a forum such as Campaign Trail or several others, as do many other posters at other venues.

Of course, I might have misestimated why you posted North's essay?

My position is always to state where I stand and why my experience led to that position, and I have done that for six and a half years on this matter  when it was definitely not a popular attitude but yet I have observed that gradually  people became chagrined to find the old reliable media deceiving them, they were shocked to have discovered some things that they never believed would happen, they more actively rally to correct  what has occurred, whether they realized fully how difficult it will be to overcome their malaise is another matter. They may have to get a lot tougher about attributing the best of intentions  among those who once seemed to appear to be "gentlemen" and have proven nothing of the kind.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: chauncey.g on June 18, 2007, 08:59:17 AM
madupont

I am not Gary North.

I posted the link in the hopes that it would be read and the ideas considered. The issues he addresses will rarely be found in the pages of the "old reliable media". Instead of focusing on the differences between Republicans and Democrats, or between the individual candidates within the parties, it is my opinion that the substantial "opposition" is between those who want to be governed and those who want to run their own lives with limited interference from bureaucrats and professional politicians. Approaching political discussion in anticipation that Freddy T. is "gonna bitchslap Hillary" or that "her husband could... turn around the world's opinion of us after the Bush 8 year debacle", does not make much sense to me.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: luee on June 18, 2007, 02:02:51 PM
Latest Obama musical video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKsoXHYICqU


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: madupont on June 18, 2007, 02:08:36 PM
Granted. They have just had their latest feeding,  however, on the campaign financing trail which goes right by our address-book recognition of their e-mail to our computer-e-mail inbox. Once you participate, you are stuck with them to obtain similar results as signing up to use The New York Times on-line, if you mistakenly think that receiving  e-mail from those who commercially support nytimes.com has anything to do with a meaningful relationship.   After years of playing the game, I  still am unable to read whatever they have left in the way of forums because when they decide to use their equipment to glitch your access, your commercial usefulness to them has come to an end. You constantly pay dues to feel like you are participating.

Now apply that to the political process in the US, in regard to Democracy, and something is really lacking. The Truth ?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: lulu on June 18, 2007, 03:06:07 PM
Raise your hands:

How many people vote because of endorsements (either from paper, newscasters, celebrities or politicians)?

Spielberg and Spitzer are two of many endorsing Clinton.  Not even God can make me vote for her. 

Not even my family can make me vote for her.

I remember the Washington Post condemned Rep. Moran for some sort of wheeling/deeling and recommended voters send him packing and endorsed his opponent.  Moran won reelection easily (I voted for him).  so much for endorsements.  Moran is a great Rep. from my district, easily accessible and voted against the war.  so much for the Post and it's endorsements.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: yankguy on June 18, 2007, 03:22:34 PM
You forgot to mention Moran's anti-semitism.

I believe the Post has always endorsed Moran in the general election, the last time grudgingly.  One time, I believe, they endorsed his opponent in the primary.

I agree that in this day and age endorsements don't make much difference.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: lulu on June 19, 2007, 10:22:24 AM
Hillary is anti-labor; served on the board of Wal-mart.  Hired a union-buster as a consultant.

She obviously is not for the working people.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: luee on June 19, 2007, 12:10:57 PM
Hillary is anti-labor; served on the board of Wal-mart.  Hired a union-buster as a consultant.

She obviously is not for the working people.

How I yearn for the Clinton days. Before cheap labor immigrants were forced down our throats with an impossible amnesty bill and  a privatized social security bill were proposed  and the tax breaks for the wealthy was passed. Sorry no money for social programs well duh!


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: thecap0 on June 19, 2007, 12:18:14 PM
lulu,

Not even God can make me vote for her.

Not even my family can make me vote for her.

IOW, no matter whether or not you believe the Clinton platform is best for America, you are so blinded by your hatred for Senator Clinton as a person that you could not vote for her.  No wonder some folks favor an intelligence test for voting. 


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: liquidsilver on June 19, 2007, 12:29:52 PM
Hillary is anti-labor; served on the board of Wal-mart.  Hired a union-buster as a consultant.

She obviously is not for the working people.

As a Director, Clinton Moved Wal-Mart Board, but Only So Far

In Mrs. Clinton’s complex relationship with Wal-Mart, there are echoes of the familiar themes that have defined much of her career: the trailblazing woman unafraid of challenging the men around her; the idealist pushing for complicated, at times expensive, reforms; and the political pragmatist, willing to accept policies she did not agree with to achieve her ends.

“Did Hillary like all of Wal-Mart practices? No,” said Garry Mauro, a longtime friend and supporter of the Clintons who sat on the Wal-Mart Environmental Advisory Board with Mrs. Clinton in the late 1980s and worked with her on George McGovern’s 1972 presidential campaign.

“But,” Mr. Mauro added, “was Wal-Mart a better company, with better practices, because Hillary was on the board? Yes.”


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/20/us/politics/20walmart.html?ex=1182398400&en=b18a6577430b1116&ei=5070


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: madupont on June 19, 2007, 01:15:24 PM
What I don't get is, why we should vote for her?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: kidcarter8 on June 19, 2007, 01:27:39 PM
Cap can't/won't answer that.  Just wants to berate the people not on blondie's side.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: madupont on June 19, 2007, 03:17:20 PM
Cap can't/won't answer that.  Just wants to berate the people not on blondie's side.

Oh, he probably could provide cogent answers.   Don't "kid yourself", I'm not voting Republican for the rest of my life.  They have failed to offer me anything since the days when my father was somewhere between a McCormick and a Rockefeller Republican.  I already have my Democrat candidate for whom I campaign now and again at places here and there.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: thecap0 on June 19, 2007, 03:41:08 PM
mad,

What I don't get is, why we should vote for her?

Because she is correct on the issues, correct on education, correct on health care, correct on ending the mad oil war, correct on women's choice, correct on negotiation in international affairs, correct on the deficit and the debt...
Shall I continue?
Now tell the forum why you hate her with such a personal passion.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: madupont on June 19, 2007, 04:39:57 PM
thecap0

Most probably for not having been correct in what she foresaw as an adequate health plan, she seemed obliviously high on it, what with GHWB having left office.  This makes me logically dubious about her good intentions in regard to present day  "objectives" desired by the voters.   There are many who recall as far back as being the Governor's First Lady in Arkansas, that she lacked carry-through in what  then didn't amount to much for women in the state.  Likewise, New York Staters are critical about her record for them in the Senate. Nevertheless, at your urging, I shall look into her categorically many interests brought forward thus far.

Peace.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: thecap0 on June 19, 2007, 04:55:01 PM
mad,

Nevertheless, at your urging, I shall look into her categorically many interests brought forward thus far.


Fair enough.  I hear from my friends who live in NYS (where I lived up until 9 years ago) is that they are overwhelmingly pleased with the job she is doing, especially her efforts to bring jobs and Federal $$$ upstate.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: kidcarter8 on June 19, 2007, 05:21:13 PM
I assume you will forgive thosse of us who are pro life for not casting our vote that way - not that she can do much within that issue if elected.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: thecap0 on June 19, 2007, 05:25:57 PM
kidc,

I assume you will forgive those of us who are pro life for not casting our vote that way - not that she can do much within that issue if elected.

Then I presume you will have no objection to being called a single-issue voter.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on June 19, 2007, 08:10:12 PM
Kid,

You say you are pro life. Does that also mean that you are pro universal health care? Does that also mean that you are pro education? Does that mean you are in favor of raising the minimum wage to support children? Does it mean that you would increase the per child allowance under welfare to provide for children?

Just curious how pro life you really are.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: thecap0 on June 19, 2007, 08:50:22 PM
weezo,

Just curious how pro life you really are.

Better yet, ask him/her if (s)he is anti capital punishment. 
Then ask why (s)he feels that the government is better equipped to determine the future of a woman's pregnancy than she herself is.


Title: NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg leaves GOP
Post by: liquidsilver on June 19, 2007, 09:43:47 PM
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg on Tuesday switched his party status from Republican to unaffiliated, a stunning move certain to be seen as a prelude to an independent presidential bid that would upend the 2008 race.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070620/ap_on_el_pr/bloomberg_politics



Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: kidcarter8 on June 19, 2007, 11:01:49 PM
kidc,

I assume you will forgive those of us who are pro life for not casting our vote that way - not that she can do much within that issue if elected.

Then I presume you will have no objection to being called a single-issue voter.

You can call me whatever you wish.  Don't have to be accurate.  Whatever floats yer boat, chollie.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: thecap0 on June 20, 2007, 01:02:19 AM
kid,

You can call me whatever you wish.

As the late, great Bill Klem used to say, "I don't call 'em as I see 'em. I call 'em as they are!"
BTW, if you don't know who Bill Klem was, you really ARE a kid.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: kidcarter8 on June 20, 2007, 09:53:19 AM
LOL

Clearly you have no clue who you are talking to

But I am not surprised you're "of age".  And certainly know enough of your group that I don't expect an open mind.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: thecap0 on June 20, 2007, 12:25:33 PM
kid,

Clearly you have no clue who you are talking to

OOOH!  I'm so IMPRESSED!


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: MrUtley3 on June 20, 2007, 02:35:24 PM
mad,

What I don't get is, why we should vote for her?

Because she is correct on the issues, correct on education, correct on health care, correct on ending the mad oil war, correct on women's choice, correct on negotiation in international affairs, correct on the deficit and the debt...
Shall I continue?
Now tell the forum why you hate her with such a personal passion.

hmmm. WE could make her head of corrections facilities for the federal government, being she is so correct.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: thecap0 on June 20, 2007, 03:26:55 PM
Garrick,

WE could make her head of corrections facilities for the federal government, being she is so correct.

Have no fear, old boy.  When Senator Clinton becomes President Clinton, she will CORRECT the errors of the malAdministration that preceded hers.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: liquidsilver on June 20, 2007, 03:28:29 PM
Sounds like someone got into the Kool-Aid.....


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: MrUtley3 on June 20, 2007, 04:30:13 PM
Sounds like someone got into the Kool-Aid.....

Yeah, and I think they actually had some special brownies to go with it,...


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: lulu on June 21, 2007, 03:19:42 PM
To those so-called prolifers out there:

Then I assume you are for sex education in the schools to warn kids about pregnancy and diseases; you are for contraceptions for minors (who will, unfortunately, continue to have sex no matter how much you think they shouldn't, and I feel kids today should not be having sex so young, but am realistic that what I would like to see is not what's going to happen) to prevent unwanted pregnancies.  Parents are not giving kids sex education nor are they monitoring how they dress, what they watch, etc.  Someone's got to do it and to avoid having abortions, how about educating them on how to avoid one?

As for Hillary: well, she changes her opinions with the wind.  She can't even decide which way to vote on a flag-burning amendment without checking to see what her "constituents" would think.  She won't answer how she feels about a Libby pardon because her Bill pardoned Marc Rich at the end of his presidency outraging most Americans.  She and Bill practically walked off with everything but the silver in the WH before they were called to task for this.  What is given to the President in office is not his personal property but that of the US.  I think Nancy Reagan got caught in that trap.

She and Bill are more conservative than I want.  So, no vote for Hillary.  And I have thought about her qualifications.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: kidcarter8 on June 21, 2007, 03:29:09 PM
To those so-called prolifers out there:

Then I assume you are for sex education in the schools to warn kids about pregnancy and diseases; you are for contraceptions for minors (who will, unfortunately, continue to have sex no matter how much you think they shouldn't, and I feel kids today should not be having sex so young, but am realistic that what I would like to see is not what's going to happen) to prevent unwanted pregnancies.  Parents are not giving kids sex education nor are they monitoring how they dress, what they watch, etc.  Someone's got to do it and to avoid having abortions, how about educating them on how to avoid one?

As for Hillary: well, she changes her opinions with the wind.  She can't even decide which way to vote on a flag-burning amendment without checking to see what her "constituents" would think.  She won't answer how she feels about a Libby pardon because her Bill pardoned Marc Rich at the end of his presidency outraging most Americans.  She and Bill practically walked off with everything but the silver in the WH before they were called to task for this.  What is given to the President in office is not his personal property but that of the US.  I think Nancy Reagan got caught in that trap.

She and Bill are more conservative than I want.  So, no vote for Hillary.  And I have thought about her qualifications.

Contraception/abstinence up to parents and a good doctor/priest

Beyond this..........

HAVE THE KID  usually works.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: incadove0 on June 21, 2007, 03:50:09 PM
She can't even decide which way to vote on a flag-burning amendment without checking to see what her "constituents" would think. 

Since she is supposed represent those constituents, that rather seems a positive quality in a candidate.

I only wish more representatives contemplated their constituents' thoughts in sending them off to Washington when they voted on more funding for bloodshed in Iraq.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on June 21, 2007, 04:22:45 PM
Kid,

How many times have you been through a pregnancy, especially an unwanted one?

If men/boys won't keep their pants zipped, the girl/woman has every right to zip it out!



Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: liquidsilver on June 21, 2007, 04:24:35 PM
Kid,

How many times have you been through a pregnancy, especially an unwanted one?


Including his own?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: kidcarter8 on June 21, 2007, 06:24:23 PM
Kid,

How many times have you been through a pregnancy, especially an unwanted one?

If men/boys won't keep their pants zipped, the girl/woman has every right to zip it out!


uh.................

what??


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: kidcarter8 on June 21, 2007, 06:25:54 PM
Spread em, then shred em

Real nice


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: thecap0 on June 21, 2007, 07:52:33 PM
kid,

Spread em, then shred em

Real nice

Considering the alternative - that some nameless, faceless government bureaucrat determine the future of her pregnancy, I would say it's "real nice" indeed.

1. When will you ever get around to telling us why you think the government is better able to determine the future of a woman's pregnancy than she herself is?
2. Are you as vehemently anti capital punishment and as anti military killing as you are anti choice, or are you simply profetallife?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: kidcarter8 on June 22, 2007, 05:26:35 PM
Why do you call the CHILD "a woman's pregnancy"?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: Detective_Winslow on June 22, 2007, 05:57:31 PM
You're either pro-LIFE or pro-DEATH...no other logical way to look at it.



AVOID THIS THING AT ALL COSTS!!!!



(http://home.earthlink.net/~dare2b/hillary.jpg)


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: Detective_Winslow on June 22, 2007, 05:59:47 PM
Chelsea...........





(http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/e/c/hillary_vader2.jpg)




I am your father/mother.....




Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on June 22, 2007, 06:12:41 PM
Why do you call the CHILD "a woman's pregnancy"?

Kid, if you were ever pregnant, you wouldn't have to ask that question.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: thecap0 on June 23, 2007, 07:04:00 AM
kid,

Why do you call the CHILD "a woman's pregnancy"?

Because many of us believe it is not a CHILD until it is born.
Now, let's get back to the subject.  Please tell us why you think some nameless, faceless government bureaucrat is better able to determine the future of a woman's pregnancy than she herself is.
I have a wife, three daughters, and two granddaughters.  They were/are/will be quite capable of making that choice without any interference from anyone else, thank you very much.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on June 23, 2007, 02:40:20 PM
She can't even decide which way to vote on a flag-burning amendment without checking to see what her "constituents" would think.

Since she is supposed represent those constituents, that rather seems a positive quality in a candidate.

I only wish more representatives contemplated their constituents' thoughts in sending them off to Washington when they voted on more funding for bloodshed in Iraq.

Me too.  We have two senators here in NH who should be living in Iran by the way they vote most of the time, and the way the rubber stamp Mr. Bush's proposals.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: incadove0 on June 24, 2007, 05:24:08 PM
She can't even decide which way to vote on a flag-burning amendment without checking to see what her "constituents" would think.

Since she is supposed represent those constituents, that rather seems a positive quality in a candidate.

I only wish more representatives contemplated their constituents' thoughts in sending them off to Washington when they voted on more funding for bloodshed in Iraq.

Me too.  We have two senators here in NH who should be living in Iran by the way they vote most of the time, and the way the rubber stamp Mr. Bush's proposals.

My reps voted similarly, the rubber stamping effect the same, but as Dems and with (to some extent) different reasoning.  That is, the constituents who are military families, one Sen very involved in veterans’ issues.

But it’s still all wrong IMO and misses those among that group who think very differently.

Very competent representatives, though I disagree with their stance on some things.  They’ll be behind Clinton I’m sure, as the forces gather steam, and whose (likewise) competence and intelligence IMO are certainly not the issues insofar as her candidacy is concerned.

Her opponents will use every cheap (and sexist) trick in the book though.  One example, of course, doctored photos of bad hair days.  I remember Malkin doing that one too (that's about the level of it).



Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: kidcarter8 on June 24, 2007, 10:46:33 PM
kid,

Why do you call the CHILD "a woman's pregnancy"?

Because many of us believe it is not a CHILD until it is born.
Now, let's get back to the subject.  Please tell us why you think some nameless, faceless government bureaucrat is better able to determine the future of a woman's pregnancy than she herself is.
I have a wife, three daughters, and two granddaughters.  They were/are/will be quite capable of making that choice without any interference from anyone else, thank you very much.

Of course they can.  Even if abortion was made illegal, there would be underground docs available to your loved ones to knock off other future loved ones, if they so "choose".

Good luck with that.  Good luck if your 6 month pregnant granddaughter ever terminates for no valid reason, unbeknownst to anyone in your family.

Can't get a refund on the spiffy pink nursery paint - sorry.  Nor the "what ifs" out of sweetiuepie granddaughter's mind the rest of her life.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: kidcarter8 on June 24, 2007, 10:48:38 PM
Dads who lose wanted kids - very sad.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: kidcarter8 on June 24, 2007, 10:57:09 PM
I can picture Capo arriving at the local hosp's maternity ward to meet the "new addition".

Granddaughter informs Capo that, "no, I decided to DO AWAY WITH IT.  I just thought it best". 

CAPO takes binky and teddy next door to the poor mama having hers, though without sufficient means but love - turns, no emotion - heads back home, like nothing happened.

"How's the new addition, Capo?", says a coworker the next day at lunch.

"She scraped it.  Pass the ketchup.........(burp)............say, how's your new lawnmower?"



Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: madupont on June 24, 2007, 11:13:03 PM
kidcarter8

Take a nap and go suck your thumb, after three posts in a row, you do need some rest.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: incadove0 on June 24, 2007, 11:22:20 PM
Another home alone Sunday Kid?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on June 25, 2007, 01:06:14 AM
Kid,

Your scenario is certainly more pleasant than the child who is eating beans and white bread for the fifth day in a row and is told by her weary mother, "I'm sorry I can't feed you decent meals. I don't know who your father - I was date raped and your father never returned my phone calls." .... the story would be even sadder if the mother had been gang raped and has no idea which was the father, or .... well, just fill in the blanks from any police blotter!

Of course, the mother could also apologize for the fact that the child is deformed or handicapped because the mother was taking (legal or illegal) drugs no knowing she was pregnant.

If a man/boy WANTS a baby, let him marry the mother and be sure the pregnancy is wanted BEFORE the seed is dropped. It is the irresponsibility of males who have necessitated abortions since biblical times, and will continue to make abortions necessary, legal or not, for the forseeable future.

Have you ever wondered why the various types of murder are spelled out in the bible, but nowhere in the bible is there a prohibition to abortion? The word does not even appear, although the practice existed at the time.






Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: thecap0 on June 25, 2007, 03:25:59 AM
kidc,

Granddaughter informs Capo that, "no, I decided to DO AWAY WITH IT.  I just thought it best". 

And I would love her just the same!  She is of mature mind and fully capable of making choices.

NOW, please tell us why you think the government's nameless, faceless bureaucrat should be making this decision instead of YOUR granddaughter, MY granddaughter, or anyone else's granddaughter.

If your granddaughter is opposed to abortion, then she should not have one!  Leave the choice up to each pregnant woman.

Do you really think the government is that wise?  Weren't the current thugs in the People's House elected in large part due to the theme of "getting the government off people's backs"?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on June 25, 2007, 05:30:48 AM
I would think Kid would remember the days of back alley abortions.  If he's forgotten, he could write George Bush and ask me how it went back then.  George would know.  In those days, girls from wealthy homes got what they needed; girls from poorer homes took their chances with the infamous coat hanger.  Good luck.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: kidcarter8 on June 25, 2007, 10:11:40 AM
"nowhere in the bible is there a prohibition to abortion"

THOU





SHALT




NOT




KILL


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on June 25, 2007, 11:31:14 AM
Kill what or whom?

Snakes? A cow? A litter of kitten? The cockroaches in the cabinet? The "Heathens" as directed by divine disclosure? How about Capital Punishment? Killing an enemy? Killing in self-defense? (perhaps Abortion belong in that category)

You still didn't respond to why the Bible lists all the forbidden 'cides, but does not include abortion?

I suspect that God wants that choice to reside with the mother, and there is no evidence in the bible that indicate He feels otherwise.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: kidcarter8 on June 25, 2007, 01:19:37 PM
My granddaughter would not be making the decision.  Her faith would.  Thus there is really no option.

Of course her education on the matter will allow that an unwed birth, one that might be seen as "unwanted" by so many liberal minds that see kids as problematic in some situations, is quite unlikely.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: thecap0 on June 25, 2007, 01:41:46 PM
kid,

My granddaughter would not be making the decision.  Her faith would.  Thus there is really no option.

If your granddaughter wants to surrender her mind to faith, that's her CHOICE.  What you have to realize is that not all people wish to have her faith become law of the land, as not all accept it.

This is the ultimate case of one size NOT fitting all.

Now, you still are dancing around the question of why you believe that the government is better able to determine the future of a woman's pregnancy than she herself is.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: incadove0 on June 25, 2007, 02:01:45 PM
What kc really believes is that he is better able to determine the future of a woman's pregnancy than she is herself.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: kidcarter8 on June 25, 2007, 02:08:35 PM
Not sure what you mokes are arguing about.  Current law is in your favor.

I don't think you should spit on someone who casts a vote for a candidate in part because he/she is prolife.  That's a bit absurd.

Also absurd is criticizing a  prolife strance that is non aggressive.  I certainly am not out bombing abortion facilities, defending those who do or even carrying a sign.  Just voting.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 25, 2007, 02:10:36 PM
What kc really believes is that he is better able to determine the future of a woman's pregnancy than she is herself.
Actually, what kc believes is that the baby is alive in the mother's womb and therefore the mother cannot decide to end that life anymore than she can nine months after it is born.  The issue for him is not the pregnancy, but the child.

You don't have to agree with him, but you should at least be intellectually honest about what he believes.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: incadove0 on June 25, 2007, 02:18:46 PM
What kc really believes is that he is better able to determine the future of a woman's pregnancy than she is herself.
Actually, what kc believes is that the baby is alive in the mother's womb and therefore the mother cannot decide to end that life anymore than she can nine months after it is born.  
[emphasis added]

Actually, KC believes a zygote and a fetus is a baby.  As to the issue of life, there is no scientific issue.

The issue for him is not the pregnancy, but the child.
You don't have to agree with him, but you should at least be intellectually honest about what he believes.

Flawed argument, counselor.  He still believes that he is best qualified to judge.

Perhaps that scruntinizing light should be shining on thyself.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: liquidsilver on June 25, 2007, 02:19:33 PM
I used to be diehard pro-choice but as I've gotten older, I've started changing my tune. 

What is really the greater good? 

A woman gets pregnant, aborts the baby, and moves on with her life. 

Or a woman gets pregnant, suffers through an unwanted pregnancy, gives the baby up for adoption to a loving family to raise as their own, and moves on with her life.

While I understand the my body, my choice argument.  The simple fact of the matter is that the government legislates what we can do with our bodies all the time, whether it be drugs, prostitution, or euthanasia. 

I think ultimately that in an age of morning after pills and all forms of contraception, it is for the greater good, that rather than killing a baby to save a mother from an unwanted pregnancy, that baby be given to a family that is struggling to produce one of their very own and would see that gift as a blessing. 

Should women have the right to choose?  Personally, I sway back and forth on it.  But I do think that any woman that does make the choice to abort should realize that it is a very selfish choice to make. 

We live in an age where there are long waiting lists to adopt and many couples have to go overseas and pay thousands of dollars so that they can be blessed with a child. 

While for 9 months that unwanted child may seem like a curse to the woman carrying it, I think there is much more happiness and good to be gained if that woman does deliver that baby for our society than in the termination of it.
 






Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 25, 2007, 02:20:51 PM
What kc really believes is that he is better able to determine the future of a woman's pregnancy than she is herself.
Actually, what kc believes is that the baby is alive in the mother's womb and therefore the mother cannot decide to end that life anymore than she can nine months after it is born.  
[emphasis added]

Actually, KC believes a zygote and a fetus is a baby.  As to the issue of life, there is no scientific issue.

The issue for him is not the pregnancy, but the child.
You don't have to agree with him, but you should at least be intellectually honest about what he believes.

Flawed argument, counselor.  He still believes that he is best qualified to judge.

Perhaps that scruntinizing light should be shining on thyself.
Whatever.  You will never make any headway in understanding the issue if you continue to be intellectually dishonest about the other side.  There is a fundamental disconnect between the two sides of the abortion debate and it is statements like yours that perpetuate it.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: incadove0 on June 25, 2007, 02:25:34 PM
Not sure what you mokes are arguing about.  Current law is in your favor.

I don't think you should spit on someone who casts a vote for a candidate in part because he/she is prolife.  That's a bit absurd.

Also absurd is criticizing a  prolife strance that is non aggressive.  I certainly am not out bombing abortion facilities, defending those who do or even carrying a sign.  Just voting.

Strawmen.  Non responsive.  "Intellectually dishonest."


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: incadove0 on June 25, 2007, 02:26:31 PM
Think he can handle it himself WP?  Or is Incadove beating up on the kid too much?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: kidcarter8 on June 25, 2007, 02:30:39 PM
Heh

I think it's been "handled".


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: incadove0 on June 25, 2007, 02:34:16 PM
What kc really believes is that he is better able to determine the future of a woman's pregnancy than she is herself.
Actually, what kc believes is that the baby is alive in the mother's womb and therefore the mother cannot decide to end that life anymore than she can nine months after it is born.  
[emphasis added]

Actually, KC believes a zygote and a fetus is a baby.  As to the issue of life, there is no scientific issue.

The issue for him is not the pregnancy, but the child.
You don't have to agree with him, but you should at least be intellectually honest about what he believes.

Flawed argument, counselor.  He still believes that he is best qualified to judge.

Perhaps that scruntinizing light should be shining on thyself.
Whatever.  You will never make any headway in understanding the issue if you continue to be intellectually dishonest about the other side.  There is a fundamental disconnect between the two sides of the abortion debate and it is statements like yours that perpetuate it.
[emphasis added]

Veiled ad hominem poppycock that doesn't address the logic of any statement I made as it stands.

You are the one who is being intellectually dishonest, arrogant, and presumptuous as to what I do or don't understand, or as to what my opinions are on any of the issues.

Your statement as to the "baby" is also indicative of your own scientific ignorance.

So keep dancing with your so-called moral moderatism.  It's bullshit.  You have taken a position, and it is YOU who is preventing headway in a debate by ignoring the substance of what someone is saying in order to (1) play Nanny, (2) obfuscate issues, and (3) pretend that your own statements/challenges work within reasonable parameters -- when they don't.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 25, 2007, 02:40:46 PM
What kc really believes is that he is better able to determine the future of a woman's pregnancy than she is herself.
Actually, what kc believes is that the baby is alive in the mother's womb and therefore the mother cannot decide to end that life anymore than she can nine months after it is born.  
[emphasis added]

Actually, KC believes a zygote and a fetus is a baby.  As to the issue of life, there is no scientific issue.

The issue for him is not the pregnancy, but the child.
You don't have to agree with him, but you should at least be intellectually honest about what he believes.

Flawed argument, counselor.  He still believes that he is best qualified to judge.

Perhaps that scruntinizing light should be shining on thyself.
Whatever.  You will never make any headway in understanding the issue if you continue to be intellectually dishonest about the other side.  There is a fundamental disconnect between the two sides of the abortion debate and it is statements like yours that perpetuate it.
[emphasis added]

Veiled ad hominem poppycock that doesn't address the logic of any statement I made as it stands.

You are the one who is being intellectually dishonest, arrogant, and presumptuous as to what I do or don't understand, or as to what my opinions are on any of the issues.

Your statement as to the "baby" is also indicative of your own scientific ignorance.

So keep dancing with your so-called moral moderatism.  It bullshit.  You have taken a position.
Hone up on your reading skills.  He believes it is a baby, right?  You do understand why that belief makes the whole argument about the pregnancy a moot point for him, right?  Your failure to even attempt to confront the counterargument on its own terms is intellectually dishonest.

Also, you need to hone up on your understanding of the meaning of the phrase "ad hominem."

Just one more example why I loathe both extremes in this debate.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: liquidsilver on June 25, 2007, 02:42:22 PM
Your statement as to the "baby" is also indicative of your own scientific ignorance.

What's the difference between calling it a fetus or an unborn baby? 

As far as I can tell the difference is not scientific at all but political.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: incadove0 on June 25, 2007, 02:57:54 PM
Just one more example why I loathe both extremes in this debate.

Please tell me what my opinion is on abortion that places me in the "extremist" category.  The only stated opinion of mine regarding the right to choose the future of one's pregnancy is the challenge that KC believes he (rather than the State) is best qualified to judge.

(It is obvious what he believes about the nature of pregnancy itself unless one is living on the moon not the U.S.)

That is not what I am addressing.  So why don't you give it a break unless you have an argument on the subject itself rather than the people.

That would be the intellectually honest thing to do.





Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: liquidsilver on June 25, 2007, 03:06:42 PM
Kill what or whom?

Snakes? A cow? A litter of kitten? The cockroaches in the cabinet? The "Heathens" as directed by divine disclosure? How about Capital Punishment? Killing an enemy? Killing in self-defense? (perhaps Abortion belong in that category)

You still didn't respond to why the Bible lists all the forbidden 'cides, but does not include abortion?

I suspect that God wants that choice to reside with the mother, and there is no evidence in the bible that indicate He feels otherwise.


Exodus 21:22 - If men strive an hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

Quote
I suspect that God wants that choice to reside with the mother, and there is no evidence in the bible that indicate He feels otherwise.

I would suggest that the Bible is more likely fall on the side of the father not the mother in all such decisions.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: liquidsilver on June 25, 2007, 03:09:59 PM
That's not to say I agree with it, but the Bible is nothing if not  misogynistic


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: thecap0 on June 25, 2007, 03:11:10 PM
wp,

Actually, what kc believes is that the baby  is alive in the mother's womb and therefore the mother cannot decide to end that life anymore than she can nine months after it is born. 

OK.  That gives his family the right to CHOOSE to carry each and every one of their pregnancies to term.  What it does NOT do is to give him and his family the right to impose that belief by force of law on anyone else's family.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: liquidsilver on June 25, 2007, 03:14:50 PM
If you believe something is morally reprehensible, is it not your duty to speak out against it?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: incadove0 on June 25, 2007, 03:17:25 PM
Your statement as to the "baby" is also indicative of your own scientific ignorance.

What's the difference between calling it a fetus or an unborn baby?  

As far as I can tell the difference is not scientific at all but political.

Well the term was "the baby," not "unborn baby."  But either way -- though there are political issues around the term -- as science, a fetus or a zygote is not a baby, not an unborn baby either.

Sorry if that casts a shadow.

As for WP's phrase -- if he'd said, "KC believes a baby" -- rather than "the baby" -- we'd be omitting a presumption that he concurs with any deluded prima facie notion.



Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: yankguy on June 25, 2007, 03:18:06 PM
Quote from: b
NOT[/b] do is to give him and his family the right to impose that belief by force of law on anyone else's family.[/color]

Why not?  While I'll let Kid speak for himself, it would seem to me that if abortion is defined as the taking of human life, it would seem to me to be precisely the kind of thing that "the force of law" should ban.

It seems to me that the entire abortion issue boils down to the definition of life itself.  I personally think there is something, somehow different about a fetus than a born infant.  I hope, however, that I'm not so cynical as to immediately condemn those who feel opposite on the issue.  As with all such issues, I believe that ultimately government involvement in reaching the determination-(as opposed to leaving it to one's own conscience) is a very bad thing.  


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 25, 2007, 03:18:55 PM
wp,

Actually, what kc believes is that the baby  is alive in the mother's womb and therefore the mother cannot decide to end that life anymore than she can nine months after it is born. 

OK.  That gives his family the right to CHOOSE to carry each and every one of their pregnancies to term.  What it does NOT do is to give him and his family the right to impose that belief by force of law on anyone else's family.
If you believe it is murder, how does choice enter in?  Your argument only makes logical sense if you accept your underlying position.  It makes no sense if you accept the other position.  That's been the sole point I've been trying to make here.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 25, 2007, 03:21:28 PM
Just one more example why I loathe both extremes in this debate.

Please tell me what my opinion is on abortion that places me in the "extremist" category. 

Quote
deluded


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: incadove0 on June 25, 2007, 03:22:48 PM
If you believe something is morally reprehensible, is it not your duty to speak out against it?

I see no issue on the board about anyone's right or duty to speak out on their opinion.  

That is KC's strawman to avoid addressing the issues presented to him.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: liquidsilver on June 25, 2007, 03:23:35 PM
Quote
Well the term was "the baby," not "unborn baby."  But either way -- though there are political issues around the term -- as science, a fetus or a zygote is not a baby, not an unborn baby either.

Science doesn't distinguish between the term fetus and unborn baby. They very much are synonymous. 


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 25, 2007, 03:28:08 PM
Wake me when we start talking about the 2008 campaign again, will ya, liq?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: incadove0 on June 25, 2007, 03:31:09 PM
Once again, WP, you fail to address the logical substance of arguments.  Deluded means perceptually mistaken.

Deal with it.

Look at a photo of a 150 cell zygote.  If you think there is a prima facie case for "the baby," that is most certainly a a greatly mistaken view.

An extremist position would concern one's opinions on the legal as well as moral issues.  Of which you have zilch information on me -- and have made zilch attempt to even find out before flinging your mud.

That puts you, fella, in the extremist camp.  


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 25, 2007, 03:37:06 PM
Once again, WP, you fail to address the logical substance of arguments.  Deluded means perceptually mistaken.

 
I am aware of the definition.  To my mind, the decision to label a difference of opinion a matter of delusion is the hallmark of extremism.

And I am not interested in joining an abortion debate, but rather trying to get the opposing sides to take the other side's point of view seriously.  Which you appear to have no interest in doing, which is why I find your posts intellectually dishonest.

Deal with it.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: incadove0 on June 25, 2007, 03:37:59 PM
Quote
Well the term was "the baby," not "unborn baby."  But either way -- though there are political issues around the term -- as science, a fetus or a zygote is not a baby, not an unborn baby either.

Science doesn't distinguish between the term fetus and unborn baby. They very much are synonymous. 

Yes they do, and no, the terms are not synonymous.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: incadove0 on June 25, 2007, 03:41:21 PM
And I am not interested in joining an abortion debate, but rather trying to get the opposing sides to take the other side's point of view seriously. 

You have done poorly on this respect.  You have only insulted and alienated people and created a brouha irrelevant to the issues being discussed.

Often the results when people take a hankering to play Nanny.

Go back to bed.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on June 25, 2007, 03:46:12 PM
What is Hillary's position on this issue?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: incadove0 on June 25, 2007, 03:50:21 PM
To my mind, the decision to label a difference of opinion a matter of delusion is the hallmark of extremism.

Though the picture of the 150 cell zygote may be earthshaking information for some, it is not "extreme" to call a what is most certainly delusion exactly what it is.

On the other hand, calling people "extremists" without even knowing their opinions on the legal and moral issues around abortion is a good example of the pot calling the kettle ...

Look up projection.  You are rapidly proving yourself king of that territory.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: thecap0 on June 25, 2007, 03:53:12 PM
wp,

And I am not interested in joining an abortion debate, but rather trying to get the opposing sides to take the other side's point of view seriously.

If this is truly your purpose (which I doubt), how about a few posts tossed the kid's way where you attempt to get him to "take the other side's point of view seriously."  From what I have seen so far, your creek flows in only one direction.  Please try to convince the kid of the seriousness of our POV when we say that this is an area where the law must be silent.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: liquidsilver on June 25, 2007, 03:53:21 PM
Though the picture of the 150 cell zygote may be earthshaking information for some, it is not "extreme" to call a what is most certainly delusion exactly what it is.

I think you are mistaken, I believe you are confusing the terminology of a zygote with that of an early embryo.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 25, 2007, 03:54:14 PM

And I am not interested in joining an abortion debate, but rather trying to get the opposing sides to take the other side's point of view seriously. 

You have done poorly on this respect.  You have only insulted and alienated people and created a brouha irrelevant to the issues being discussed.

Often the results when people take a hankering to play Nanny.

Go back to bed.
Speaking of projection, you will kindly point out any personal insult that I have used.  I have described the failure to meet an opposing argument on its own terms as intellectually dishonest because that is what it is.  


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: yankguy on June 25, 2007, 03:55:53 PM
I don't believe that there is any such thing as a 150-cell zygote.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: liquidsilver on June 25, 2007, 03:57:35 PM
Maybe that's why its earthshaking?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: incadove0 on June 25, 2007, 04:00:18 PM
What is Hillary's position on this issue?

Hillary supports Roe v Wade and funding in areas that make abortion less likely.



Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: incadove0 on June 25, 2007, 04:09:35 PM
Forgive me, boys, 150 cell zygote becoming a blastocyst.

Argument stands as to the earthshaking news about babies and their citizenship.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 25, 2007, 04:11:10 PM
What is Hillary's position on this issue?

Hillary supports Roe v Wade and funding in areas that make abortion less likely.


By "areas that make abortion less likely" do you mean parts of the country where abortion is less available, or that she favors using funding to reward parts of the country that encourage alternatives like birth control?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: incadove0 on June 25, 2007, 04:12:07 PM
WP

I'm not going to go around in circles with you on this anymore.  I've already addressed your imagined argument.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: incadove0 on June 25, 2007, 04:16:02 PM
What is Hillary's position on this issue?

Hillary supports Roe v Wade and funding in areas that make abortion less likely.


By "areas that make abortion less likely" do you mean parts of the country where abortion is less available, or that she favors using funding to reward parts of the country that encourage alternatives like birth control?

I am not using "areas" in the geographical sense. 

I am refering, for example, to her support for family planning education (among other things) which has been shown to reduce unwanted pregnancies.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 25, 2007, 04:18:28 PM
Thank you for the clarification.  I figured she was one of those "safe legal and rare" candidates.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: kidcarter8 on June 25, 2007, 04:20:45 PM
Quote from: b
NOT[/b] do is to give him and his family the right to impose that belief by force of law on anyone else's family.[/color]

Why not?  While I'll let Kid speak for himself, it would seem to me that if abortion is defined as the taking of human life, it would seem to me to be precisely the kind of thing that "the force of law" should ban.

It seems to me that the entire abortion issue boils down to the definition of life itself.  I personally think there is something, somehow different about a fetus than a born infant.  I hope, however, that I'm not so cynical as to immediately condemn those who feel opposite on the issue.  As with all such issues, I believe that ultimately government involvement in reaching the determination-(as opposed to leaving it to one's own conscience) is a very bad thing.  

Maybe all victimless crime should be left to "one's conscience".


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 25, 2007, 04:21:08 PM
..."imagined"..."deluded"...  Nope, not extreme in the least.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: incadove0 on June 25, 2007, 04:22:19 PM
Thank you for the clarification.  I figured she was one of those "safe legal and rare" candidates.

She is.  Do you have a disagreement with that position?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: kidcarter8 on June 25, 2007, 04:22:34 PM
wp,

And I am not interested in joining an abortion debate, but rather trying to get the opposing sides to take the other side's point of view seriously.

If this is truly your purpose (which I doubt), how about a few posts tossed the kid's way where you attempt to get him to "take the other side's point of view seriously."  From what I have seen so far, your creek flows in only one direction.  Please try to convince the kid of the seriousness of our POV when we say that this is an area where the law must be silent.

I do take the other side seriously.

Just not your side.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 25, 2007, 04:25:07 PM
Thank you for the clarification.  I figured she was one of those "safe legal and rare" candidates.

She is.  Do you have a disagreement with that position?
As long as abortion remains legal, no.  And I oppose any position that would infringe on abortion rights as long as Roe v. Wade remains the law of the land.  And for what it is worth, I cannot recall the last time I voted for a person who believes Roe v. Wade should be overturned, if I ever have.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: incadove0 on June 25, 2007, 04:25:50 PM
..."imagined"..."deluded"...  Nope, not extreme in the least.

Only if you think a blastocyst is anything close to a real American baby.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: yankguy on June 25, 2007, 04:29:28 PM
I believe that the government should have very little say in whether a given individual chooses to have an abortion.

At the same time, Roe vs. Wade is a horrendous decision.  Poorly reasoned, poorly argued, poorly supported.

I prefer penumbras and emanations.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: liquidsilver on June 25, 2007, 04:30:01 PM
American?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 25, 2007, 04:31:06 PM

At the same time, Roe vs. Wade is a horrendous decision.  Poorly reasoned, poorly argued, poorly supported.

You are right, but that baby has come to term, so to speak.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 25, 2007, 04:31:49 PM
American?
Yeah, well, in some parts of Eastern Europe..... oh, never mind.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: incadove0 on June 25, 2007, 04:53:51 PM
Here you go KC, the real thing magnified many times over:

http://www.advancedfertility.com/blastocystimages.htm


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: incadove0 on June 25, 2007, 04:56:38 PM
..."imagined"..."deluded"...  Nope, not extreme in the least.

Who, me?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 25, 2007, 04:59:20 PM
Quote
I cannot recall the last time I voted for a person who believes Roe v. Wade should be overturned
Actually, that isn't true; in retrospect I have voted for a Repo for Senator who I know is pro-life rather than pro-choice, and some Repo Congressmen who I assume are, as well as people in offices where Roe v. Wade isn't an issue.  (Although I once found a flyer under my windshield wiper after leaving church that urged me to vote for the "pro-life candidates" for school board, so apparently some people are under a drastic misunderstanding vis a vis the powers, rights and duties of school board members.)


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 25, 2007, 04:59:58 PM
..."imagined"..."deluded"...  Nope, not extreme in the least.

Who, me?
Sorry; you don't get two bites of the same apple!


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: incadove0 on June 25, 2007, 05:01:46 PM
..."imagined"..."deluded"...  Nope, not extreme in the least.

Who, me?
Sorry; you don't get two bites of the same apple!

But I just did, didn't I!


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: incadove0 on June 25, 2007, 05:04:06 PM
American?

Well little Johnny or Sally Hamilton there can't be stateless, can s/he?  Genderless perhaps, but still a person with the full rights of American citizenship!

http://www.advancedfertility.com/blastocystimages.htm


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: kidcarter8 on June 25, 2007, 06:27:14 PM
Here you go KC, the real thing magnified many times over:

http://www.advancedfertility.com/blastocystimages.htm

I'll have my Band of Sunshine look it over


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: kidcarter8 on June 25, 2007, 06:28:57 PM
Quote
I cannot recall the last time I voted for a person who believes Roe v. Wade should be overturned
Actually, that isn't true; in retrospect I have voted for a Repo for Senator who I know is pro-life rather than pro-choice, and some Repo Congressmen who I assume are, as well as people in offices where Roe v. Wade isn't an issue.  (Although I once found a flyer under my windshield wiper after leaving church that urged me to vote for the "pro-life candidates" for school board, so apparently some people are under a drastic misunderstanding vis a vis the powers, rights and duties of school board members.)

LOL


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: incadove0 on June 25, 2007, 08:13:16 PM
Here you go KC, the real thing magnified many times over:

http://www.advancedfertility.com/blastocystimages.htm

I'll have my Band of Sunshine look it over

Well make sure you do not look it over yourself.  That might mean that it is then incumbent on you to form your own arguments, which clearly you have thus far been unable to do.

And certainly you and WP don't want to ruin that track record.




Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: incadove0 on June 25, 2007, 08:19:48 PM
WP

When you have finished looking it over with Sunshine Band, you can tell the board why it is not delusional to think Johnny or Sally is a baby.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 25, 2007, 08:21:06 PM
WP

When you have finished looking it over with Sunshine Band, you can tell the board why it is not delusional to think Johnny or Sally is a baby.
You clearly have me confused with someone else.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: incadove0 on June 25, 2007, 08:23:46 PM
KC

And when Sunshine Band tells you what else to think, feel free to let us know who has the right to direct a woman's pregnancy:

(1)  The State
(2)  You As Sunshine Band Channeler
(3)  The woman



Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 25, 2007, 08:30:04 PM
Quote
That might mean that it is then incumbent on you to form your own arguments, which clearly you have thus far been unable to do.

And certainly you and WP don't want to ruin that track record.
Hah.  You don't even understand what my argument is, do you?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: incadove0 on June 25, 2007, 08:37:32 PM
Quote
That might mean that it is then incumbent on you to form your own arguments, which clearly you have thus far been unable to do.

And certainly you and WP don't want to ruin that track record.
Hah.  You don't even understand what my argument is, do you?

As I recall, your initial argument was that I was not responding to KC's argument.  If you go back and look at my initial statement -- you are correct.  I was responding to Cap's statement.

As I have every right to.

So go toot it up your nose, Whiskey.  You are not the forum referee.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 25, 2007, 08:48:59 PM
Quote
That might mean that it is then incumbent on you to form your own arguments, which clearly you have thus far been unable to do.

And certainly you and WP don't want to ruin that track record.
Hah.  You don't even understand what my argument is, do you?

As I recall, your initial argument was that I was not responding to KC's argument.  If you go back and look at my initial statement -- you are correct.  I was responding to Cap's statement.

As I have every right to.

So go toot it up your nose, Whiskey.  You are not the forum referee.
My argument, in fact, is that you - and cap - lack the intellectual honsety to try to understand the opposing viewpoint on its own terms.  Which you have amply proven to be true, starting with this post:

Quote
What kc really believes is that he is better able to determine the future of a woman's pregnancy than she is herself.
Near as I can tell, you feel everyone who disagrees with you is "deluded" because of a picture of a baby in its earliest stage of development does not look like a baby.  Once again proving you lack the intellectual honesty to even recognize what the opposing view is.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on June 25, 2007, 09:04:32 PM
Whiskey,

Have you had the chance to look over that California case I gave you the citation to as yet?

On the matter of abortion, I really do think that both sides of the issue, including those posting on either one side or the other on this forum, are well aware of the arguments proposed by the opposing side. For reasons which they have shared on here, they have taken note of those arguments and rejected them. For some of them, it may be no more than a gut feeling of what is right or wrong, but, as exhibited here, they are STRONG gut feelings.

Kid seems to believe abortion is wrong because a life is snuffed out. Cap believe abortion is right because a woman should have the final control over her body. Inca believes abortion is right because the fetus is not yet a human being and its life has not taken on the sacred wrappings that a live birth will convey.

Asking Cap and Inca to see Kids' "side" makes no more sense than asking Kid to see Cap and Inca's "side". They are all firm in their beliefs, and it is best for all to just agree to disagree rather to continue to beat this dead horse.







Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: liquidsilver on June 25, 2007, 09:05:06 PM
I think its kind of interesting that the Bush administration would like to give fetuses, zygotes, embryos, blastocysts, unborn babies -- whatever you want to call them -- more rights than "enemy combatants"....


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 25, 2007, 09:07:44 PM
Quote
Asking Cap and Inca to see Kids' "side" makes no more sense than asking Kid to see Cap and Inca's "side".
No, it makes AS MUCH SENSE.  If it is at all possible to have a reasoned solution to the issue, that's the necessary first step.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: liquidsilver on June 25, 2007, 09:13:15 PM
The best way to understand, present, and defend your own position is to play Devil's advocate with it.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: incadove0 on June 25, 2007, 09:22:36 PM
Quote
That might mean that it is then incumbent on you to form your own arguments, which clearly you have thus far been unable to do.

And certainly you and WP don't want to ruin that track record.
Hah.  You don't even understand what my argument is, do you?

As I recall, your initial argument was that I was not responding to KC's argument.  If you go back and look at my initial statement -- you are correct.  I was responding to Cap's statement.

As I have every right to.

So go toot it up your nose, Whiskey.  You are not the forum referee.
My argument, in fact, is that you - and cap - lack the intellectual honsety to try to understand the opposing viewpoint on its own terms.  Which you have amply proven to be true, starting with this post:

Quote
What kc really believes is that he is better able to determine the future of a woman's pregnancy than she is herself.

Read my statements above again.  What KC really believes has not yet been stated.  That was the crux of my response to Cap's statement challenging KC to express his position.

KC has responded to neither challenge.  As he so stated himself, he has yet to communicate again with Sunshine Band -- who he generally meets with at least on Sundays when the weather permits.

Then he will get back to us.

So you are the one who is not understanding the other side on their own terms.  Either myself, Cap, or KC.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 25, 2007, 09:28:30 PM
Quote
That might mean that it is then incumbent on you to form your own arguments, which clearly you have thus far been unable to do.

And certainly you and WP don't want to ruin that track record.
Hah.  You don't even understand what my argument is, do you?

As I recall, your initial argument was that I was not responding to KC's argument.  If you go back and look at my initial statement -- you are correct.  I was responding to Cap's statement.

As I have every right to.

So go toot it up your nose, Whiskey.  You are not the forum referee.
My argument, in fact, is that you - and cap - lack the intellectual honsety to try to understand the opposing viewpoint on its own terms.  Which you have amply proven to be true, starting with this post:

Quote
What kc really believes is that he is better able to determine the future of a woman's pregnancy than she is herself.

Read my statements above again.  What KC really believes has not yet been stated.  That was the crux of my response to Cap's statement challenging KC to express his position.

KC has responded to neither challenge.  As he so stated himself, he has yet to communicate again with Sunshine Band -- who he generally meets with at least on Sundays when the weather permits.

Then he will get back to us.

So you are the one who is not understanding the other side on their own terms.  Either myself, Cap, or KC.
Your attempt to rephrase the argument several hours into it is belied - emphasis on "lied" - by every single post you have made today.  You have never challenged kid to strate his position; you stated your own ignorant lampoon version of his position for him - one that completely ignores what he had posted on the issue over the previous couple of days.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: incadove0 on June 25, 2007, 09:32:48 PM
Near as I can tell, you feel everyone who disagrees with you is "deluded" because of a picture of a baby in its earliest stage of development does not look like a baby.  Once again proving you lack the intellectual honesty to even recognize what the opposing view is.

150 cells is not a baby.  You lack the intellectual honesty to acknowledge that plain fact.

Use your dictionary if you have doubt.  Or look around you next time you're at the park.  Then look again at the photo of a blastocyst.

One is entitled to their religious views on "ensoulment" or "sin."  But there is absolutely no basis in known reality (and PLENTY to contradict) for asserting that this is a "baby" or "human being" that is murdered when one has an abortion, miscarriage, or takes a morning after pill.

And even less for arguing that one has a right to impose their religious/spiritual beliefs as to these matters on others.

Wake up, lad.  Go read a biology text.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 25, 2007, 09:39:56 PM
Quote
Or look around you next time you're at the park.  Then look again at the photo of a blastocyst.
You jhave been repeating this all day and near as I can tell, it is a foolish and short sighted argument.  This is pretty much the exact counterpart of those pro-life billboards that show a fetus at 12 or whatever weeks of gestation.  Doesn't look like a baby, isn't a baby, looks like a baby, is a baby, right?  Or does the argument suddenly become more complex when it runs against you?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: incadove0 on June 25, 2007, 09:40:54 PM
WP

And when you're finished with your biology text, take another look at the 1st Amendment.

Weezo's biblical interpretations as to what GOD says is "right" or "just", regardless of what they mean to her or KC personally, mean ZIP.

Notice that there's little agreement as far as the good book goes ...... ??


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 25, 2007, 09:44:30 PM
WP

And when you're finished with your biology text, take another at the 1st Amendment.

Weezo's biblical interpretations as to what GOD says is "right" or "just", regardless of what they mean to her or KC personally, mean ZIP.

Notice that there's little agreement as far as the good book goes ...... ??
I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.  I suspect I am far better versed in the First Amendment than you are, especially if you think that there is anything in my response to weezo that in any way implicates it.

I guess from your arguments, we can solve the entire abortion ssue by individual ultra sound.  Doesn't look like a baby, kill it.  Looks like a baby, the state controls your pregnancy decision.  Or however you choose to phrase the propositions.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: incadove0 on June 25, 2007, 09:48:43 PM
Doesn't look like a baby, isn't a baby, looks like a baby, is a baby, right?  Or does the argument suddenly become more complex when it runs against you?

No, because my position is with R V W.  I think there is a point in a normally developing pregnancy where a line is crossed -- the line is fuzzy -- but you've eventually got an obvious "unborn baby" viable in a healthy way outside the womb.  In which case, I do not support abortion on demand.  So I generally stand with the law, but I think it was a mistake for the courts put so much decision making ability in the hands of the States.  That has just become a right wing political football for denying women's right to choose -- the ax falling hardest on poorer women who need that right most.



Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: incadove0 on June 25, 2007, 09:56:26 PM
WP

And when you're finished with your biology text, take another at the 1st Amendment.

Weezo's biblical interpretations as to what GOD says is "right" or "just", regardless of what they mean to her or KC personally, mean ZIP.

Notice that there's little agreement as far as the good book goes ...... ??
I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.  I suspect I am far better versed in the First Amendment than you are, especially if you think that there is anything in my response to weezo that in any way implicates it.

I guess from your arguments, we can solve the entire abortion ssue by individual ultra sound.  Doesn't look like a baby, kill it.  Looks like a baby, the state controls your pregnancy decision.  Or however you choose to phrase the propositions.

Well now I have no idea what you're talking about.  All I'm saying is that these are religious or spiritual issues for people to decide individually.  The State has no business imposing some biblical view as to what God wants us to do or not do -- as far as abortion is concerned.  That was a discussion between Weezo and (I believe) KC earlier on this board.  They did not agree about what the Bible means;  the implication being that both are turning to the Bible for personal answers on this question.

But the State has no business turning to the Bible.

As you know if you know the 1st Amendment as well you assert.  (I don't care what profession you say you hold.  This is the damn internet.  You could be anyone.  Your argument has to stand.  Not who you say you are - or what you assert you are a supposed authority on.  Why should I believe you?  Make a damn argument -- don't tell me you're the King of Siam and I should thus bow to your superior know-how.  That's more bullshit.)


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 25, 2007, 10:04:36 PM
WP

And when you're finished with your biology text, take another at the 1st Amendment.

Weezo's biblical interpretations as to what GOD says is "right" or "just", regardless of what they mean to her or KC personally, mean ZIP.

Notice that there's little agreement as far as the good book goes ...... ??
I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.  I suspect I am far better versed in the First Amendment than you are, especially if you think that there is anything in my response to weezo that in any way implicates it.

I guess from your arguments, we can solve the entire abortion ssue by individual ultra sound.  Doesn't look like a baby, kill it.  Looks like a baby, the state controls your pregnancy decision.  Or however you choose to phrase the propositions.

Well now I have no idea what you're talking about.  All I'm saying is that these are religious or spiritual issues for people to decide individually.  The State has no business imposing some biblical view as to what God wants us to do or not do -- as far as abortion is concerned.  That was a discussion between Weezo and (I believe) KC earlier on this board.  They did not agree about what the Bible means;  the implication being that both are turning to the Bible for personal answers on this question.

But the State has no business turning to the Bible.

As you know if you know the 1st Amendment as well you assert.  (I don't care what profession you say you hold.  This is the damn internet.  You could be anyone.  Your argument has to stand.  Not who you say you are - or what you assert you are a supposed authority on.  Why should I believe you?  Make a damn argument -- don't tell me you're the King of Siam and I should thus bow to your superior know-how.  That's more bullshit.)
Ah - so you have attributed to me a view I have never expressed on the forum.  I see.  I thought, since you referenced me, you were actually talking about something I said.  But then I have noted your preference for restating the views of others so that they better fit your arguments, no matter how inaccurately you render them, over dealing with what people actually argue.

You seem to want people to bow to your alleged superior biological knowledge, at least.  But then people do tend to want to set separate rules for themselves.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: incadove0 on June 25, 2007, 10:20:51 PM
[Ah - so you have attributed to me a view I have never expressed on the forum. 

What view is that?



Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on June 25, 2007, 10:22:18 PM
Liquid,

As I read through the post of the past hour or so, I believe you are right, that Whiskey is taking the "Devil's Advocate" position.

As for me, I believe that as far as the government is concerned, it is the woman's choice, and hers alone. As it stands now, that IS the government's stance, so, unless there is a serious attempt to overturn Roe vs Wade, there is no basis for argument.

Whiskey and Inca, I brought up the biblical POV in response to KC's assertion that his views are based on religion, and, inasmuch as he has in the past indicated that his religion is Christian and Christianity is typically based on the Bible, I asked him why, when the Bible is so specific about the other 'cides that are forbidden, why this one example has excaped explicative mention. I could go further, as a "Devil's Advocate" and suggest that either God made a horrid mistake in not specifying that the taking of unborn life was another forbidden 'cide, or that perhaps he didn't consider it "killing" until it was truly born and alive on its own. Abortion is not a modern invention. It has been around as long as women have been getting pregnant by the "wrong" man or at the "wrong" time.





Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: incadove0 on June 25, 2007, 10:25:30 PM
You seem to want people to bow to your alleged superior biological knowledge, at least.  But then people do tend to want to set separate rules for themselves.

I have not made any assertion as to superior qualifications in biology.  I have merely referenced a website - that information already obvious to anyone having taken 9th grade biology (while remaining awake).

Would you care to make a biological argument that the zygote at 150 cells does not turn into a blastocyst, but a "baby"?  Or has been one since the moment we had a fertilized egg and one celled zygote?



Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: incadove0 on June 25, 2007, 10:27:24 PM
WP

Delusional?

If that is your position -- and feel free to state what your position is on that point -- not only delusional, but absurd.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: incadove0 on June 25, 2007, 10:37:42 PM
Tell me WP do you ever dare state that a position is absurd or delusional?  Or even cruel in its effects?

Leviticus tells us to stone people.  Some people believe that and wish it instituted as law upon others in the United States.  For their biblical sins.



Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: incadove0 on June 25, 2007, 10:41:00 PM
Yep, WP, the Shiavo folks had a 13 year old raped pregnant child in Florida fighting her way through the courts for an abortion.

By the time she got one, the blastocyst was no more.

So you go on and keep telling me that I'm being unfair, unjust, or unreasonable.

But I'll tell you where the human being was.  And it wasn't a blastocyst.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: incadove0 on June 25, 2007, 10:44:17 PM
So go toot some more of that good stuff up the nose, whiskeypriest.

When you come down to earth, take another look at that many times magnified photograph of a group of cells.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: incadove0 on June 25, 2007, 10:46:57 PM
Morality?

Those fruitcakes don't know the meaning of the term.

Extremists?

Go chase your goats down there in Florida.

Or better yet -- go find some domestic terrorists into bombing abortion clinics, screaming "murderer" at patients, or thinking it's understandable that doctors and nurses have been bumped off -- or are unable to even practice medicine. 

At least as far as the poor are concerned.  Or haven't you been reading about what it's like to try to get an abortion in some states?

And are those real human lives of no consequence to you?  Just someone's wet dream hallucinations about blastocysts being children?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: incadove0 on June 25, 2007, 11:12:59 PM
WP

Know what?  It's folks spouting your unspouted position who polarize the debate the most.

I'd much rather talk about issues with someone who disagrees with me, but is out and out honest about where they stand.

I actually respect KC's position - the amount I know of it - more than yours.

Though KC is certainly lost, and likely shall continue to be.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on June 25, 2007, 11:44:14 PM
Inca,

CHILL!!!!!!



Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: incadove0 on June 25, 2007, 11:49:01 PM
Inca,

CHILL!!!!!!



Why should I?  I have a right to state my opinion and I'm not breaking any forum rules that I'm aware of.  There are persons who express themselves much more frequently on these forums than I do.  And I ever respect their rights, whether I agree with them or not.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: incadove0 on June 25, 2007, 11:59:04 PM
BTW WP, here is another example of how full of potatoe tooey you are:

You have never challenged kid to strate his position; you stated your own ignorant lampoon version of his position for him - one that completely ignores what he had posted on the issue over the previous couple of days.


When prior to your post, I stated here:

KC

And when Sunshine Band tells you what else to think, feel free to let us know who has the right to direct a woman's pregnancy:

(1)  The State
(2)  You As Sunshine Band Channeler
(3)  The woman



But maybe you just don't want the board to know.  After all, I know Cap has tried to get KC to state his position in this regard at least five times (once by trying to get you to join in and demonstrate your implied neutrality, ha), and that post here was at least my third attempt, with you howling like a wolf trying to protect its little one, since my first, and in effect, preventing that discourse.

But feel free to prove otherwise.

For example, you could try letting KC speak for himself.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: madupont on June 26, 2007, 12:42:12 AM
" The simple fact of the matter is that the government legislates what we can do with our bodies all the time, whether it be drugs, prostitution, or euthanasia. " liquidsilver, re:#757 ..."  Should women have the right to choose? ...

BUT WHY IS THAT A "very selfish choice to make." ? ..."that woman does deliver that baby for our society"


My experience is that there are other societies in the world who do not feel that way nor want "that" woman or any other woman delivering babies for their society.  Ultimately, we are a world population. We can't avoid that at a time when governments have to consider  blocking electromagnetic shut down that would leave them defenseless , while directly to the south of them we have a government who took it upon itself to wipe out almost entirely a civilian population because that would avoid a shortage of resources on the home continent.

Men might wonder in that case how much they enjoy having government legislate and draft that they will take their bodies on over there and participate in this pro-life farce.

To be concerned about women making their life contribution to deliver their baby for future society when society will exist in a sterile vacuum is absurd philosophically.  This suggests that until we have sufficient resources without killing total populations, that we refrain from procreation that will burden the population and keep pushing it to destruction.

Ps. re:# 775,  about that fetus being an unborn baby. No.  The fetus is earlier and if not a product of conception  will become a neonate or unborn baby in due course.

Yet, as of #820, it seems we do share some discernment in common.


INCADOVE 0

The positions taken in this discussion for about four or more pages, where I came in and thus far, reflect that individuals adopt a position in regard to this issue because of an inate psychological necessity generally not obvious to the others arguing for or against, because  in all cases the participants are all masking that necessity whether or not they are aware of their own motivation.  Human beings do not trust each other sufficiently to be be open with each other, which is why they argue this theoretically and politically.  But, you know that.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: madupont on June 26, 2007, 12:56:30 AM
Ps. Correction.  Unfortunate construction: "...if not a product of conception  will become a neonate or unborn baby in due course."

If it is awkward to have an unborn baby come before the neonate in the development of the sentence --ouch! I should have phrased that differently. I have left open the sequence that if miscarriage occurs and it is determined by diagnosis that there was present "a product of conception, then there will be neither an unborn baby or neonate,to speak of although you will find in most cases,"the mother" will speak of  it as her child and mourn for a considerable period of time.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: incadove0 on June 26, 2007, 01:17:44 AM
Madupont

What is most horrible to me is what is happening in countries where it is banned completely or almost.  Or, for example, nations where child infanticide runs so high, as a result.  An article in the NY Times quoted a Catholic priest in Portugal who sees all the rural, poor, uneducated young women unable to get abortions -- abandonning their newborn babies in the fields -- as calling the abortion laws "the real infanticide."

I completely agree.  Those laws are criminal. 

It was not so long ago common to find newborn dead babies in the gutter or garbage pails of England.  When abortion was illegal.

But with the exception of a few liberal Evangelists or liberation theology sympathizers in the RCC, I have yet to hear "right to lifers" expressing sorrow over the rights of real human beings.

As soon as they're born, they're forgotten.  After all, it's much easier to care about imaginery beings -- who don't yet exist.  Real humans and their real problems are a pain in the neck.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: incadove0 on June 26, 2007, 02:56:14 AM
Inca believes abortion is right because the fetus is not yet a human being and its life has not taken on the sacred wrappings that a live birth will convey.

This is not an accurate paraphrase of my position.  I can't imagine describing anyone who is pro-choice as believing that "abortion is right."  Abortion is a difficult decision for most people who face it as possibility.  Though it may be the right choice under certain circumstances for a given individual.

Very basically, my overall position (as stated earlier to WP) is that the choice to have an abortion lies with the individual woman within the legal constraints laid out by R V W.  I'd describe myself in the legal, safe, and rare category with the qualification that I also think it should be readily available -- and in hospitals -- unless the government wants to insure that states will not be limited to one provider flying in from elsewhere to some broken down far away clinic that poor women have to travel days to get to, save money months for, and stay in hotels overnight.

IMO, the biology is relevant as to why we recognize these rights and not the rights of some imagined "baby."  There is no "baby" in any real biological way until much later in a healthy pregnancy whereupon certain constraints already laid out by law come into play.  "The baby" is an attempt to circumvent the truth that "right to lifers" are essentially making a religious argument and trying to impose it on others pretending that it's not.  Because it's against the law and they know it.

As to the religious argument, IMO, the position that a human soul exists from the point of conception -- or at some point during pregnancy -- or that abortion is a personally moral sin -- may be valid (on the basis of faith) for any given individual.  But they certainly have no right to impose those beliefs on others, and, given the consequences to others' lives around reproductive choices, it is even wrong and can be highly immoral to do so.

Just as the State IMO has no right to force a woman to follow through on a pregnancy -- as they attempted to do so with the 13 year old rape victim in Florida -- neither does the State, as reportedly happened in China, have a right to force women to have abortions.

So if someone is going to make an argument that the State has a right to control what reproductive choices a woman makes -- then they better be prepared to accept the iron hand of the State when they decide that population issues give them rein here as well.

As to my personal position on abortion.  In the words of B. Holiday -- "ain't nobody's business but my own."


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: liquidsilver on June 26, 2007, 06:24:02 AM
" The simple fact of the matter is that the government legislates what we can do with our bodies all the time, whether it be drugs, prostitution, or euthanasia. " liquidsilver, re:#757 ..."  Should women have the right to choose? ...

BUT WHY IS THAT A "very selfish choice to make." ? ..."that woman does deliver that baby for our society"


My experience is that there are other societies in the world who do not feel that way nor want "that" woman or any other woman delivering babies for their society.  Ultimately, we are a world population. We can't avoid that at a time when governments have to consider  blocking electromagnetic shut down that would leave them defenseless , while directly to the south of them we have a government who took it upon itself to wipe out almost entirely a civilian population because that would avoid a shortage of resources on the home continent.

Men might wonder in that case how much they enjoy having government legislate and draft that they will take their bodies on over there and participate in this pro-life farce.

To be concerned about women making their life contribution to deliver their baby for future society when society will exist in a sterile vacuum is absurd philosophically.  This suggests that until we have sufficient resources without killing total populations, that we refrain from procreation that will burden the population and keep pushing it to destruction.

Ps. re:# 775,  about that fetus being an unborn baby. No.  The fetus is earlier and if not a product of conception  will become a neonate or unborn baby in due course.

Yet, as of #820, it seems we do share some discernment in common.


INCADOVE 0

The positions taken in this discussion for about four or more pages, where I came in and thus far, reflect that individuals adopt a position in regard to this issue because of an inate psychological necessity generally not obvious to the others arguing for or against, because  in all cases the participants are all masking that necessity whether or not they are aware of their own motivation.  Human beings do not trust each other sufficiently to be be open with each other, which is why they argue this theoretically and politically.  But, you know that.

Its selfish because rather than deliver that baby for another couple to love and cherish, the mother is choosing to have that baby terminated.  While abortion is certainly a choice, I think giving it up for adoption is the far better one. 

We live in an age where contraceptive options are plentiful and a morning after pill exists.  While abortion has existed in some capacity for hundreds if not thousands of years, we have many options now to prevent unwanted pregnancies from ever occurring.  And just because something has been done for hundreds, if not thousands of years -- does not necessarily make it right.  Slavery for instance.

As far as the population control argument goes, the United States does not have a high birth rate.  While it is certainly higher than many European countries, it is in fact far lower than the mean.   The "sky is falling" population projections are largely based on the immigration populations both legal and illegal.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: thecap0 on June 26, 2007, 07:06:45 AM
HG,

While abortion is certainly a choice, I think giving it up for adoption is the far better one. 

Fine!  No one should have an issue with this.  What we in the choice camp believe is that your particular CHOICE should not have the force of law on those who believe that other CHOICES are in their interest.

We believe that the area of the determination of whether or not to terminate a pregnancy is one where the law must be silent.

BTW, my eldest son is adopted, and I salute his birth mother for making that choice, just as I would another woman for making a different choice.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: yankguy on June 26, 2007, 09:18:35 AM
The legal "constraints" of Roe v. Wade are based on the concept of viability.  If the medical understanding of constitutes "viability" changes over the course of the years-a very likely occurance-what can/should happen to the Roe's holding?  Better the case should have been decided on other grounds-then the nebulous and changeable concept of viability.  That is why Roe will likely be overruled. 


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: liquidsilver on June 26, 2007, 09:31:44 AM
I believe that the Roe v Wade will eventually be overturned as well.  I don't think that the decision was grounded well in terms of constitutionality.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: yankguy on June 26, 2007, 09:37:51 AM
I certainly agree with that.

I believe however, the "adoption option" is a red herring when it comes to the abortion debate.  The issue is whether a woman must carry a zygote, blastycyst or fetus to delivery and who makes that decision.  The issue of adoption- while it can be contemplated prior to delivery-really has no bearing on the central fundamental issue of the debate i.e., who decides whether a pregnancy can/will be ended. 


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: liquidsilver on June 26, 2007, 09:47:44 AM
It may very well have no bearing on the central fundamental issue in terms of whether a pregnancy can/will be ended but I don't necessarily think that it doesn't have a place in a discussion of choice.   


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: madupont on June 26, 2007, 10:02:56 AM
Yankguy, I'm with you there,who decides; I was going to ask you to further define viability but you have clarified your position on the matter which most concerned me:

The "Who" and I don't mean the music group, as that was perhaps what I did not carefully express to liquidsilver's terminology.

" liquidsilver, re:#757 ..."  Should women have the right to choose? ...

BUT WHY IS THAT A "very selfish choice to make." ? ..."that woman does deliver that baby for our society"

In terms of constitutionality, the individual's constitutional rights are rather than the group's rights.  There is not selfish choice when the Constitution is followed as intended.  My point was  " that" woman does not deliver her baby for our society; I recall that as a very Germanic set of values, shall we say.

The viability question doesn't concern me as a surgeon's daughter.  I know how it is defined.  I'm only concerned about the surgeons as a matter of fact who are threatened  by the hyprocisy of those who have access to the best medical resolution of a life-threatening situation, use it, and then condemn it for the life-saving care of others.                          



Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 26, 2007, 10:05:11 AM
Quote
This is not an accurate paraphrase of my position.
You certainly have no cause to complain about that.  Misrepresenting the positions others have taken is your standard argument tactic.  You are clearly a zealot who has no interest in reasoned argument on the issue and no interest in understanding the other point of view.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: madupont on June 26, 2007, 10:05:32 AM
liquidsilver,

As I said, probably was not clear enough in how I defined the language that I wanted to mirror back to you.

Let me tell you about Hank Aaron.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: yankguy on June 26, 2007, 10:06:25 AM
I don't think it's proper role of the government to say "you must carry this baby to term because you can give it up for adoption."  I believe that if the government has that authority it could be argued that it has the same power to tell people that they must terminate their pregnancies.  


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: liquidsilver on June 26, 2007, 10:09:53 AM
 
I don't think it's proper role of the government to say "you must carry this baby to term because you can give it up for adoption."  I believe that if the government has that authority it could be argued that it has the same power to tell people that they must terminate their pregnancies.   

That is not the argument that I was trying to make. 


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: yankguy on June 26, 2007, 10:15:59 AM
I know-I was just adding to the adoption talk.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: madupont on June 26, 2007, 10:18:36 AM
incadove0

"Very basically, my overall position (as stated earlier to WP) is that the choice to have an abortion lies with the individual woman within the legal constraints laid out by R V W.  I'd describe myself in the legal, safe, and rare category with the qualification that I also think it should be readily available -- and in hospitals -- unless the government wants to insure that states will not be limited to one provider flying in from elsewhere to some broken down far away clinic that poor women have to travel days to get to, save money months for, and stay in hotels overnight."

That would seem to be the way current US government has been going and was exactly the point of my last post with concern for the surgeon who will begin to lack the education to perform the delicate surgical procedure that the government's loudest supporters refer to in terms of meat hacking, while if it saves the life of one of their own fine then they want that surgeon available to them and in their local hospital for convenience but they don't want their constituents to know.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: kidcarter8 on June 26, 2007, 10:42:43 AM
Madupont

What is most horrible to me is what is happening in countries where it is banned completely or almost.  Or, for example, nations where child infanticide runs so high, as a result.  An article in the NY Times quoted a Catholic priest in Portugal who sees all the rural, poor, uneducated young women unable to get abortions -- abandonning their newborn babies in the fields -- as calling the abortion laws "the real infanticide."

I completely agree.  Those laws are criminal. 

It was not so long ago common to find newborn dead babies in the gutter or garbage pails of England.  When abortion was illegal.

But with the exception of a few liberal Evangelists or liberation theology sympathizers in the RCC, I have yet to hear "right to lifers" expressing sorrow over the rights of real human beings.

As soon as they're born, they're forgotten.  After all, it's much easier to care about imaginery beings -- who don't yet exist.  Real humans and their real problems are a pain in the neck.

"As soon as they are born, they are forgotten"

Not in this nation.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: madupont on June 26, 2007, 12:04:11 PM
As Hank Aaron would say, "Oh,yeah...."


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: madupont on June 26, 2007, 12:05:43 PM
Be sure you do that in a Louis Armstrong intonation,however


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: incadove0 on June 26, 2007, 03:04:09 PM
Louis always convinces me, but KC is going to have to work much harder.

Madupont

Re who gets the care that costs money.  IMO, a well conducted nationalized health industry would do wonders for the right to life.  But I don't see that their goal is really life.

The other side of the viability coin, of course, is what people think is viable.  That can be as deluded as the notion that even one cell is a baby.  Recalling some posts by a nurse who worked with premies.

WP

Sorry, but the emperor is not wearing any clothes.





Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 26, 2007, 03:28:32 PM
Tend to your own absent garments.

 


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: incadove0 on June 26, 2007, 04:03:53 PM
Tend to your own absent garments.

And have a little sunshine with your snort.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on June 27, 2007, 06:40:48 AM
Did you see the interview on Hardball with Anne Coulter?  This is the most embarrassing woman in America.  Well, other than the woman in white behind her showing her nipples.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: srnich on June 27, 2007, 10:12:52 AM
Wow.

Can Michael Moore have equal time now?

Not the nipples tho.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: srnich on June 27, 2007, 03:43:16 PM
Anthrax Coulter does more to rally the dems than anyone.

 ;D


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: srnich on June 27, 2007, 03:57:26 PM
Coulter: "I do think anyone named B. Hussein Obama should avoid using 'hijack' and 'religion' in the same sentence"


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: kidcarter8 on June 27, 2007, 06:34:59 PM
"I've learned my lesson. If I'm gonna say anything about John Edwards in the future, I'll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot." -Ann Coulter on Good Morning America, June 25.

Cool remark, eh? Just when I think Coulter has sunk as low as she can possibly sink, she manages to outdo herself. The best rebuttal of Coulter is to just wait around for her to make her next witty comment.


Do you know the origin of this remark?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: madupont on June 27, 2007, 06:54:37 PM
"I've learned my lesson. If I'm gonna say anything about John Edwards in the future, I'll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot." -Ann Coulter on Good Morning America, June 25.

Cool remark, eh? Just when I think Coulter has sunk as low as she can possibly sink, she manages to outdo herself. The best rebuttal of Coulter is to just wait around for her to make her next witty comment.



Do you suppose she has ever read Dante?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: thecap0 on June 27, 2007, 07:06:27 PM
madupont,

Do you suppose she has ever read Dante?


I would place her in about the seventh circle!


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 28, 2007, 08:00:54 AM
"I've learned my lesson. If I'm gonna say anything about John Edwards in the future, I'll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot." -Ann Coulter on Good Morning America, June 25.

Cool remark, eh? Just when I think Coulter has sunk as low as she can possibly sink, she manages to outdo herself. The best rebuttal of Coulter is to just wait around for her to make her next witty comment.

Do you know the origin of this remark?
Does it matter?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: kidcarter8 on June 28, 2007, 10:26:43 AM
Well...........yeah.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: madupont on June 28, 2007, 07:24:14 PM
oKAY, SO HE'S SLITHIS LITTLE BROTHER; just not on speed today.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: samiinh on June 29, 2007, 06:28:54 AM
Anthrax Anne is good for the Dems.  She makes the repukes look worse than they probably are.  Obama has out monied Hillary they say in the second quarter.  Fred Thompson here in NH.  Another non-starter, IMHO.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on July 09, 2007, 12:32:16 AM
For those who have access to Direct TV channel 241, TV One, a black channel, check out the interviews with Barrack Obama. He is saying that the black should downplay the concerns against homosexuality, live and let live, but play up their basic religious beliefs, the commandments, the sermon on the mount, and he is emphasizing the importance in moving progressively forward, not falling back into the failed conservatism. He separates the Second Amendment arguement between that of the rural liver who uses guns to hunt, vs. the urban liver who sees guns as an instrument of oppression. He says the both need to see the view of the other and come to a consensus on what should and should not be allowed.

He pointed out that his lesser of "experience" in national issues should not be an issue, since the current President came into Washington with no Washington experience. His is there, but limited.... A good point.

On immigration, he says that we are NOT going to bus all the illegals back to where they came from, but he wants to strenthen the borders to keep the immigrants coming in legal. He wants a level playing field on immigration without giving favoritism to Cubans to merely embarass Castro.

Obama reminded that he was against the war in Iraq from the beginning - he wasn't one of those who was fooled by the "intelligence". He wants to pull out the troops by March after he is elected. He doesn't want to extend the war indefinitely as Bush says. He wants us out! He points out what else we should be investing the cost of war in, instead of death dealing.

I'm impressed by this candidate, and want to keep hearing more from him. Sadly, the mainstream press is not treating him to the sound bites that it gives to others.



Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: thecap0 on July 09, 2007, 06:41:18 AM
From today's NYT:

As he toured the speedway, Mr. Giuliani’s casual look, a blue blazer and khakis, did not exactly blend in among the throngs of men with tank tops and deep red tans.

But he did have on a pair of shiny cowboy boots. Asked about them, he said he had three pairs and had worn boots on occasion since 1996, when he won his first pair on a bet after a Yankees victory.


Rudy and his concubine at NASCAR.  Can anyone here spell P-A-N-D-E-R?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: madupont on July 10, 2007, 12:41:32 AM
weezo, speaking of channels....re:#179 ?

Having bumped into quite a wild conversation over at Black Voices version of aol, from the resident blogger Marcus what's his face(?), about the firing of Isaiah Washington from Gray's Anatomy, reputedly for the use of the "f. word" )no, not that "f... word", the other "f.....word", with people jumping to conclusions righteously, I decided to remind everybody "on board" that there were a couple of black spokesmen who were definitely out there when the time was right. One of them was the author of Giovanni's Room, another book that never became a movie although Marlon Brando and Robert Di Nero  both wanted to play in it  opposite each other --and that's exactly why it never got made.

The other was the man born down here at West Chester who had a Quaker education, as this was big Underground Railway safe house territory from the Baltimore Pike and on up the East Coast to Niagara Falls where Frederick Douglass took over from there. 

Now the first man left the US behind him and went to live in the South of France where he was visited by Henry Louis Gates,jr., who started the African and African-American studies program at Harvard, because Jimmy Baldwin told the young man, come on down, I'd be glad to do the interview for you, so when you get off the plane, go into Paris and go to Josephine's, she'll  have a car and you can party all the way down. Which they did. That was Josephine Baker that James Baldwin was talking about. He made enough money on that book to live very comfortably without putting up with American attitudes ; they, of course, bought the book.  I read the book, and even I understood it.

The second man had an electrifying personality, he was a live-wire, and somehow having been introduced to Martin Luther King  nearly hypnotized him with his reflections on Gandhi's Satyagraha Movement as seen through the eyes of a Black Quaker.

On the other hand, he could not help being really out there occasionally,especially on the West Coast, and he'd get arrested for his compromising positions  enticing other guys into the back-seat of his convertible. So his name was mud and everybody forgot his contribution.

But then, they also forgot what Baldwin had said, when the author of:
Go Tell it On the Mountain, also wrote: The Fire Next Time. "You don't integrate into a burning house".

We remember that because he was a writer.   We don't remember what Bayard Rustin said because he was an organizer.

Everybody figured they knew what Isaiah Washington said, hands down.

I chose to remind them that they had no idea.

Obama is correct since for a long time, African-Americans support their Black churches as it has always been where their political organizing is accomplished; but in attempting to tell that to the new younger Republican bloggers who came in for the early campaign season at nytimes.com (which I 'spect was the real reason the forums there had to make room) they didn't get that was why Hillary more or less had to invite herself to Selma for the anniversary when Obama talked in church about how he is not a stranger to this segregation when his African father from the little village near the eastern shore of Lake Victoria  had to go through the same things there in Kenya which is why he came elsewhere to go to school in Economics.

I also had to make it clear why Hillary was not at the top of the guest list notified when Coretta King's funeral was planned.  One had to scan carefully over the photographs and video to see how that panned out, but she was invited late in hopes that there wasn't room. Why? because although you can see that Bush and Laura are there being a little too casual, and therefore they politely insisted through official channels that Harry Belafonte should not be allowed where they were (although he had been the man who held Coretta by the elbow at her husband's funeral!)--and Harry of course ended up on Bill Maher's programming proving that he is now so old that why ever would the Bushes think they can black-ball him by blackening his name? 

Now if that isn't playing politics, what is? But it is a matter of record that Bill and Hillary attending a funeral think of it as one more occasion to indulge in a little political stumping during the usual Southern socializing part of the day when whomever has been laid to rest.  They decided definitely not to post my news about Democrats either.

I just pick up the strangest things, from listening at doors....

Then borrowing another computer screen, I noticed wow, Isaiah comes out on Larry King  and this isn't even the Black Voices, so I read how his producers and the network  have put the freeze on any discussion made public commentary by the rest of the cast members who survived the big down on Washington trip, while Sandra Oh of course sent supportive communication to Isaiah being how she is another member of a real minority....   Well, you get the drift.

So last night, I couldn't resist when I noticed that Larry King was going to be on? Or, was that the night before? I just know that as far as I'm concerned there has been nothing on beyond Big Love and a lot of movies cheaper than going out.  And I listen to what Isaiah Washington has to say about his upcoming jobs, what scripts he is reading(which is always a bore to do, and I watch his  playing to the camera with appropriate pauses to think before he speaks....

Which means I am very glad Barack Obama has addressed the issue.  For the sake of party solidarity, since I made it quite clear in Marcus what's his name's territory, which is paid blogger at large, that there are a lot of mighty clever behind the scenes types who are into destroying the reputations of any possible black leadership with an influence on the black voters even after "the vote caging" of the two Bush terms(see,  Greg Palast, at Amazon.com or anywhere you can google him up). I HAVE SAT THROUGH ONE TOO MANY FRONT PAGE BLOGS AT THE NYTIMES.COM. to be naive about the posters who do not want to be seen as prejudiced, who me?,while telling you to wait until 2012 for Obama, of maybe 2016, and so on, "Get Back. Get Back to where  you once belonged...".

I do not worry about the "lesser experience" since he taught Constitutional Law for ten years at the University of Chicago. If it isn't his"incompetence that worries some posters , it is where he lives, and/or who he knows; the standard things we have been trying to figure out about Dick Cheney and jr Bush and their roly poly side kick Karl Rove by jove.  AND BESIDES, I really enjoyed that remark about the embarrassing favoritism to Cubans, like Castro could care.



Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: madupont on July 10, 2007, 12:43:54 AM
Sorry, that was #879, I wasn't speaking in code, or anything...


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on July 10, 2007, 01:31:44 AM
Maddie,

Never mind what message you were responding to, I recognized it.

I was building a db on the tv listings so I can keep track of the good stuff that is on that I would otherwise miss, and found that interview with Obama. I do like the man. I think this is a good time for him to run, perhaps with Hillary and her ties as a VP. He could provide a refreshing real change from the Republonazis. I think Hillary is too soiled by the skirmishes of Bill to be a real change. But, I think she can contribute some good experience to Obama. He should be the next man.

I am watching Roots the Next Generation on the same channel and am reminded of the horrid stuff that was done to the newly freed slaves as the crackers took over the rule of the southern states. In lesser ways, the northern states took their clues from the southern crackers and initiated laws that should never have been allowed under the constitution. I wonder, with the Supreme Courts revival of these views, that we won't again go through similar times in the future.



Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: madupont on July 10, 2007, 02:18:30 AM
As I explained after Hillary threw a tizzie that her previous backer threw a fund-raiser for Obama on the West Coast( since he couldn't afford to save the L.A.Times anyway no matter how much Art he sold from his collection) whether Bill and Hillary  did or did not say some out of line things at a party in Manhattan, as reported in the "other" New York News, the fundamental difference in all the wrangling is this:

"Obama reminded that he was against the war in Iraq from the beginning".

Whereas, Hilliary has been trying to convince people that it doesn't matter that she voted for spending the money to go to Iraq; since, in her estimation, she didn't want to look as if she were out of step with "the voters' interests".

I don't think Obama is going to compromise on that one. Besides, he keeps calling and asking for money, "send more money". It's like he's my kid or something;except my kid never does that.  Something about my non-posting name rings bells, on the telephone obviously, because it possibly spells C o n t r i b u t o r.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on July 10, 2007, 07:06:10 AM
Maddie,

I'm sorry to hear you are being bugged as a contributor. I've never had enough disposable income to get put in that category. You can just say "no", you are on limited income now and cannot do it anymore.

I heard not too long ago that he has collected more money that Hillary, and his is coming from "grassroots" while hers is money that has strings attached down the road. It is sad that the raising of money is an issue in how worthy and electable a candidate is. It should be about the issues, and the integrity of the person, not how much money they can raise.



Title: Cindy, Cindy, Cindy.........................................
Post by: kidcarter8 on July 10, 2007, 01:32:34 PM
Impeach Bush or you'll run?

Please - just go away.  Ms Pelosi has a lot on her plate right now.  Your "plan", your threat (lol) is just such a joke there are no words.

Do not further embarass yourself.  You said you were going home - just do so.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: srnich on July 11, 2007, 02:42:05 PM
Yeah Cindy, stop making so much sense.

Just because you've been right all along...

....and sacraficed your son....

.... for lies by your government ....

What makes you think you can TELL us or our representatives ANYTHING???


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: incadove0 on July 11, 2007, 03:32:53 PM
Yeah, what does she think this is.  A democracy?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: yankguy on July 12, 2007, 09:30:58 AM
I can't imagine the pain that Cindy Sheehan is suffering in this misbegotten, ill-conceived, and ill-executed war.

That said it seems that a lot of families that have lost children have managed to avoid uttering the anti-semitic garbage that has spewed from her mouth. 


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on July 12, 2007, 09:56:09 AM
I tend to agree with you that Cindy Sheehan is undoubtedly suffering greatly. I would also suggest that sticking a mike into her mouth and publicising her every utterance is folly at its worst. She should be allowed to suffer her grief in private and not have her unfortunate utterances splashed all over front pages. I supported her speaking out against the war, but withdraw my support for her remarks that are not germane to the issue. I have no doubt that if she explored a bit among the families who have lost their precious sons and daughters, she would find a kinship with those of religions she disparages.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: yankguy on July 12, 2007, 10:04:57 AM
You said it far better than me, Weezo.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: liquidsilver on July 12, 2007, 10:24:07 AM
Is she still refusing to pay taxes?



Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: srnich on July 12, 2007, 03:32:07 PM
Rudy is slammed by FDNY.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/07/12/nyc-firefighters-slam-giuliani/


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: incadove0 on July 12, 2007, 05:40:49 PM
SR

Rudy is slammed by FDNY.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/07/12/nyc-firefighters-slam-giuliani/

Now why doesn't that surprise me.  How many friends Rudy left behind in the Big Apple.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: kidcarter8 on July 12, 2007, 05:58:56 PM
"He's running on 9/11........................................."


Nah.  Not nearly.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: incadove0 on July 12, 2007, 06:57:01 PM
True, more like empty.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: kidcarter8 on July 12, 2007, 07:09:50 PM
Can't disagree too strongly there.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: liquidsilver on July 13, 2007, 06:21:59 AM
Guiliani and McCain have run out of gas.  Looks like its Romney's primary to win


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: srnich on July 13, 2007, 09:39:50 AM
Or not....



Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: kidcarter8 on July 13, 2007, 11:11:04 AM
4-horse race when Fred declares.

Obama looking OK.  I'm pulling for him on the other side.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: srnich on July 13, 2007, 02:38:10 PM
Bring 'em on.

Obama Leads Four Republicans in U.S. Race

Rudy Giuliani (R) 42% - 48% Barack Obama (D)
John McCain (R) 43% - 46% Barack Obama (D)
Mitt Romney (R) 35% - 52% Barack Obama (D)
Fred Thompson (R) 35% - 52% Barack Obama (D)

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/15905

Zogby: Obama Leads All Republicans in General Election Head to Head Contests

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1316


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on July 13, 2007, 02:46:44 PM
Kid,

You have finally said something I can agree with. I also hope for good things from Obama. I wish the news gave him more coverage. He is a handsome divil, and certainly not a "stuffed shirt" or a "stuffed blouse". I think he is new enough to polics to bring a fresh outlook. He seems to be similar to earlier great presidents who took their direction from the people rather than the money'd interests.

Good thinking, Kid.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: Dzimas on July 17, 2007, 01:18:08 AM
Sounds like McCain's campaign is heading south, as more key staff members resign.  It must be hell working for a man like that.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: kidcarter8 on July 17, 2007, 08:18:00 AM
Changes in campaign personnel occur all the time.  I'd have to think McCain can have a bit of a resurgence.  Sure not the favorite though.

As for it being a tough place to work...................yeah - he's an energetic guy who sets a tough pace, who expects much.  Not a bad leadership quality, surely.



Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: liquidsilver on July 17, 2007, 09:07:10 AM
McCain isn't winning going to win many voters with his immigration stance or his position on the war in Iraq.  Also, I think he  miscalculated the impact on his other constituencies by wooing the religious right this time around.  Plus, it never helps to be a past also-ran.  Losing in 2000 does not help him.  He was the rebel in that race, now he is running as the establishment candidate.  Voters are dissatisfied with the establishment as evidenced by the Democrats resurgence, they want fresh faces and "new" ideas - McCain offers neither.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: kidcarter8 on July 17, 2007, 12:42:06 PM
Not so sure about the voters wanting "new ideas"

I think they want a complete candidate.

By THEY I of course mean the independents plus the moderates to each side (those such as myself who may vote against party line), the lot that will decide the Presidency.

But I agree on McCain, in that HE IS WHAT HE IS.  Some candidates (Obama, Romney, Thompson, Bloomberg, maybe a couple others) are not yet fully defined.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: liquidsilver on July 17, 2007, 01:20:53 PM
Unless the three top contenders implode, McCain is done.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: madupont on July 18, 2007, 12:12:20 AM
Not so sure about the voters wanting "new ideas"

I think they want a complete candidate.

By THEY I of course mean the independents plus the moderates to each side (those such as myself who may vote against party line), the lot that will decide the Presidency.

But I agree on McCain, in that HE IS WHAT HE IS.  Some candidates (Obama, Romney, Thompson, Bloomberg, maybe a couple others) are not yet fully defined.


Obama is a Constitutional Law professor who was the President of the Harvard Law Review, before he became  Senator from Illinois. He is now leading  the field.

Romney is a Mormon who has had positions in several states whose citizens complain he is a flip-flopper; except of course for the Mormons of Utah, they think he is a great guy raising funds for them. (what does that tell you in light of what we've experienced for the  in that line for the last six and a half years?)

Thompson is a tv actor.  I should think acting the part would be insufficient; proven by the guy who has been acting the part as i said: the last six and a half years.

Bloomberg is a mayor, and executive of a large news corporation as I realized because one of my former neighbours worked for him; but as to having been mayor during the Bush administration, Bloomberg did nothing to call off the dogs  while his own constitutency was arrested and cuffed and filled the municipal courts to overflowing( and the great annoyance of the judges of his borough) during the Republican Convention of August  three years ago.  He came out as an independent just before Nader threw his old hat in the ring. Again?  Not on your life.  Bloomberg is a millionaire spoiler. Besides some people begrudge him for the mini-version mishandling of the electric utility outtage last summer compared to the larger Bush version of mishandling the Port of New Orleans essential to our economy.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: Dzimas on July 21, 2007, 06:28:53 AM
Elizabeth Edwards almost convinced me to vote for her husband, watching her on Larry King Live today. 


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: Driver125 on July 23, 2007, 01:30:35 PM
Quote
Unless the three top contenders implode, McCain is done

Think you are correct there, liquid.....

I think that it is going to be Guiliani for the Repubs. They are no longer in a position to mince around too much about what shade of red this or that candidate is, compared with some other candidate. They need a winner, and badly, since many people think they are going to take another beating in Congress. Mr. 9/11 just might be their boy if victory is the main criteria.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: lulu on August 01, 2007, 03:17:52 PM
Anyone besides myself think the presidential campaign goes on forever: like starting right after a president takes office and lasts four years.

I'm sick to death of the whole thing.  I know one thing: ABH (anyone but Hilary in the Democratic (brain dead) Party:  Edwards running neck and neck with Kucinich.  I will be voting for one of them.  I'm voting my conscience this year and don't give a damn for those who might say I'm throwing away my vote.  I did that for kerry, Clinton (first term only) and Gore.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on August 01, 2007, 04:51:51 PM
Lulu,

It makes me so sad to see people who think that if they don't vote for the winner, they have "thrown their vote away". Your vote is only thrown away if someone decides that you are not entitled to vote as you please, as happened in Florida the last round. Otherwise, your vote for the non-winner is still a vote AGAINST" the winner.

I am reading a book on the Federalist period and note that it was one of the means used by those aristocrats to resist republicanism and the government by the people for for the people, to tell the less educated and less knowledgeable people that if they didn't vote for the ultimate "winner", their vote was wasted. It worked for a while, but as people became more knowledgeable of how "by the people, for the people" works and its value over being ruled by "the elites", the common man took more stock of his vote and saw the value in casting votes for the losing team, especially is the losing votes were increasing election by election.

Please understand that no matter how you vote, your vote is COUNTED, and IT COUNTS.



Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: kidcarter8 on August 01, 2007, 04:54:51 PM
"........as happened in Florida the last round..."


Waaaaaaaaaahhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: lulu on August 02, 2007, 01:38:43 PM
weezo:

Thanks for your comments.  It really is an unusual one because I'm still getting blamed for voting for Nader (I'd do it again).  And I got bombarded to vote for Kerry despite the fact I had to hold my nose doing it and decided never again.

If the Democrats keep losing, they might get the message and elect better politicians.  Hilary is a ABY in my book (anyone but Hilary to the uninitiated).

And I blame the press for covering mainly Obama and Hilary and not Edwards, Kucinich and all the others.

And lastly, this campaign has been going on for three years now and people are sick of it.  (I know I am.  I'm beginning to tune out.)


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: yankguy on August 02, 2007, 01:43:49 PM
I've got no problem with people voting for whoever they want for president.  On the other hand, who would you have rather had as President since 2000, Gore or Bush?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: lulu on August 02, 2007, 03:22:41 PM
Spare me that reasoning.  I voted the way I voted because that's who I wanted.  I'm sick of a one-party system: GOP and Dem.  Sometimes can't tell them apart.

And I will not vote for Dem candidate if it's Hilary or Obama.

My message by voting for Nader is to tell the Dems to get a better candidate and if they don't they'll continue to lose.  Not my fault if they don't get the message.

I make no apology for my vote for Nader.  For forty-some years I've played by the rules.  No more.  I vote for who I want.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: yankguy on August 02, 2007, 03:28:53 PM
Vote for who you want.  That's democracy.   

Both Gore and Kerry were poor candidates. 

That still doesn't answer my question.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on August 02, 2007, 05:04:36 PM
Lulu,

You just keep right on voting as you d*** well please. That is the only way we will ever get a good government, is if everyone votes their conscience not their wallet or their starry-eyes.

My favorite is in local elections which are not usually party affiliated, if there is but one candidate running and I don't like him/her, I choose a write-in vote and write in hubby's name. Am I "wasting" my vote? Certainly not, someone somewhere, probably the winning candidate is seeing that someone has chosen to speak their mind against the incumbent.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: yankguy on August 02, 2007, 05:17:27 PM
I've written-in my name several times in an election and most recently did so in the 2002 Maryland gubernatorial election.

As a matter of theory, I agree there is no such thing as a "wasted vote."  Even not voting can be a statement. 

But such decisions have very real ramifications.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on August 02, 2007, 05:24:13 PM
I would much prefer to see people use the write-in rather than not vote at all. Those who don't vote, are usually not paying much attention to the issues either. I love to catch a non-voter in a complaint about some government action or inaction!


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: yankguy on August 02, 2007, 05:33:37 PM
At the risk of repeating myself, I believe a no-vote COULD mean the same thing as a write-in vote, i.e., a protest against the system.   


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: elportenito on August 03, 2007, 08:12:31 AM
...so finaly he showed his American teeth. Obama is ready to start a war of his own, black or no black. Another imperialist just like the rest of them.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: kidcarter8 on August 03, 2007, 07:08:46 PM
Nitpickin mo'fos tangle the meaning of a good man.

Hope he recovers.  Hil vs anyone will be just too ugly....(my kingdom for a true third Democratic candidate)

I may have to bury myself in the sports pages all spring/summer/fall '08.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: madupont on August 03, 2007, 11:35:34 PM
el portenito, re:#922

So what are you kvetching about now. Give!


We don't always hear all of the news that's fit to hear even some of the time of all of the time.  I had enough patience tracing out that my middle brother was not in Minnesota but happened to be visiting with my sister out of state at the time. Isn't that enough?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: elportenito on August 04, 2007, 07:26:04 AM
madupont:

"So what are you kvetching about now. Give!"


Good old Obama, just your average warring America (wood be) president. We the world have learnt by painfull experience that there has never been an American president who didn't order the American Army to go here there or anywhere to impose PAX Americana.

BTW: what the heck does "kvetching" means?....

I kvetch

you kvetch

he kvetches

Nos kvetchiamus

Vuos kvetchiatis

Illi kvetchunt



Latin?....no?

 


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: elportenito on August 04, 2007, 07:26:51 AM
AVE OBAMA MORITURI TE SALUTAM


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: elportenito on August 04, 2007, 07:35:50 AM



" bridges don't fall in America"




 an American woman,member of the public, yesterday on the evening news on SBS tv, Australia.





"the dental health problem in Australia has Third World proportions"

(dental care is not covered by the state sponssored MEDICARE universal free health care system.)


An Australian dentist talking on the Australian evening news, yesterday on SBS tv.








both countries seem to have serious problems with bridges of a diferent kind. Both countries are burning millions on military expenditures.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: elportenito on August 04, 2007, 07:43:05 AM
The money spent by the USA daily on the Iraq war would be enough to build and equip 80-something elementary schools  in the USA.


(how much?...$ 570 million?, or was that $ 570 million Au.?)



Bridges in the USA had been awarded a C

electricity (energy) system a  D

and the drinking water system a D-




If you dont like it go to Cuba!!!!


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: elportenito on August 04, 2007, 07:46:48 AM
and the world is saying:


"TRAGEDIA EN EE.UU. : INFORME DEL DEPARTAMENTO DE TRANSPORTE

Alertan que hay 156 mil puentes obsoletos o con fallas en EE.UU.


Representan el 26% del total del país. Bush viaja mañana a Minneapolis.
 
 


WASHINGTON. AP Y THE NEW YORK TIMES

El puente que se derrumbó en Minneapolis encendió el alerta sobre otras posibles tragedias. Es que de los 600 mil puentes que hay en Estados Unidos, 156.000 (el 26%) son "estructuralmente deficientes" o están "funcionalmente obsoletos", según un relevamiento que se hizo el año pasado, a cargo del Departamento de Transporte.

El estado de los puentes urbanos de alto tránsito como el que cayó en Minneapolis es aún peor: uno de cada tres de los de esta categoría está clasificado como "viejo" o imposibilitado de soportar el moderno volumen de tránsito.

En Washington, el gobierno del presidente George W. Bush dijo ayer que hace dos años se descubrieron deficiencias estructurales en el puente y que correspondía al estado de Minnesota repararlas.

Sin embargo, anunció ayuda para paliar la tragedia del miércoles. "El gobierno federal debe responder, y responder con contundencia, para ayudar no solamente a que se recupere la gente afectada sino para asegurarse de que ese objeto esencial de actividad, el puente, sea reconstruido lo antes posible", dijo Bush en los jardines de la Casa Blanca tras reunirse con su gabinete.

Bush viajará a la escena del desastre mañana, sábado, justo en la ciudad donde se realizará el año entrante la Convención Nacional Republicana encargada de elegir al candidato presidencial.

Pero el presidente enviará una avanzada en la delegación oficial. Hoy mismo estará en la zona su esposa, Laura, para visitar a los heridos y familiares de las víctimas mortales.

Por su parte, James Oberstar, miembro demócrata de la Cámara de Representantes y miembro del Comité de Transporte e In fraestructura de esa rama del Congreso, culpó a la Casa Blanca por reducir los fondos pedidos hace dos años para mejorar puentes y carreteras del país.

Oberstar dijo que el presidente "no apoyó una buena inversión en el transporte terrestre" al insistir en que se asignaran sólo 2.000 millones de dólares a la reconstrucción de puentes en vez de los 3.000 solicitados.

La mayoría de los puentes deficientes, entre los que se incluye el que cruza el río Mississippi en Minneapolis, permanecen abiertos al público.

Hallar el dinero para mantener la infraestructura se ha convertido en una tarea cada vez más difícil, ya que los funcionarios públicos, en campaña, han prometido no aumentar los impuestos, según dijo Robert Dunphy, un académico del Urban Land Institute a The New York Times. "Tenemos una crisis en ciernes con la infraestructura, pero es muy fácil ignorarla hasta que tenemos una catástrofe", acotó.

Con dinero público escaso para conservar la infraestructura, algunas autoridades han estado buscando atraer al capital privado, dijo Chris Lawton, un socio de la firma Ernst and Young, la consultora que colaboró con el Land Institute en la elaboración de un informe sobre el tema.

Las autopistas han sido dadas en leasing en Chicago y en Indiana, pero propuestas en otras áreas, incluyendo la de Nueva Jersey, han generado protestas. "Hay muchísimo escepticismo público acerca de la inversión privada en la infraestructura", comentó Lawton.

Los estados han mejorado sus procedimientos de inspección después del colapso de otros puentes en el pasado y las estadísticas nacionales muestran una firme declinación en la cantidad de puentes deficientes desde un 18,7% en 1994 a un 13,1% en 2004.

Sin embargo, un estudio de la Administración Federal de Autopistas encontró que las inspecciones visuales -el método primario usado por los inspectores de puentes- sólo raramente detectan grietas por fatiga de los metales.



Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: elportenito on August 04, 2007, 07:48:29 AM
...what was Obama saying about Pakistan?....


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: madupont on August 04, 2007, 11:13:29 AM
el portenito

That's what I'd like to know? It simmers down to relegating Pakistan to a secondary status compared to India for instance. That implies that Bush leaving town would be a good thing, when it happens; but, as you know, the Bush family has had a way of continuing policy as they preferred to their liking, by simply operating ex officio.  This seems to be lost on a lot of US-Americans who haven't a clue  as to personal Bush activism in the Southern Hemisphere during years when Bushes were not technically "in power". What it could be called was "asserting" their inherent self-importance but hardly authority since they seldom were knowledgeable about other cultural attitudes beyond their ken. I'd say the old man, while still young enough to be a nuisance, operated on a business mode of opportunism or what was in it for him, if he involved himself sub rosa in some development and pushed it  to the most heinous proportions with a smile and a chuckle.

The current presidential smirk was genetically passed along from somewhere you know but without the brains to know why he  had been conditioned to go along with Poppy and presume he was imitating him --ever since childhood.  GHW Bush actually had a good background in business, in which he actually worked because he had a work ethic at the time; something that was at least necessary at the time that he was done with his Ivy education, or your father's peer group of the fellows would not think well of you and you would receive no favors.

This  of course is something his own son did not actually learn from him (because junior is a mommy's boy) and hadn't a clue as to keeping the good will of a paternal order, whereas his father had Harriman, Carnegie, and Rockefeller good will, giving GHW his job training in how the world of business operates one hand washing the other...  George,jr. operates by surrounding himself with second-raters, no-talent poseurs who are satisfied with the trappings of comfortable upper middle class advantage; coasters, who go along with the social order into which they were introduced.

Barack Obama is a strange phenomenon of his generation produced by nature to be actual cosmopolitans at the time where this is required.  He has a multicultural experience that he took the time to comprehend that he had; whereas, it took me about two months to put my finger on it and figure it out.  He was born at the right time. Motivated to look for the insight into his father's impulse to look for economic answers, to the grandfather's experience in British Colonial Kenya; recall of education in a polyglot, multifaceted Dutch East Indies made up of Dutch Roman Catholic Companies, Muslim traders and workers, Chinese financiers and coolies; the early death of his mother giving him the average upbringing of what I would called "the Dorothy in Kansas" experience of the staunch productive Plains farmer who occasionally vacations in Hawaii come Winter (and this is a particular generation in North American life) found him awakening in Oz. Which is Maui, and has a lot of young people like he was; my brother's two sons and one daughter were raised in this milieu with the assistance of a good old fashioned nannie of the native variety as a mother-substitute. Obama received a prep school education that prepared him for Harvard where he became president of the Harvard Law Review (I recall a short stint at Columbia Univ. in Manhattan, as well, but have not heard  the particulars of studies) before he went on toward marriage, community political organization, and the teaching of Constitutional Law at the Univ. of Chicago for ten years in the heart of one of North America's most important and musically contributive ghettos, which was the gateway of the Great Migration from the Mississippi delta northward in the years that were the indices of the coming Depression in the old South until it finally was formative of the urban jungle with the Crash of '29 --

--(which I assume you know has returned as the Summer of 2007 as of this morning)

It was that latter factor of working experience with the Constitutional Law which convinced me that this is the presidential input that we are in need of at this point.    Obama also has a good basis on the diplomacy of Foreign Relations in practice since he was introduced to that Senate Committee, thus far particular in Muslim countries; so if he says turn off favored nation status with a duplicitous Pakistan, not a bad idea albeit a bit later than when it could have been most beneficial and now will be a rougher adjustment.
India has a new more elder female president whose background I am not yet familiar with but would suppose more populist than educated to previous levels of the well-administrated womens' bureaucracy of India.  Things used to be run this way here at the State Department as well until GHWB gummed up the works because he is not real good at delegating assignments when his chief motivation was being as secretive as possible about international policy and it was obviously better for him not to have so many experienced "clerks" keeping track  of operations and in the know of what was going on, people familiar with the protocol.

The one assignment that he delegated has cost us several thousands of arms and a leg(plural)from the point that he tricked April Glasbie into starting the war of Saddam Hussein invading Kuwait; once the possibilities were picked up on by an ambitious junior in the Bush family, things have come to this sorry pass in which we have wasted most of our juice and our future well-being.  About 50% of the US constituency has the educational level of a two-class slightly better than Third World country but not yet up to the average of the next level in, was I the one who mentioned it(?), the cosmopolitan nations of the globe.   


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: kidcarter8 on August 04, 2007, 12:43:58 PM
The money spent by the USA daily on the Iraq war would be enough to build and equip 80-something elementary schools  in the USA.


(how much?...$ 570 million?, or was that $ 570 million Au.?)



Bridges in the USA had been awarded a C

electricity (energy) system a  D

and the drinking water system a D-




If you dont like it go to Cuba!!!!
Money is not taken from school budgets to run the war, idiota.

Ingles, papi, por favor.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: whiskeypriest on August 04, 2007, 02:27:56 PM
The money spent by the USA daily on the Iraq war would be enough to build and equip 80-something elementary schools  in the USA.


(how much?...$ 570 million?, or was that $ 570 million Au.?)



Bridges in the USA had been awarded a C

electricity (energy) system a  D

and the drinking water system a D-




If you dont like it go to Cuba!!!!
Money is not taken from school budgets to run the war, idiota.

Ingles, papi, por favor.
Where is it taken from, then?

Note trick question....

The point is, of course, that the money used to fund the war could be used to fund schools if we chose to do so , not that it was taken from schools.  Try to respect what those you disagree with are actually saying for a change.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: madupont on August 04, 2007, 06:44:14 PM
But, wp, you have to realize he's not bright enough to do that yet.

He's just some 38 year old kid who lives at home with his parents, the Carters.

We used to have his cousin standing up for America in the Western Europe forum at nytimes.com


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: kidcarter8 on August 04, 2007, 10:31:09 PM
The money spent by the USA daily on the Iraq war would be enough to build and equip 80-something elementary schools  in the USA.


(how much?...$ 570 million?, or was that $ 570 million Au.?)



Bridges in the USA had been awarded a C

electricity (energy) system a  D

and the drinking water system a D-




If you dont like it go to Cuba!!!!
Money is not taken from school budgets to run the war, idiota.

Ingles, papi, por favor.
Where is it taken from, then?

Note trick question....

The point is, of course, that the money used to fund the war could be used to fund schools if we chose to do so , not that it was taken from schools.  Try to respect what those you disagree with are actually saying for a change.

LOL

So you propose taking from our defense budget to fund education?

That's cool.

Or are you just talking about the extra funding that Congress has been OKing, some begrudgingly?

Extra funding for schools can be put forth at any time in the same manner.  And Congress can vote to FUND or not fund.

Totally unrelated to the war funding.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: kidcarter8 on August 04, 2007, 10:33:10 PM


He's just some 38 year old kid who lives at home with his parents, the Carters.



Please stop  - you're embarassing yourself and your family.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: thecap0 on August 04, 2007, 10:53:53 PM
Kid (and you truly are one),

So you propose taking from our defense budget to fund education?

Yes, yes!  A thousand times yes!

I look forward to the day when education has all the funding it needs and the military has to hold a bake sale to purchase a bomber.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on August 04, 2007, 10:58:42 PM
Kid,

Bear in mind that the war funding is not coming out of current funds, but out of future funds, that will be paid by you and your generation. I am past being a working taxpayer, Cap is almost there, and Maddie is, I think longer past it than me. You will be paying for this war, not those who are currently arguing about the spending.

Yes, congress can play the same song as Lyndon Johnson and attempt to fund both guns and butter, but the public still resented the spending on guns and the continuing lack of success in the Viet Nam war and eventually dumped Johnson. Bush is repeating history.

One of the evidences that funding is inadequate for the schools are the number of teachers who are still teaching World Geography with maps that show the USSR instead of the current borders of European countries, as well as old names for countries in Africa. Students as well as teachers live with the inadequacies every day, end up joking about them at time, but it seriously sets up the students to believe that no one really cares if they get an education. For students who struggle at learning, it is then easy to say "Why bother?" when no one seems to give a flying rip.

Congress cannot just tax and spend without regard to paying the piper. We need to stop a useless and unwinnable war and concentrate our funding on the things that really matter. Why worry about foreign "terrorists" when we seem to have home-grown ones peopling the government office in our capital?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: thecap0 on August 04, 2007, 11:15:14 PM
Anne,

One of the evidences that funding is inadequate for the schools are the number of teachers who are still teaching World Geography with maps that show the USSR instead of the current borders of European countries, as well as old names for countries in Africa.

I know this all too well, as I am one of them.
Nothing that you or I say will convince the kid.  He still thinks of Atlas Shrugged as great literature full of wonderful ideas.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on August 05, 2007, 08:12:58 AM
Cap,

I knew you were. I heard a cute story yesterday about a teacher who was, like you, saddled with outdate maps, who consequently drew on his maps the new country borders to break up the USSR. When his students asked, he said, of so convincingly, that the administration wanted the students to be aware of the fact that this was a new development, and to see the old along with the new. In short, he made excuses to the students for the failure of the administration. I hope his administration fully appreciates how he attempts to save face in the face of their negligence of their responsibility.

I also heard the tale of a school board who was updating their computers, and decided arbitrarily to limit the number of computers per classroom to two, on the supposition that more than two computers in the classroom would "distract" the students. They also stated that they didn't want to set a "precedent" in which the students would expect to have full use of computers in the school by having their own computers in every class. Far too many teachers are still unable to harness the power of the Internet for exploration in various subjects because of near-sighted administrators who are frightened by "setting precedents" for student expectations. Yet, they are all adept at forming "precedents" on expectations of student performance without proving the hardware, connectivity, and other resources necessary to fulfill those expectations.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: kidcarter8 on August 05, 2007, 02:51:16 PM
I think classes can be taught just fine without internet access.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: madupont on August 05, 2007, 03:56:34 PM
weezo   re:#940

There are some other worse examples of the high-school teachers lack of knowledge about current events.   A year ago April, I went to a gathering in the Lehigh Valley, particularly to get to know a fellow poster a bit better who was active early on in the peace movement, we had shared a lot of previous experiences  from a previous environment while we were in the Western Europe forum of nytimes. com

Not only had she lived in Europe at some point for a short while possibly to do with her husband's academic background, but because of that latter reason, also had common roots in another Ivy League community as well  as a particular area of Manhattan --which I think we discussed in American History with thanatopsy, for being a high educational zone.

When we met in person, we broke into groups attending various workshops, and I opted for one dealing with the recruitment of teenagers in US high-schools. There is a lot of active engagement with this in my own part of the state, by people whom I would not have otherwise known were currently involved in that activity.

One of the shocking things to  discover was of what teachers in the Valley were not aware when receiving letters from the government requesting that they send up to date information in reply about when their students became eligible for what used to be called "the Draft", because there were certain educational benefits that would be available to these students.

Many of the teachers naively assummed  that this was easy enough to comply with and presumed  it meant that they would get some extra teaching materials that they could use, from our government. They felt that they needed all the help they could get, since No Child Left Behind had not amounted to anything of the sort.

To their chagrin, they soon had parents phoning them and showing up at the school, or requesting special appointment get-togethers, when the parents realized their kids were receiving mail from the Bush administration enticing them with video games,etc. if they would report to their local recruiters.  Of course, if enough of the teachers had actually replied with the names and addresses of their students do to come of age suitable for military service, the administration was then able to send the recruiters right to the school, at first on a weekly basis until that was stopped and limited to twice per month, setting up a card table in the mail  lobby of the school or where ever the greatest traffic pattern going and coming from classes occurred.

Needless to say there were no teaching benefits of classroom materials sent to the schools in thanks for the cooperation of the educators.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: madupont on August 05, 2007, 04:11:31 PM
I think classes can be taught just fine without internet access.

I find a head-line from The Washington Post of an article syndicated in my area's newspapers: America's digital divie [We're a country split into those who have computers and those who don;t, the latter quickly becoming second-class citizens]

weezo recognizes what I'm talking about because I discussed at some much too much length either here or another one of the forums about how the Japanese affected this second-class citizenship for the residents of Taiwan during their own imperial-colonial control of the island which we compare in the approximation to the conduct of slave owners keeping their "charges" illiterate for decades,centuries count them, following the North American Colonial experience of buying a labor force for agriculture and general maintenance and upkeep of the plantation economy as well as sometimes a little outside profit from skills learned either as Jefferson had taken slaves accompanying him to Europe or when they were apprenticed to craftsmen as was the custom in New Orleans.

The syndicator did not include a web-site directly to the article but The Washington Post would have published this prior to Sunday, July 29, so you should be able to get access to it from them at www.washingtonpost.com.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: madupont on August 05, 2007, 04:16:38 PM
theCap0   re:#949(?)

"He still thinks of Atlas Shrugged as great literature full of wonderful ideas."

Cap, I have that problem too, not that it is great literature but just so I don't confuse it with The Myth of Sisyphus !

(signed) Mrs. Malaprop


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: madupont on August 05, 2007, 04:25:37 PM
el portenito  Reply #922

I finally found out what you were talking about his morning.

http://news.aol.com/elections-blog/2007/08/03/obamas-gaffe-another-view/

I am now going back to do a body count, of how many risked their lives spinning this tune without being able to follow the beat.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on August 05, 2007, 07:54:02 PM
Kid,

A class can be taught without the Internet if you are willing to accept a high percentage of kids who never get it, or a whole class of whom gets outdated information.

That is like saying that a secretary can send a letter without a word processors, or that an accountant can keep company books without a spreadsheet. All of these things can be done without a computer, but they can be done more efficiently, more accurately, and in the case of the class, more accommodating, than without.

Just think of it, Kid. Without the internet, you would have no audience for your POV. You would be spouting off from some street corner being targetted with over-ripe fruits and veggies.





Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: yankguy on August 06, 2007, 09:24:17 AM
I think schools have gotten carried away with the Internet and the computer generation.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: liquidsilver on August 06, 2007, 09:35:11 AM
It must be considered that there is nothing more difficult to carry out, nor more doubtful of success... than to initiate a new order of things. For the reformer has enemies in all those who profit by the old order, and only lukewarm defenders in all those who would profit by the new order, this lukewarmness arising partly from fear of their adversaries, who have the laws in their favor; and partly from the incredulity of mankind, who do not truly believe in anything new until they have had actual experience of it. -- Machiavelli


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: yankguy on August 06, 2007, 09:45:05 AM
I think students would benefit from spending more time reading Machiavelli and spending less time attempting to get around the firewalls and other security procedures put in place by school's tech security specialists.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: srnich on August 06, 2007, 09:58:48 AM
Meanwhile in India....

Meanwhile in China....

Meanwhile in Chile....

Meanwhile in Brazil....

Meanwhile in Canada....




Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: madupont on August 06, 2007, 12:00:27 PM
It must be considered that there is nothing more difficult to carry out, nor more doubtful of success... than to initiate a new order of things. For the reformer has enemies in all those who profit by the old order, and only lukewarm defenders in all those who would profit by the new order, this lukewarmness arising partly from fear of their adversaries, who have the laws in their favor; and partly from the incredulity of mankind, who do not truly believe in anything new until they have had actual experience of it. -- Machiavelli


Ah, so you read my comment and link at Bush Administration forum?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on August 06, 2007, 12:35:50 PM
The students can read Machevelli online a lot easier and cheaper than borrowing copies from the library or financing a class set of the works.

Actually, if students have a purpose in being online, rather than using it as entertainment, they don't waste time trying to get around firewalls. The teacher must be the leader. And, the fact is that too few teachers have accesss to the technology in their classroom for them to become enamored of it. Those of use who are pioneering the use are still in the minority.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: liquidsilver on August 06, 2007, 12:58:18 PM
It must be considered that there is nothing more difficult to carry out, nor more doubtful of success... than to initiate a new order of things. For the reformer has enemies in all those who profit by the old order, and only lukewarm defenders in all those who would profit by the new order, this lukewarmness arising partly from fear of their adversaries, who have the laws in their favor; and partly from the incredulity of mankind, who do not truly believe in anything new until they have had actual experience of it. -- Machiavelli


Ah, so you read my comment and link at Bush Administration forum?

Can't say I did -- great minds?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: liquidsilver on August 06, 2007, 01:24:24 PM
The students can read Machevelli online a lot easier and cheaper than borrowing copies from the library or financing a class set of the works.

Actually, if students have a purpose in being online, rather than using it as entertainment, they don't waste time trying to get around firewalls. The teacher must be the leader. And, the fact is that too few teachers have accesss to the technology in their classroom for them to become enamored of it. Those of use who are pioneering the use are still in the minority.

Forget the kids fooling with them, my wife is a special ed teacher and she's seen plenty of instances of colleagues giving kids busy work so that they themselves can fool on the Internet.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: yankguy on August 06, 2007, 02:00:16 PM
Indeed.  One of my kid's teachers was tapping away at the computer this year, when a major disciplinary issue arose.  She didn't even look up. 


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on August 06, 2007, 02:48:45 PM
Yankguy,

Not dissimlar to the number of folks who post on these fora from their desks at work.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: yankguy on August 06, 2007, 02:50:05 PM
A little different, if only because those that type at work are presumably not in charge of a classroom full of children.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: kidcarter8 on August 06, 2007, 02:59:57 PM
LOL

How about MUCH different?

OY


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: madupont on August 06, 2007, 03:08:36 PM
Yankguy,

Not dissimlar to the number of folks who post on these fora from their desks at work.


I made the mistake of saying that, just once, among some of the posters who are here in their exile, and you never heard such an explosion in your life! How dare I say they were taking time away from their job? So they went through lengthy explanations of when they computed posts to the nytimes.  Which of course did not compute. As the times were there on the "fora". Well, many of them have changed jobs since, relocated, doing their best continuing in their chosen field of endeavor but they never did get the point of why some of us work at home and see the computer as a writing device that is much more problematic than a typewriter but it does allow for instant communication(its other drawbacks are severe, however).


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: yankguy on August 06, 2007, 03:14:32 PM
I'm taking time away from my work to participate on this forum.  I've made my peace with it, and it's sure not encourage by the bosses here, but I make up for it by working at home, on weekends, and on my commute.  When I need to work and if need to go do things for work, I never let this get in the way. 

I would like to think, however, that if I had a bunch of children in my charge, I would look up from the computer if one were to punch the other above the eye in such a manner that blood was drawn and several stitches were needed.

So that's how it's different.  OY. 


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: srnich on August 06, 2007, 03:44:35 PM
Yankguy, the idea is to be able to compete in a global market. If kids in other countries are "plugged-in" and online, why wouldn't we want ours to have an equal edge?

I mean we gave up abacuses and slide-rules long ago, time to move on...

(What do Americans make beside really good war machines?)



Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on August 06, 2007, 03:52:55 PM
Yankguy,

I think you are supposing that a single incident is indicative of a wider problem. As it is, most teachers do not computers in their class, and those who do not, are just as likely to have an incident in which stitches are required to repair the damage. Certainly, a teacher who does not look up from her keyboard when an incident is happening in class should be censured. First of all, it should be determined what she was doing on the keyboard. If preparing for another lesson, or seeking the answer to a student question, that would be quite different from joining into an online discussion which has nothing to do with her/his job. I don't think that the information you have provided on this single incident indicates if the teacher was doing another part of his/her job when the incident happened, or if he/she was online for her own pleasure.

It is certainly true, as I know all too well, that a teacher is attending to her job when an incident happens in another part of the classroom. Children are children, and a common joke among mothers is that it takes only Mom to be busy on the phone for the children to lapse into behavior which interrupts the mother's activity.

As long as your bosses would not concur with the way you are using your work time, you are no different that a teacher who allows the computer to distract him/her from teaching (separate from using the time to prepare other lessons, which is part of the job and often involves non-paid time to be done.)

It is interesting that because you "goof off" on the job, you quickly assume that the teacher was also "goofing off". Your error!


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: liquidsilver on August 06, 2007, 03:58:05 PM
As noted, my wife has witnessed quite a number of incidents where her colleagues were goofing off rather than teaching.  I remember quite vividly her coming home quite furious that one teacher was giving her kids busy work so that she could shop for furniture for her new house. 


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: yankguy on August 06, 2007, 04:18:11 PM
You used the term "goofing off", not me.  The teacher was doing whatever she was doing at the expense of paying attention to the students-HER FIRST JOB.   There is a clear distinction between what I'm doing and what the teacher was doing.  The teacher's job is to interact, to teach, and sadly to monitor the students safety.  She wasn't doing that.  If her job requires her to be on the computer, she can't let the other requirements of the job go.  Teachers have hard jobs.

All that said, I understand the reasons behind technology in the classroom.     


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on August 06, 2007, 05:55:54 PM
Yankguy,

No, the teacher's first job is not paying attention to the students, it is to guide the learning of the students. You are confusing a teacher with a baby-sitter, a common misperception, but one which I find belittling and offensive. The fact that some of the students chose to do something other than the assigned task does not put the onus of that behavior on the teacher, provided she was doing some aspect of her job at the time. If you have children, and hire a babysitter, and you instruct that babysitter to make a meal during her work time for the children, then you cannot complain that while she/he is cooking, she/he is not doing her "first job" of paying attention to the children. Teacher have complex jobs, and it is the learning of the students that is her first responsibility, not babysitting.

Liquid, I am sure that teachers are no different from any other employee who does non-work tasks while on the job. If the teacher wished to shop for furniture that day, she should have done so on her lunch time. Ooops, elementary teachers are on-the-job during lunch. One person may judge busy work as a waste of time, someone else may point out that it is, at least for some of the students, a learning experience. I'm sure your wife knows that. I'm not saying it's OK for teachers to conduct personal business online, on the phone, or in the hall, when they should be working, but I am saying it is not any more serious a problem than any other employee goofing off on the boss's time.



Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: kidcarter8 on August 06, 2007, 06:09:08 PM
I see WEEZER has turned it into an "it's notn the teacher's fault that the injury occurred" from "the teacher did not even LOOK UP when it occurred"


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on August 06, 2007, 07:54:52 PM
Kid,

Neither you nor I were there. We do not know if the teacher looked up or not. You are assuming we have all the facts, I know better than to make such an assumption.

My point, which I will repeat, is that ALL employees who "goof off" on the job should be equally reprimanded. We do not know if she was indeed "goofing off", or in the middle of a precise maneuver which required her attention. Just because people in this forum are "goofing off" when they are on the job, or that other teachers have been known to "goof off", does not provide evidence that this teacher at the time was also doing so.

And, yes indeed, when two students duke it out in school, it is typically their own fault, not the fault of the teacher. Students, as scentient human beings, are responsible for their actions.



Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: liquidsilver on August 06, 2007, 09:02:57 PM
Quote
Liquid, I am sure that teachers are no different from any other employee who does non-work tasks while on the job. If the teacher wished to shop for furniture that day, she should have done so on her lunch time. Ooops, elementary teachers are on-the-job during lunch. One person may judge busy work as a waste of time, someone else may point out that it is, at least for some of the students, a learning experience. I'm sure your wife knows that. I'm not saying it's OK for teachers to conduct personal business online, on the phone, or in the hall, when they should be working, but I am saying it is not any more serious a problem than any other employee goofing off on the boss's time.

Given that this is hardly the first time that this teacher has done this and if anything is her style of teaching - let worksheets teach the kids while she can goof off on the Internet.  And these are special ed kids mind you


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on August 06, 2007, 09:13:19 PM
Liquid,

I cannot condone such behavior for any teacher. In a special ed teacher, it is probably indicative that she has given up hope and is burning out. She needs to do something else. I saw a special ed teacher burn out, and there was no Internet. We finally took over the meat of her classes so he kids could make progress, and finally, she left her philandering husband, quit her job, and went to get a masters degree. I've heard she is happy teaching basic level adults now. I've been told that the burnout for special ed teachers is somewhere about 8-10 years, and some folks put  it as low as 5 years, when, for most teachers, you are just getting into the full swing of the job.



Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: kidcarter8 on August 06, 2007, 09:35:30 PM
Kid,

Neither you nor I were there. We do not know if the teacher looked up or not. You are assuming we have all the facts, I know better than to make such an assumption.

My point, which I will repeat, is that ALL employees who "goof off" on the job should be equally reprimanded. We do not know if she was indeed "goofing off", or in the middle of a precise maneuver which required her attention. Just because people in this forum are "goofing off" when they are on the job, or that other teachers have been known to "goof off", does not provide evidence that this teacher at the time was also doing so.

And, yes indeed, when two students duke it out in school, it is typically their own fault, not the fault of the teacher. Students, as scentient human beings, are responsible for their actions.



"..when a major disciplinary ....occurred.  She didn't EVEN LOOK UP"

Sorry if I referenced the incident DESCRIBED, while you of course imagine whatever you need to to be on the teacher's side.

Moke.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: thecap0 on August 06, 2007, 09:51:43 PM
So Rudy G.'s daughter is campaigning for Obama and his concubine has been caught in a lie.  Seems the old bird can't even remember how many times she has been married!.
NEAT!!


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: kidcarter8 on August 06, 2007, 10:17:00 PM
Does it matter?

Does it matter how young Fred's wife is?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on August 06, 2007, 10:26:24 PM
Kid,

I recognize that the description may or may not be based on facts. You seem to form an opinion without having all the facts. The person making the observation may not have noticed WHEN the teacher looked up, or perhaps the teacher did not need to look up, or could not look up without disrupting what she was doing. I am basing my "imagination" on experience in such situations. If you work with computers, you know that there are many times when you can look up, and times that you cannot. With no hard facts, you seem to want to assume that the teacher did something wrong.

I am confused with your POV, Kid. You assume, in spite of all the evidence, that Bush was fairly elected and that the press is not biased, yet, you would judge a teacher guilty in spite of having little facts to go on. Why is it that in one instance, you ignore the facts, and in another assume that you have enough facts to make a judgement when you do not?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: kidcarter8 on August 06, 2007, 10:37:59 PM
You're confused?

Tell me about it.  :)



Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: kidcarter8 on August 06, 2007, 10:42:48 PM
I didn't watch Game 7 of the '04 Series, but am pretty confident I know who won.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on August 06, 2007, 11:31:33 PM
Kid,

Would you have the same confidence that you know who scratched their a** during the 5th inning?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: kidcarter8 on August 06, 2007, 11:46:27 PM
Lemme guess -

"Hubby"?

Again - too much info


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: elportenito on August 07, 2007, 05:24:13 AM
kidcarson:

"Money is not taken from school budgets to run the war, idiota.

Ingles, papi, por favor."


Don't call me "papi", It wasn't me, it must have been someone else.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: elportenito on August 07, 2007, 05:25:03 AM
wiskeypriest: Thank you.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: elportenito on August 07, 2007, 05:27:12 AM
madupont: Obama talking about how he would go bombing around scares the shades out of me, simply because I know Hillary would, and will. But I, naively, thought, wrongly, Obama was Luther King on a wage watching diet. And obviously he wasn't.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: liquidsilver on August 07, 2007, 06:33:19 AM
I do think that in certain career paths a lack of productivity can have a far more reaching impact than on other career paths.  I think teaching is one such career path.  There will always be good teachers and bad teachers but I think allowing the Web on to the teacher's desk - makes it too easy for even the good teachers to goof off.  Just as many companies are experiencing with their own good employees. But when you're job is to educate and prepare young minds, such behavior is even less tolerable. 

I do think that computers and the Web certainly have a place in education.  But I don't necessarily believe that it should be accessible at all times during the learning process.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on August 07, 2007, 08:55:30 AM
Liquid,

Computers should always be accessible to the teacher, just as maps and textbooks should always be accessible. To say they shouldn't because some teachers may at some time abuse them, is to disregard the fact that most teachers most of the time will use them well.

As I said, I cannot condone the teacher using the computer for personal business during a lesson, but I can easily make a case for her using time when the students are occupied to prepare future lessons, make up a test for tomorrow, record grades so that the students can easily see their progress, and to prepare the numerous reports, communications with parents, and other things which are part of the teacher's job which are currently being done in non-working hours.

In the last semester that I taught before retirement, I had a good computer at my desk with Internet connection. Not only did I often send students who hadn't done projects to the computer during class time to make up the work, but I also used time when the students were occupied to prepare the week's tests and record grades. I also used the time to look up information for the class in progress, since I was teaching a subject outside of my experience and did not want to give the students inaccurate information. I used the computer as an important tool in the classroom and was mighty glad to have it.

That said, I will continue to disagree with you that a teacher has more responsibility for "productivity" than other workers. Our current failure to pay teachers anywhere close to what they earn is a pointed indicator that we, as a society, do not expect productivity from these positions. It make no sense to me to hold a worker's or a teacher's nose to the grindstone, while the more highly paid "supervisory" positions are without substantial impetus to maintain their "productivity". If a worker is paid for 7 hours a day, or 8 hours a day, they should be expected to deliver the full measure of time to the employer. To say that a teacher should put in a hard-scrabble 7 hours a day while an accountant gets to goof-off during their more highly paid 8 hours a day is just not equitable.




Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: liquidsilver on August 07, 2007, 09:21:11 AM
Quote
That said, I will continue to disagree with you that a teacher has more responsibility for "productivity" than other workers. Our current failure to pay teachers anywhere close to what they earn is a pointed indicator that we, as a society, do not expect productivity from these positions. It make no sense to me to hold a worker's or a teacher's nose to the grindstone, while the more highly paid "supervisory" positions are without substantial impetus to maintain their "productivity". If a worker is paid for 7 hours a day, or 8 hours a day, they should be expected to deliver the full measure of time to the employer. To say that a teacher should put in a hard-scrabble 7 hours a day while an accountant gets to goof-off during their more highly paid 8 hours a day is just not equitable.

I never said an accountant should goof off.  But to suggest that many teachers are not being paid commensurate with their workload and therefore should be allowed to goof off is absurd.  Teachers have more time to goof off than any other profession out there.  They receive far more vacation time than any other field that I am aware of.   And yes I am more than aware that many put in more time than just the hours scheduled.  So do many other professions including my own. 

Teachers' salary scale increases solely based on time served and academic achievement which guarantee raises every year and their compensation package contains better health benefits than most private employers.  Plus after 3 years they earn "professional status" otherwise known as tenure.  And finally and most importantly, they are one of the few professions left that receive a pension.

If you prorate their total compensation package over the course of a "normal" employee's work year, those in at least my wife's district (which actually pays among the lowest in the region) do pretty well for themselves.



Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: liquidsilver on August 07, 2007, 09:57:19 AM
As far as computers being accessible, I have no problem with that - but I do believe Web access should be highly restricted.  And I do think that it should be highly restricted in plenty of corporate environments as well.  There are at least several departments in my company that really should have no access beyond the company's own intranet/extranet portal.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: kidcarter8 on August 07, 2007, 10:03:53 AM
Liquid,

Computers should always be accessible to the teacher, just as maps and textbooks should always be accessible. To say they shouldn't because some teachers may at some time abuse them, is to disregard the fact that most teachers most of the time will use them well.

As I said, I cannot condone the teacher using the computer for personal business during a lesson, but I can easily make a case for her using time when the students are occupied to prepare future lessons, make up a test for tomorrow, record grades so that the students can easily see their progress, and to prepare the numerous reports, communications with parents, and other things which are part of the teacher's job which are currently being done in non-working hours.

In the last semester that I taught before retirement, I had a good computer at my desk with Internet connection. Not only did I often send students who hadn't done projects to the computer during class time to make up the work, but I also used time when the students were occupied to prepare the week's tests and record grades. I also used the time to look up information for the class in progress, since I was teaching a subject outside of my experience and did not want to give the students inaccurate information. I used the computer as an important tool in the classroom and was mighty glad to have it.

That said, I will continue to disagree with you that a teacher has more responsibility for "productivity" than other workers. Our current failure to pay teachers anywhere close to what they earn is a pointed indicator that we, as a society, do not expect productivity from these positions. It make no sense to me to hold a worker's or a teacher's nose to the grindstone, while the more highly paid "supervisory" positions are without substantial impetus to maintain their "productivity". If a worker is paid for 7 hours a day, or 8 hours a day, they should be expected to deliver the full measure of time to the employer. To say that a teacher should put in a hard-scrabble 7 hours a day while an accountant gets to goof-off during their more highly paid 8 hours a day is just not equitable.




I think teachers should carry guns, as "most will use them well"


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: kidcarter8 on August 07, 2007, 10:06:10 AM
Quote
That said, I will continue to disagree with you that a teacher has more responsibility for "productivity" than other workers. Our current failure to pay teachers anywhere close to what they earn is a pointed indicator that we, as a society, do not expect productivity from these positions. It make no sense to me to hold a worker's or a teacher's nose to the grindstone, while the more highly paid "supervisory" positions are without substantial impetus to maintain their "productivity". If a worker is paid for 7 hours a day, or 8 hours a day, they should be expected to deliver the full measure of time to the employer. To say that a teacher should put in a hard-scrabble 7 hours a day while an accountant gets to goof-off during their more highly paid 8 hours a day is just not equitable.

I never said an accountant should goof off.  But to suggest that many teachers are not being paid commensurate with their workload and therefore should be allowed to goof off is absurd.  Teachers have more time to goof off than any other profession out there.  They receive far more vacation time than any other field that I am aware of.   And yes I am more than aware that many put in more time than just the hours scheduled.  So do many other professions including my own. 

Teachers' salary scale increases solely based on time served and academic achievement which guarantee raises every year and their compensation package contains better health benefits than most private employees.  Plus after 3 years they earn "professional status" otherwise known as tenure.  And finally and most importantly, they are one of the few professions left that receive a pension.

If you prorate their total compensation package over the course of a "normal" employee's work year, those in at least my wife's district (which actually pays among the lowest in the region) do pretty well for themselves.



They always forget the pension with the teachers and cops, don't they.

Bunch of whiners.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: Lhoffman on August 07, 2007, 10:40:36 AM
I suspect that most cops and teachers aren't in it for the money. 


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: liquidsilver on August 07, 2007, 12:16:21 PM
Back to the campaign trail, if Hillary was not married to Bill, would she be the Democrat frontrunner? 


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: liquidsilver on August 07, 2007, 12:49:54 PM
I suspect that most cops and teachers aren't in it for the money. 

I would hope not, but if this is any indication:

Police take home city's biggest paychecks
Detail work, overtime put 25 over $200,000


Police in Boston were by far the city's top earners last year, with 25 Police Department employees earning more than $200,000, nearly four times the number who made that amount in 2005, according to city payroll figures released to the Globe.

Police Lieutenant Timothy M. Kervin collected $240,183 in 2006, making him the top earner in a department in which 1,276 employees, about 41 percent of the force, made $100,000 or more. In 2005, 1,026 employees, about 36 percent of the force, made $100,000 or more.


http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/02/22/police_take_home_citys_biggest_paychecks/



Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: Lhoffman on August 07, 2007, 01:08:29 PM
Too much overtime could be dangerous in that line of work.  I would hope that the street cops don't put in too many hours.

What does detail work consist of? 


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on August 07, 2007, 01:09:21 PM
Liquid,

There is a discussion on the merits of testing as a measure of teachers' effectiveness now on education. Perhaps your wife may want to add her input.

As to the Internet in schools, there is no substitute for the content available on the Internet in the various subject areas. Schools tend to have small websites, mostly containing the phone number of the school board members. Occasionally you'll find one that posts the school menu. School website are inconsistently updated, and, as a rule, do not provide online space for teacher to use. Teachers who are savvy, sometimes use the free Scholastic site to build lesson resources, some of which are links to internet information. They can use those sites for their lesson plans and perhaps posting of grades. The Scholastic did not, last time I looked at it, provide for the inclusion of graphics of any kind, which greatly limits their usefulness in preparing class materials. Teachers can also get some space from Yahoo and perhaps other sources, but again, the space is limited so that the teacher has to turn over what is on the website, plus you get those ads, which sometimes include inappropriate images. I remember when I had Mrs. P's Links on Yahoo, and the kids in the lab were using the site to access appropriate stuff, when a kid called out "Mrs. P, there's a naked lady on my screen". Turned out to be a bathsoap ad, and it was only a naked back and shoulder, but I responded by begging my friend for permission to use his webspace for my stuff. He's been a true friend in that what I have on the web for kids has grown to immense proportions, and there are no ads to cause problems, or to create conflicts when I announce additions to the site (I cannot be accused of using a forum for commercial purposes, since there is no commerce involved!) The same cannot be said for the other free sites.

You really have to know the details of a particular job before you judge whether or not it is appropriate to complain about employees having access to the internet. Everyone at the state who has a computer on their desk, has access to the Internet. Hubby was an HVAC mechanic and plumber. You may wonder why he would need access to the Internet. Actually, he didn't have a computer, but had to use his supervisor's computer which he used to order parts for the equipment he was keeping in repair in the many state buildings. In addition to locating and ordering parts, he used the Internet to get information on how to maintain equipment, schematics on the equipment, and other technical information. Of course, they was also some play. Hubby has a train page on our personal site, with sounds from the last run of the 611. When the checks came in, someone would play that site on a computer and pipe it into the radio system, to announce that the checks were available for pick up.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: liquidsilver on August 07, 2007, 01:19:54 PM
Too much overtime could be dangerous in that line of work.  I would hope that the street cops don't put in too many hours.

What does detail work consist of? 

Security details at night clubs and stores but largely directing traffic at road construction sites


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: josh on August 07, 2007, 10:10:59 PM
They always forget the pension with the teachers and cops, don't they.
And finally and most importantly, they are one of the few professions left that receive a pension.

Well, let's see. Where to start?

1) If you are talking about public school teachers, then yes, they get a pension. But so does everybody else who works full time for their employer - the municipal government. But... if it were such a cushy job, why aren't more, brighter people going into it? Maybe it's because the top level of pay gets hit and there is no where to go. Maybe it is because they are so often treated like trash by the public. Maybe it is because the job that is required has so high a percentage of non-teaching tasks. Maybe it is because the notion of teaching to the NCLB standards does not fire anybody's imagination (with one notable exception). You think it is such a great and easy job, go right ahead. Have a good time. I look forward to hearing about it.

2) I am a teacher. I get no pension. I have no automatic raises every year. When I take time off, it mostly means I am not going to get paid. Am I therefore less of a teacher, since I don't fit your imprecations?

I was tech writing for $57/hour, while not finding work teaching. I left it to go back to teaching. Oh, yes, it is all about the money and the pension. </sarcasm>

3) Frankly, I think most teachers are probably not worth what they are paid. I am just not thoroughly convinced that it is their fault. But it is our responsibility.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: josh on August 07, 2007, 10:29:29 PM
As to the Internet in schools, there is no substitute for the content available on the Internet in the various subject areas. Schools tend to have small websites, mostly containing the phone number of the school board members. <snip> do not provide online space for teacher to use. Teachers who are savvy, sometimes use the free Scholastic site to build lesson resources, some of which are links to internet information. They can use those sites for their lesson plans and perhaps posting of grades. <snip> Teachers can also get some space from Yahoo and perhaps other sources, but again, the space is limited so that the teacher has to turn over what is on the website, plus you get those ads, which sometimes include inappropriate images.

The internet is a wonderful tool, but it is a tool. The vast majority of teachers would not know how to utilize it for effective education even if they were given an extra period per day to plan. They will not grasp the richness of the options nor the applications of all but the most basic software. There is little evidence to support the notion that having each student in a classroom have a computer does anything towards accomplishing the stated goals of our "educational system." There is evidence that it does not.

However, there is ample free space out there for teachers to use. The amount of space is such that I would be hard pressed to fill it unless I were putting out my own sophisticated software to be used on the server. Yes, perhaps the download quotient might get bumped with a few of them, but it is seldom a problem. Many of these do not have the advertising problem of which you speak. And no turnover is necessary, because it holds it all.

The tools for teachers are all out there, if they want to make worksheets, word searches, word problems, math sheets, maps, or anything else. Free graph paper designs, books for research, almost anything you want. Finding it? Well... that requires being adroit with the search engines, and some folks are and some folks are not. Too many teachers are technophobes or at least not technophiles.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: josh on August 07, 2007, 10:31:47 PM
That all said, the impact all of this has on the campaign process is that teachers are very vulnerable to having their sympathies played on - and the party that more obviously is looking out for the welfare of children is going to get more of their votes every time. Within that, picking a candidate from among the democrats is mostly a crap shoot. Almost any Dem is going to be better than almost any Rep in the eyes of most teachers - including this one.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on August 07, 2007, 11:39:20 PM
Josh,

I see teachers quite differently from you on the use of the computer and Internet. I am in rural Virginia. In the early nineties, UVA and the Virginia DOE formed a partnership to establish an educational network that was called Virginia's PEN (Public Education Network). I was already online on Compuserve and Genie making contacts, so when they started up Virginia PEN, I was one of the first teacher to use the network. I rose to serve in a variety of positions in the administration and the outreach to the teachers around the state. I was the first teacher who was not a teacher of the gifted, who was able to get individual accounts for some of my students on the network. Since we are out in the boonies, we depended heavily on the 800 number to reach the server in Richmond. Over the years, I've presented at many of the annual VSTE conferences helping teachers get a start on using the Internet for instruction. I was part of a team that trained all the teachers in Richmond to use the computer with their students. I am considering an invitation to present at the next VSTE conference in February, which will draw hundreds of teachers from across the state. I'm just not sure I can depend on my health to let me promise my participation this far in advance. Back in the mid-nineties, Virignia pressed the phone company so that by the late nineties every school in the state had Internet access. Some counties in Virginia (usually the well financed one) are providing laptops to all their students, have gone through the start-up problems, and are now moving forward with better computers, better work from the students, and of course, more consistent use by the teachers. Virginia's PEN is still the driving force, but is now a tool for the administrators and teachers have to get their own accounts either from commercial ISP's or from the districts.

Om truth, it was easier to get the teachers involved in using the Internet with their students, than to get the district supintendents to get onboard. Virginia PEN was originally intended to be a tool for administrators, but we teachers and our students took it over for a decade, until the state superintendent played a nasty trick on the supers to get them involved.

I don't know where you are or how your state is doing to advance the use of the Internet in the schools, but I am in a state that was the first DOE to establish its own network, and we are still leading the way.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: josh on August 08, 2007, 12:32:21 AM
In the early nineties, UVA and the Virginia DOE formed a partnership to establish an educational network that was called Virginia's PEN (Public Education Network). I was already online...

Om truth, it was easier to get the teachers involved in using the Internet with their students, than to get the district supintendents to get onboard. Virginia PEN was originally intended to be a tool for administrators, but we teachers and our students took it over for a decade, until the state superintendent played a nasty trick on the supers to get them involved.

I don't know where you are or how your state is doing to advance the use of the Internet in the schools, but I am in a state that was the first DOE to establish its own network, and we are still leading the way.

When one is in the midst of the cyclone, it is hard to tell that the wind is not everywhere. You are not the standard teacher in these regards. The more experienced the teacher, the less likely that s/he uses computers, whether to communicate with colleagues, to seek information, to create instructional materials, or to do record keeping. Further, the poorer the school, the less likely the teachers were to use computers.

First, the good news:

When the computers are used by the students at teachers' instigation, they are used more often for word processing or practice drills than anything else, though about 40% of secondary teachers report assigning research on the computer. And, again, there is a huge gap between schools with poor students and schools with less poor students.

33% of teachers reported feeling either confident or very confident in using the computers in their teaching. Oddly enough, the more confident teachers were more likely to assign things like correspondence with an expert in a subject are, while the less confident teachers were more likely to assign drills.

Time spent on teacher technology training did not increase from 2004 to 2005, but the number of teachers rating their computer skills as "advanced or expert" nearly tripled from 6 percent to 17.5 percent. About 30 percent of teachers said they had no technology training in 2004 or 2005, but less than 3 percent rated themselves as "beginners."
**********
Now the bad news.

The surveys on computer usage are very similar to the surveys on differentiation in the classroom. The amount of instruction, the numbers doing that instruction, and the numbers receiving that instruction are inflated. The notion that the number of teachers who are 'expert' would triple in a year with no change in the training levels strains logic.

People overestimate their aptitude when they are not expert at something. Don't think so? Listen to the candidates from either party!

My sentiments about computer use in the classrooms for instruction are based on being in classrooms in more than one state and on direct conversations with students, parents, and teachers. I watched the distance education in MA and what our PEN equivalent has done. We have fine tech available in many places.

Basically, I am not hearing anything from the candidates that suggests to me that they have a clue how to improve the quality of our education system from the federal perspective. The talk about 'fixing' NCLB scares me.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail - Education
Post by: josh on August 08, 2007, 12:36:58 AM
One of the reasons we have a problem with education in this country, both as it is applied and as a political issue is that the overwhelming majority of people think that there is a problem - at everybody else's school! Their own schools they mostly think are fine.

The second reason is the false sense of a) competition and b) success that we have with this field. "We will be number one in (America, the world, the state...)!" "Look at our test scores - we are number one in (America, the world, the state...)!"

False goals. False standards. They lead to false solutions.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: josh on August 08, 2007, 12:49:22 AM
...next VSTE conference in February, which will draw hundreds of teachers from across the state.

Last on this topic in this forum.

There are approximately 100,000 teachers in Virginia (excluding private/parochial/home). Hundreds of them will be at the conference.

I speak at conferences. A couple years ago, I was in Texas for a state wide conference in my field. Attendance at a certain number of sessions per year is mandatory for teachers to retain certification. Apparently, the teachers were misreporting their attendance. Each speaker was given a code that was to be given out at the end of his or her presentation, so that the teachers could prove that they had been there for it.

They had a huge vendors area. The part that did the most active sales (as I gather it had for years) was the aisle with clothing and gifts. The booth selling Noise Traffic Signals sold more than the booth across from it with audio recordings in the subject of the conference.

Were there dedicated teachers at the conference? Sure. Quite a few of them. Maybe as much as a quarter of the attendees...


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on August 08, 2007, 07:55:42 AM
Josh,

You are right that when one is in the midst of a cyclone, it seems that wind is everywhere. But Virginia is an exception to the rule, and could be said to be "leading the way". A few years ago, the state instituted state technology standards for teachers. They had to be able to use a word processor, email, an online search, make a webpage, and use excel. Those who failed to meet those standards within three years were relieved of their teaching certificates. Only those near retirement chose not to make the jump. We also have student objectives that must be met in fifth and eighth grade which require most schools to have a technology specialist on the faculty in addition to the techies required onboard to keep the equipment working. The state has standards for how many techies must be hired per number of students, and all schools districts are required to have and maintain a web presence. Sadly, not all schools have and maintain a school website, the websites are not always robust, and district rarely provide free webspace to the teachers savvy enough to make good use of it. VSTE is very active in lobbying the state to improve its standards in technology education. I said that hundreds of teachers attend the annual conferences, but I've spoken to audiences of over sixty when there were several session going at once that were equally attended. I am probably underestimating attendence. Perhaps I should look it up on the website and give you an accurate appraisal.  Teachers get no recertification points for attending VSTE conferences, and in some instances, districts send their techie staff to the conference instead of their teachers. I chided the district I live in for just that at the last VSTE conference I presented at.

I am very optimistic about the future of the Internet in education, and, in retirement, am doing my part to provide the good content that will help it to happen. I will say, that in your field of mathematics, there is a distince paucity of good websites that could provide instructional support. As you have mentioned, there are a lot of drill sites for math facts, but little else that would entice students to use the Internet to explore mathematics. Graphiing calculators seem to have developed more robustly than the Internet for math.



Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: kidcarter8 on August 08, 2007, 11:47:52 AM
Jeez - take it to EDUCATION  -------------------------->


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on August 08, 2007, 12:00:59 PM
Kid,

Are you saying that discussing the immoral and illegal war is an OK campaign issue, but education and the expansion of the use of the Internet in education and the validity of overtesting kids per the current administrations foolish law, are not campaign issues?

Fie and humbug!


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: lulu on August 08, 2007, 03:08:23 PM
Maybe we would get a lot more dedicated teachers if we paid them liveable wages.  Decades ago, a friend was a teacher and got stabbed in the hand by a pupil (elementary school).  Fast forward and now teachers get stabbed or shot to death.

And taxpayers don't want to pay money; the dumbing down of America.  But they remain silent about paying billions for the war in Iraq.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: josh on August 08, 2007, 08:39:36 PM
Maybe we would get a lot more dedicated teachers if we paid them liveable wages.  Decades ago, a friend was a teacher and got stabbed in the hand by a pupil (elementary school).  Fast forward and now teachers get stabbed or shot to death.

And taxpayers don't want to pay money; the dumbing down of America.  But they remain silent about paying billions for the war in Iraq.

Lulu, to turn this into a campaign question, let me pose a few questions:

1) How much money do you believe a new teacher should be paid for 9 months? An experienced teacher? Should they, instead, be paid for 12 months, with relevant work or training required during the summer? Should pay for teachers increase based on merit or purely on a step and education (graduate courses or otherwise) basis? Should this continue to be handled on a local basis where it is?

2) What do you believe the role of the federal government should be, if any, in ensuring a higher wage for teachers? In terms of uniform curricula across the country? In terms of minimum student competence coming out of high school (or some other equally arbitrary point)?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on August 08, 2007, 09:41:29 PM
Josh and Lulu,

In Virginia, teachers were a ten month contract year, not nine months. They teach 180 days per year, and report to work for a total of 200 days a year - roundly ten months. How would you pay them for the grading and planning they do on days where they do not report to work, or in the evening hours? Virginia pays more only for graduate degrees, not for courses. The courses are required, usually at the teacher's expense, in order to renew the teaching certificate every five years.

I provide Virginia as the example I know best. Others may cite other length of school year, and means to earn additional salary. The states vary, and even with a state like Virginia, the beginning and interim payscales for teachers vary by as much as $10-20,000 per year.

I will go on record (again) as opposed to a national curriculum. We need graduates with a variety of knowledge and skills, not cookie cutter duplicates of each other.



Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: thecap0 on August 08, 2007, 09:50:18 PM
Anne,

Virginia pays more only for graduate degrees, not for courses. The courses are required, usually at the teacher's expense, in order to renew the teaching certificate every five years.

This is also the case here in Colorado.
While we are at it, I wonder how people feel about my being reimbursed for the $2.5K I lay out annually for books and supplies that go directly into my students' hands and which my school board refuses to purchase.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on August 08, 2007, 10:32:26 PM
Cap,

My costs were a between one and two thousand a year. A colleague who just retired from being an art teacher mentioned that she had no idea her out-of-pocket expenses for art supplies had cost as much as they did until she wasn't doing it anymore. I mentioned to someone on the phone last week, that even after 3 yrs retirement, it was so ingrained in me to always pick up pens and pencils, that I have to restrain myself from automatically reaching for a pack whenever I go by them in a store. Ditto with notebook paper. Hubby used to make annual trips to the DOT to pick up maps for me to use in class. I also had to buy wall maps to use in the classroom since special ed was never included on those rare occasions when new maps were purchased. When I had a computer in my classroom, I had to buy the ink and paper for the printer myself.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: elportenito on August 09, 2007, 08:52:51 AM
teachers and police/men/women deserve more pay than what they get all around the world.

Beyond the porcine jokes about policemen, their job is hard, dangerous and stressfull. And for teachers is even worse (at least in the USA, LOL!!)


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: liquidsilver on August 09, 2007, 09:23:49 AM
They always forget the pension with the teachers and cops, don't they.
And finally and most importantly, they are one of the few professions left that receive a pension.

Well, let's see. Where to start?

1) If you are talking about public school teachers, then yes, they get a pension. But so does everybody else who works full time for their employer - the municipal government. But... if it were such a cushy job, why aren't more, brighter people going into it? Maybe it's because the top level of pay gets hit and there is no where to go. Maybe it is because they are so often treated like trash by the public. Maybe it is because the job that is required has so high a percentage of non-teaching tasks. Maybe it is because the notion of teaching to the NCLB standards does not fire anybody's imagination (with one notable exception). You think it is such a great and easy job, go right ahead. Have a good time. I look forward to hearing about it.

2) I am a teacher. I get no pension. I have no automatic raises every year. When I take time off, it mostly means I am not going to get paid. Am I therefore less of a teacher, since I don't fit your imprecations?

I was tech writing for $57/hour, while not finding work teaching. I left it to go back to teaching. Oh, yes, it is all about the money and the pension. </sarcasm>

3) Frankly, I think most teachers are probably not worth what they are paid. I am just not thoroughly convinced that it is their fault. But it is our responsibility.

Of course I'm talking about public school teachers.  Are you proposing that state and federal funding support privatized education?

Its your choice to work below market value for your profession. 



Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: josh on August 09, 2007, 10:30:14 AM
teachers and police/men/women deserve more pay than what they get all around the world.

Beyond the porcine jokes about policemen, their job is hard, dangerous and stressfull. And for teachers is even worse (at least in the USA, LOL!!)

How much pay do they deserve? What should the federal government's role be with regard to their pay?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: liquidsilver on August 09, 2007, 10:36:32 AM
I'm not sure the unions would want the federal government involved - would they?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: josh on August 09, 2007, 10:40:46 AM
Of course I'm talking about public school teachers.  Are you proposing that state and federal funding support privatized education?

Its your choice to work below market value for your profession.

My point about public school teachers is that their profession is "public employee" as much as anything. The laws in most states are set up so that the teacher could not choose to not be a part of a pension if s/he wanted to. My spouse is a municipal employee, albeit not in  education where she'd planned, and she, too, has a pension.

State and federal funding already support private education. The question is one of degree, as the principle is already established. I am not explicitly suggesting that it should do more in that regard. I am trying to get a sense from the other posters who are complaining about the wages of teachers (and/or policemen) what they believe the federal government's role should be, given the thread we are in.

I do believe that federal mandates should be paid for out of federal dollars.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: josh on August 09, 2007, 10:47:59 AM
I'm not sure the unions would want the federal government involved - would they?

It depends. The feds have put money into local coffers to increase staffing for police in the past. It starts with a grant that supports the bulk of one or more officers' salary, and then tapers off until the town has taken it all on. At other times, the federal money buys equipment - but that makes more money available for salary, in turn.

The problem that the unions always worry about is regulation creep. The more you let the feds into something, goes the fear, the more control they take over it. But if the trade off is more money, then the question gets harder to answer with a flat yay or nay. When I was on the finance committee for our town, that was one of the side discussions  - no matter where the extra regulations come from.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on August 09, 2007, 12:08:02 PM
A post from EDDRA this morning pointed out that Congressman Miller, head of the Education and Labor Committee, is gearing up for a re-authorization of NCLB for the fall. The author, Gerald Bracey, noted that the congressman wants to make the law more flexible in allowing for a greater variety of assessments than possible with the "fill in the bubble" types of tests. Miller also seeks to fully fund the law to releast state and local budgets that are overburdened with the new testing requirements to the detriment of salaries and instructional materials. As the oppressive burdens of financing the federal assessments are relieved, states and localities can begin to make teacher salaries commenserate with their value to society.



Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: lulu on August 09, 2007, 02:24:11 PM
I think teachers deserve more than they have been getting considering the size of their classes and the dangers teachers are now exposed to.

Teachers are very important to our lifeblood since kids seem to be getting very little guidance from home these days.

If you talk about their annual work days, well, consider Congress and how much they make and how little time is actually spent there.  Turn your wrath to Congress instead.  You get less bang for your bucks from Congress than you do from your teachers.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: kidcarter8 on August 09, 2007, 02:47:35 PM
Maybe we would get a lot more dedicated teachers if we paid them liveable wages.  Decades ago, a friend was a teacher and got stabbed in the hand by a pupil (elementary school).  Fast forward and now teachers get stabbed or shot to death.

And taxpayers don't want to pay money; the dumbing down of America.  But they remain silent about paying billions for the war in Iraq.

Not so silent.

BTW - I didn't geta  bill, did you?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: yankguy on August 09, 2007, 03:16:08 PM
BTW - I didn't geta  bill, did you?

Don't worry it's coming...it'll be due in a few years and as a parent, like I am too, I'm sure you won't be happy with what you owe.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: obertray on August 09, 2007, 03:31:12 PM

And taxpayers don't want to pay money; the dumbing down of America.  But they remain silent about paying billions for the war in Iraq.

Not so silent.

BTW - I didn't geta  bill, did you?

Been to a gas pump lately? Bought anything priced in foreign currency lately? Had your mortgage reset lately?

Yeah, I got a bill, so did you!

And I don't mean the "bill o' goods" kinda bill either!


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: kidcarter8 on August 09, 2007, 03:58:57 PM
Did they add a war tax on gas?


Damn - missed it.


Foreign currency?  Why the f*ck would I do that?



Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: obertray on August 09, 2007, 04:07:22 PM
Let me start out by making fun of your name...

If indeed you are the kid that Carter Ate, then that explains why you're a worthless piece of shit!

(Just kidding, I don't know if you are worthless.)

Meanwhile, yes, "they" did. The oil comapnies took control of the government and then decided to cut out the middleman and collect their tax increase without having to lose some to the admin fees.

Beat dat!



Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: josh on August 09, 2007, 07:38:34 PM
I think teachers deserve more than they have been getting considering the size of their classes and the dangers teachers are now exposed to.

Lulu -

I get the general point, but I am very unclear on how to apply what you are saying, beyond the broad notion.

How much should teachers be paid in your opinion, either to start or once they have a few years experience? Basically, 'how much more?'

How should their pay increases be determined? Some sort of merit-based increase or purely by increases over time and/or with more education?

What should the role of the federal government be in this matter? Should there be a minimum wage established for teachers? Should the federal governments put more money into public schooling? Should certification be at the national level?

What would you like to hear from the candidates.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: obertray on August 09, 2007, 08:25:14 PM
Just want to make sure that Kidcarter8 knows I'm just messin around.

Offense intended but only in a jocular vein.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: srnich on August 10, 2007, 10:03:14 AM
I think teachers deserve more than they have been getting considering the size of their classes and the dangers teachers are now exposed to.

Lulu -

I get the general point, but I am very unclear on how to apply what you are saying, beyond the broad notion.

How much should teachers be paid in your opinion, either to start or once they have a few years experience? Basically, 'how much more?'

How should their pay increases be determined? Some sort of merit-based increase or purely by increases over time and/or with more education?

What should the role of the federal government be in this matter? Should there be a minimum wage established for teachers? Should the federal governments put more money into public schooling? Should certification be at the national level?

What would you like to hear from the candidates.

Not to but in or anything, but how many AMERICAN schools could be built/rebuilt with the billions we're throwing away in Irak?

We loose 9 billion there and nobody seems to have any problem with it.

What's wrong with the government fixing up schools, building more and maybe the taxpayers at least GETTING something for their money?

Just a simple question...


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: elportenito on August 10, 2007, 10:08:55 AM
josh:

"How much pay do they deserve? What should the federal government's role be with regard to their pay?"

i don't know how much they deserve, but surely they deserve more than they're getting, both coppers and teachers. They do a very important job. (the good ones)


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: obertray on August 10, 2007, 11:19:49 AM
What if they were paid in tax free dollars? That would cost less and recognize an important concept, that taxes are designed to tax more for income that is less beneficial to the community as a whole (and visa versa).



Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on August 10, 2007, 02:51:17 PM
I suspect paying anyone in tax-free dollars would set a dangerous precedent. The advantage of an income tax is that everyone (except those in extreme poverty) pay into the pot that supports the infrastructure of the nation.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: srnich on August 10, 2007, 03:01:11 PM
I suspect paying anyone in tax-free dollars would set a dangerous precedent. The advantage of an income tax is that everyone (except those in extreme poverty) pay into the pot that supports the infrastructure of the nation.

Well that's the way I heard it's supposed to work.

But there's always someone that thinks they don't need to pay anything cause they're paying too much somewhere else.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: obertray on August 10, 2007, 03:52:38 PM
Well isn't it the same thing? building the infrastructure and educating the next generation of engineers?

We pay into a system that gives more money to educators, but on an aftertax basis. If the objective of higher pay is to encourage more highly qualified people to seek the job out as a career, then doesn't the tax free paycheck achieve that goal while only costing the rest of us a nominal increase in our share of the axes to take up the slack?

And where can we then go with this? We can make a doctor's income from working in an inner city clinic tax free and a Beverly Hills plastic surgeon's at 77%. We can reward the employer who gives his workers an average living wage a lower tax rate than the employer who pays the minimum wage (thereby eliminating the advantage of the lower wages).

I have (admittedly, casually) observed that teachers generally make enough money working in a district, to comfortably live in a district twice removed from the one in which they work. They can't afford to live in the district they serve. However, if the "community" were to pick up the taxes on the teachers, the teachers would have the equivalent of between a 15 and 40% in increased buying power for the same dollars of income.

Speaking of which.... on another topic similar to this, I was thinking the other day that the Candidate that proposes Pre Tax Mortgage accounts will be on to a real head turner.

Just as we have Pre Tax Medical accounts and Pre Tax retirement accounts we could have Pre Tax Mortgage accounts where from the employer would withhold "XXXX" dollars from the employee's paycheck (which comes out before taxes are calculated) and sent to the mortgage company. The Mortgage company would then pay the tax owed on the money which would have the net result of being a lower interest rate paid to the company (since the company paid this tax, the company wouldn't pay taxes on that protion of their income.

The government is in the same net position (or better) because they weren't going to get taxes on mortgage payments anyway. The mortgage company is in a better position because the govenrment will give them credit and because the payments from the borrowers are coming in on time and complete. The borrower is in a better position because his mortgage payment went from "XXXX" dollars out of his paycheck to .85% of "XXXX" due to the tax advantage. Win Win Win!

Sure beats the hell out of dumping another 35Billion dollars into providing liquidity in a market like they did today!


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: josh on August 10, 2007, 08:03:08 PM
I suspect paying anyone in tax-free dollars would set a dangerous precedent. The advantage of an income tax is that everyone (except those in extreme poverty) pay into the pot that supports the infrastructure of the nation.

We do have people being paid in tax-free dollars.

# Soldiers in the Combat Zone are not subject to federal/state taxes

    * All taxable pay for Enlisted/Warrant Officers
    * All taxable pay for Officers up to the Base Pay amount for the Sergeant Major of the Army plus HFP/IDP payable (Approx $6,300 per month)

Further, the new Army recruitment effort includes up to $45,000 in tax free bonus money.

Note: I am not saying there is anything wrong with this (though the bonus money makes me uncomfortable for a number of reasons). I am merely noting that the precedent already exists.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on August 10, 2007, 08:26:45 PM
Josh,

Much as I think teachers provide a vital and irreplacable service to the American people, I would not go so far as to compare the sacrifices of teachers with that of a soldier in a combat zone. Twice in the past, my son has been on "combat pay", serving his country. At least when he served in Kuwait, there was an end to the conflict and an end to his service. In the most recent, there has been no closure - he could be sent again, although with the National Guard, he has some 6-8 years yet before that happens. I sincerely hope he will never have to serve in a combat zone again, and my heart goes out to the many parents, spouses and children who lost their loved ones in these "wars".

Rather than a tax-free income, I'd rather see a more liberal policy towards allowing teachers to deduct what they spend on their students and classrooms. Cap has mentioned that he spends around 2500 a year, and my expenses over my career came to something between 1-2000 a year. The small tax deduction allowed at present doesn't cover the need and is only available to teacher who itemize deductions. There are lots of teachers who don't own a home or have other reason to itemize, but who spend generously out of pocket.



Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: obertray on August 10, 2007, 09:18:45 PM
So you're saying that you think teachers ought to be paid more but you're willing to settle for deductable pencils.

That's like the story of the boy who was sent to town to sell the cow and came back with magic beans!

All due respect.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on August 10, 2007, 11:29:37 PM
Obertray,

I think you've come in with a conversation going. I think teachers should be paid more, but I don't think that paying them in tax free dollars is the way to do it. If you want to reduce the taxes teachers pay, give them a deductable for what they spend out of pocket on what should be paid for with tax dollars anyway. But, I did not intend that to stand as a raise in salaries for teachers. Perhaps, I got off on a tangent. I'm living now on what a teacher gets after early retirement due to health problems probably related to the stress on the job. It's a pitiful amount, but fortunately, after years of living on a teacher's salary, I'm used to eating beans and dogs.




Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: obertray on August 11, 2007, 12:49:41 PM
Why would you think that tax-free pay is not the way to do it?

Why is using the income tax rate as a social engineering tool a bad thing. For absolute sure it is used as such on the deduction side of the ledger. For absolute sure it is used in the Tax Credit area. We'll give you tax credits if you invest in energy efficient cars or low income housing. Why not a 100% tax credit for being a teacher?

The cost to the public is much lower than the cost of higher salaries.

We have precedent, we have economic benefit; what more do we want?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on August 11, 2007, 01:39:28 PM
Obertray said,

"The cost to the public is much lower than the cost of higher salaries."

If the cost to the public is much lower, then it is certain that the buying power of the teacher will be much lower as well. There is also the problem of the whine from those who currently complain that teachers shouldn't be paid a decent salary because they don't work "full time", and then they will also be able to complain that teachers shouldn't be paid a decent salary because they aren't "paying taxes".

The small increase of a one-time 15% "raise" in not paying income taxes, is going to end up being a final raise on teacher salaries. I can see it coming, and would oppose it even tho I am now retired. Let the public pay the increase that is required to pay teachers on parity with their contribution to society and the level of responsibility they are given. Don't try to shortcut what needs to be done, or you'll end up with another collapsed bridge!


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: josh on August 11, 2007, 02:18:05 PM
Let the public pay the increase that is required to pay teachers on parity with their contribution to society and the level of responsibility they are given.

So, again, what would that amount (range) be and how would you have it be paid for? And how would you have pay increases be determined?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: obertray on August 11, 2007, 02:46:08 PM
Obertray said,

"The cost to the public is much lower than the cost of higher salaries."

If the cost to the public is much lower, then it is certain that the buying power of the teacher will be much lower as well.
Err...uhhh.. Perhaps you could explain how that works to the class there teach. From the back row it looks like your talking out your ass on that one!
If a teacher is paid $50,000 per year and is in the 20% tax bracket for federal  income taxes, he gets to keep about $42,500 if you figure his average tax is 15% (BTW this would be extra fine for a dual income household!) This is before state and local taxes and SSI are calculated out (The SSI would be a dampening effect because you don't pay tax on SSI contributions) his purchasing power then is based on what is left on his paycheck (let's call it 40,000)
If he didn't have those taxes to pay (Leaving SSI payments in for the moment) he'd have a $47,000 purchasing power.  

There is also the problem of the whine from those who currently complain that teachers shouldn't be paid a decent salary because they don't work "full time", and then they will also be able to complain that teachers shouldn't be paid a decent salary because they aren't "paying taxes". This is sorta a different fight entirely, (BTW it is true, teachers have some sweet hours. Granted, some work beyond them, but for the most part, they are some sweet hours and that's why they want the job. If you want to weed those types out you ought to make the job pay more so that you have more people applying and make it easier t turn some away, but, as I have said, that is a different battle field, that is the battlefield of public perception and we're talking here about the economic front.) but let's just follow along for a second and see if it works The NEA says it has 3.2 million members http://www.nea.org/member/index.html Let's say that the average income is our $50,000 and we'll use the $7,500 per as the tax number That means that if they all stopped paying income tax, they'd all get a nearly 20% bump in income at a cost of 24Billion dollars per year. Which, spread over 80 Million taxpayers would equal $300 per year.

The small increase of a one-time 15% "raise" in not paying income taxes, is going to end up being a final raise on teacher salaries.This "Fact" is based on what? And just how much of a raise do you think teachers ought to get if 15% is a "small increase"?

 I can see it coming, and would oppose it even tho I am now retired.You can see what coming? Let the public pay the increase that is required to pay teachers on parity with their contribution to society and the level of responsibility they are given.Nobody is arguing against this (although the weakness of your argument and the testosterone stench of your stridency make it an inviting target) I'm just arguing for hthe way to do this that will meet with the least resistence and result in the best solution for the lowest cost. Don't try to shortcut what needs to be done, or you'll end up with another collapsed bridge!You obviously weren't a debate teacher, by mentioning a failed structure you leave yourself wide open to an attack of "your failed system" and the efficacy of throwing money at a broken bridge and hoping it will get back up!


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: obertray on August 11, 2007, 02:49:46 PM
Blue on blue bad idea, sorry, I'll keep that in mind in the future.

I do like the warning system here tho'.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on August 11, 2007, 05:53:11 PM
Josh,

I'm reluctant to state a range since it would be so wide as to drive a mac truck through it. Perhaps a scale, of a starting salary of 50% above the poverty rate for a family of four in whatever location the teacher is starting to teach in.

Teaching is composed of at least two roles, one, keeping the students on task and moving forward in their learning, depends largely on experience, so raising pay according to experience makes sense. Also, a teacher is expected to be an expert in his/her field, so increased knowledge, as shown by a post graduate degree, also makes good sense. A teacher with a bachelor's in math, with enough no keeping the students on task is less than one with the same degree, but enough years of experience to keep those students making progress. A teacher with a masters, and eventually a doctorate in math is able to bring greater understanding of math to the students, and with those years of experience is a boon to a school that rewards the teacher enough to keep him from leaving teaching with all that knowledge and experience.

In addition, the teacher may (or may not) be responsible for developing curriculum. To do that effectively more courses than provided for a typical BA/BS are required. Teachers have to develop their own materials and tests, again more courses. Teachers are expected to be good counselors and resolve conflicts - more courses. Ad infinitum. As I said, in Virginia, you don't get any addition to salary until you earn a higher degree. Courses just count towards renewing your teaching certificate every five years. Some Virginia school districts pay for all courses their teachers take, including seminars, conferences, etc., some pay for some courses, some seminars and one conference per year. Some school districts pay for none of the above. The districts in the last category are also the ones that pay less than others.



Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on August 11, 2007, 05:58:57 PM
Obertray,

Hubby found it amusing that you felt I had my testosterone was "too strident".

As to the rest, I would have liked, even one year, to have made $50,000. The only teachers around here that make that much as those who earn extra stipends for coaching sports. Those who coach the debate team or the school newspaper just get a warm thank you.

As for sweet hours, I didn't enjoy them until I retired. Even in the last year as a substitute, I was doing something for school or the students until 11 pm. Fortunately, I'm married to a good cook, so cooking dinner wasn't one of my daily chores, and my children were almost grown before I began teaching, so those "sweet hours" just let me do more for my students.



Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: josh on August 12, 2007, 09:58:26 AM
If a teacher is paid $50,000 per year and is in the 20% tax bracket for federal  income taxes, he gets to keep about $42,500 if you figure his average tax is 15% (BTW this would be extra fine for a dual income household!) This is before state and local taxes and SSI are calculated out (The SSI would be a dampening effect because you don't pay tax on SSI contributions) his purchasing power then is based on what is left on his paycheck (let's call it 40,000)
If he didn't have those taxes to pay (Leaving SSI payments in for the moment) he'd have a $47,000 purchasing power.

The NEA says it has 3.2 million members http://www.nea.org/member/index.html Let's say that the average income is our $50,000 and we'll use the $7,500 per as the tax number That means that if they all stopped paying income tax, they'd all get a nearly 20% bump in income at a cost of 24Billion dollars per year. Which, spread over 80 Million taxpayers would equal $300 per year.[/color]

And just how much of a raise do you think teachers ought to get if 15% is a "small increase"?

Let's start with a real calculation of those numbers you were throwing so blithely about.

A salary of $50,000 for teaching for 180 days (plus a few others) starts with deductions for that much ballyhooed pension fund. The deduction for that is usually greater than the 7.6% of FICA/SSN amount, but we will use that number. $3,800. However, we are taxed on the full amount, not on the amount post FICA. After taking the deduction and the exemption, we have a taxable salary of $40,300. The taxes on that amount would be $6,639. So, her post-tax take home income is $39,361. (This ignores union dues, which vary by state and sub-unit.)

So, the tax returned to her, if you wipe out federal taxes is ~16.9% of her take home, not 20%.

But your $50k is on the generous side, meaning that your totals are all on the high side, as well.

[blockquote]The average teacher salary hit almost $44,400 last year, according to a survey by the American Federation of Teachers.

That salary reflected a 2.7 percent increase over the previous year. New teachers were paid an average starting salary of $30,719, up 3.2 percent.

The figures were for the 2001-02 school year, the most recent available.

California had the highest average teacher salary at $54,348. Others at the top were Michigan ($52,497), Connecticut ($52,376), Rhode Island ($51,619) and New York ($51,020).

Among the states, South Dakota had the lowest average salary at $31,383. Puerto Rico came in at $25,430.

The AFT contends teacher salaries would still be lower than those of white-collar peers -- such as midlevel accountants and engineers -- even if teachers worked a 12-month year. Factoring in an extra 35 days of work would push the average teacher salary to $52,541, the survey said. [/blockquote]

If you adjust these numbers up by ~2.5% per year for the 4 intervening years, they are still not good, though the national average would not yet make it up to $50k. I know that in my state the rates have not been as high as 2.5% per year over those 4 fiscal years.

As a final note on this, the amount salaries would have to go up to change who is going into the field is a lot more than that 15-20%:

[blockquote]Milanowski found that (a) the math, science, and technology majors considered teaching a low-paid field and (b) pay level was a significant factor making a career as a K-12 math or science teacher less attractive. However, many students said they would consider teaching if it paid substantially more than their current occupational choice. A salary level 45% above the local average would have attracted 48% of the sophomore survey respondents and 37% of the junior respondents to a career in K-12 teaching.[/blockquote]


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on August 12, 2007, 01:20:27 PM
Thank you Josh,

I really do not think that a 15-20% increase in salaries will pull in the new teachers we need. At any time, we usually have a surplus of eligible English and Social Studies teachers, but there is always a shortage of those to teach math, science, technology and foreign languages. The areas of shortage are due to the fact that a person good enough in those fields to be an effective teacher, can earn much more doing something other than teaching. And, despite the seemingly "sweet hours", many, if not most teachers end up investing those "sweet hours" back into the classroom.



Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: obertray on August 12, 2007, 04:08:13 PM
Gee Josh,

I was just blithely tossing nums around, but it seems as though I wasn't that far off, 15% or so, which means I was 85ish % right. And that error is mostly around the SSI taxation.

Round here, 50,000 is not all that unusual for a teacher to make. Of course 50,000 won't land you in the lap of luxury around here either. That's what I said about the earning being about two districts away from a livable wage.

As to "sweet hours". How many 11pm ers do you put in over Christmas break? How many over Robtmas vacation? How man over the spring break? The presidents and Martin Luther Kings' days? How many "Snow days" do you think I've had over the last 35 years? Come on, You have to meet the world half way. I had a client who was a teacher (making 50M) and her response to people who gave her grief over her hours "Yeah, wasn't I smart to take this career?" Umm Yeah! 


I'm not sure why this thread is in the campaign trail mix, not that it isn't a platform plank issue for a political party (nor that it is place to say what is topical or what is not). But let me ask the question thusly. Is teacher salary raises a swing position for you as a voter? The candidate that says I will raise teacher salaries across the board will get your vote? And the candidate that says I will make all teacher salaries tax free at the federal level, will not get your vote? If a candidate says, I'm in favor of a 10% increase in spending for teachers, what is your reaction? What verbiage do you want to hear?(Exactly.)


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: elportenito on August 12, 2007, 05:41:57 PM
....this is all Spanish to You:





"Denuncian que la brecha entre ricos y pobres se amplía en el mundoUn informe de Amnistía Internacional sostiene que mientras en los '90 una persona rica tenía 30 veces más que una pobre hoy la relación es de 130 a 1. Y que al menos 1.500 millones de personas viven con menos de un dólar al día. En tanto, un funcionario de la ONU aseguró que lo que gasta EE.UU. en la ocupación de Irak y Afganistán sería suficiente para "acabar 2 veces con la pobreza en el planeta".


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: thecap0 on August 12, 2007, 06:21:53 PM
Ober,

What verbiage do you want to hear?(Exactly.)

I want a candidate to say that (s)he will push for a starting salary for teachers of $50K.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on August 12, 2007, 09:22:22 PM
I want to hear a candidate say that sufficient funding will be provided to the schools so that the teachers do not have to pay out-of-pocket for classroom needs (not just supplies, as Cap points out, he's buying books, and I know other teachers who have bought books as well!). As long as schools are underfunded, teachers will have to give up their paychecks and free time to make up the difference.

Yes, I have been up until 11pm during Christmas and Easter breaks, trying to get materials made for the coming weeks. I had absolutely no materials to work with, other than what I purchased myself. I didn't even have appropriate textbooks, since my special ed students could not read on grade level, which was the only level books were bought for.  BTW, hubby had all the same holiday I did, as a state worker, but not as long for Christmas and Easter, but 3 weeks vacation in the summer. So stop whining, it's not like no one else gets good bennies and holidays.



Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: josh on August 12, 2007, 11:00:57 PM
"Thompson dropping out of 2008 race"

Today, Tommy Thompson indicated that based on the results of the Iowa caucus, he would be ceasing his campaign to become president of the United States.

In related news, Fred Thompson noted that Tommy's withdrawal will not force his hand or make him announce sooner than he wanted to. He's waiting for sweeps week.

Robby Thompson's reaction to the news was to consider throwing his glove into the ring. "The shot heard round the world" could be heard playing in the background of our phone call to him.

Meldrim Thompson's stance is that he is more conservative than anybody running, living or dead. He still believes that flags should be lowered to half mast on Good Friday.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: obertray on August 13, 2007, 10:23:21 AM
....this is all Spanish to You:

...
Thank you very little.
Ober,

What verbiage do you want to hear?(Exactly.)

I want a candidate to say that (s)he will push for a starting salary for teachers of $50K.

Keep dreaming.

I want to hear a candidate say that sufficient funding will be provided to the schools so that the teachers do not have to pay out-of-pocket for classroom needs (not just supplies, as Cap points out, he's buying books, and I know other teachers who have bought books as well!). As long as schools are underfunded, teachers will have to give up their paychecks and free time to make up the difference.
I calculate that to be about eleven pounds of hot air. First is the issue of "Need" and how it is an ever expanding unierse in our consumerist economy. Reductio ad absurbium would illustrate that Socrates taught with nothing but his voice, Abe lincoln learned in a one room school house, Harry Truman learned most from using the library (some most recent presdient would show that "learnin ain't inportant in the first place") While I don't advocate going back to one room school houses, the list of what is regarded as "needed"is never ending, and as such does not define the issue at all.( Making it hot air).

"Schools are underfunded"  is the sort of rhetoric that obfuscates the issue better than any other. It's the sort of term that allows the opposition to jump on with "well, it's about the administration costs!" and "Yeah, we need more classrooms!" and "That's just throwing good money after bad!". The next to last person on the list for "fully funded" schools is the teacher, and after her is the Crayola company. I'm sorry but your statement is a statement of emotion not fact. You won't win the battle of emotion.

Yes, I have been up until 11pm during Christmas and Easter breaks, trying to get materials made for the coming weeks. I had absolutely no materials to work with, other than what I purchased myself. I didn't even have appropriate textbooks, since my special ed students could not read on grade level, which was the only level books were bought for.  BTW, hubby had all the same holiday I did, as a state worker, but not as long for Christmas and Easter, but 3 weeks vacation in the summer. So stop whining, it's not like no one else gets good bennies and holidays.

There is no credible way that I can comment on your circumstance given that I was not there. However I have several teachers in my family and not all in "Rich" districts and they don't work from 7am to 11pm over their holiday breaks. If you had to, there is a certain suspicion of your time management techniques. As such, this argument is nonverifiable and therefore unadmissable in the court of public opinion.

The fact that you want to try to stretch the holidays of your state employee (which is a whole different set of issues) husband to look even with the school teacher's disqualifies that whole line of reasoning. You want us to equate 3 weeks (after how many years?) to 8 weeks (depending on where you are in the nation) Not to mention the notion that a state worker has the same christmas and easter breakage as the teacher. You're not willing to meet me half way, you're expecting me to shake hands from far enough away that I don't notice all the goodies you're hiding behind your back with the other hand. Not happening.

Whining? I'm whining? I don't think so, I'm just staying on point and not running off on emotional tangents (whether fueled by overload of testosterone or lack of estrogen is immaterial the effect is the same.)

Please, be specific, be unemotional and be realistic. Weigh the total economic benefits of the teachers' position versus the rest of the market (I, for example, work in a highly stressful field which is likely to cause me an early death, how much is a job that is absent that stress worth?). I have respect and admiration for teachers, I send my children to school because I know that I don't posess the skills required to be an effective teacher, but I also recognize the advantages to the chosen profession. Do you?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: kidcarter8 on August 13, 2007, 10:35:11 AM
Ober,

What verbiage do you want to hear?(Exactly.)

I want a candidate to say that (s)he will push for a starting salary for teachers of $50K.

Where is this money to come from?

And if that is the starting salary, should we thenmake it tougher to BECOME a teacher?

Wouldn't a merit-based scale be wiser?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on August 13, 2007, 10:47:03 AM
Obertray,

Time magnagement problem? No, I was pioneering a new era in education. During some of those late yours that drifted on occasions to 2am, I was on the internet developing contracts for my students who were pioneers in using the Internet to develop their reading and writing skills in the days before the web was created.

The fact that Abraham Lincoln was educated in a one-room schoolhouse (they sill exist in Montana, linked by the Internet for the past twenty years, just to update you), is sorta akin to saying that since the Native Americans cleared land for growing corn by using stone tools, there is no need for modern foresters to use power tools. Your argument is just plain silly. Your argument, not mine, is th emotional response, preferring to look back to the "good old days". Socrates educated a handfull of select young men, not hundreds of diverse children as today's school teachers do.

As I said before, I want a candidate I choose for the next president to pledge to fully fund schools so that teachers do not have to pull money out of their salaries for basic needs to their classroom. I really don't think you have a good grasp of the needs that go unmet.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: josh on August 13, 2007, 10:52:14 AM
As such, this argument is nonverifiable and therefore unadmissable in the court of public opinion.

Huh?

Since when has "verifiable" had anything to do with "admissible" when it came to the court of public opinion?

Quote
What verbiage do you want to hear?
Quote
I want a candidate to say that (s)he will push for a starting salary for teachers of $50K.
Quote
Where is this money to come from?

And if that is the starting salary, should we then make it tougher to BECOME a teacher?

Wouldn't a merit-based scale be wiser?

Where is the money to come from, indeed. It probably was not part of what she wanted to hear, though, and therefore not relevant to the question! Truth be told, there is money for that, assuming that we continue to live beyond our means. There is even money available for it if we stop wasting so much on boondoggle projects ('earmarks'). Not that I am holding my breath.

We should make it easier to become a teacher - not in the sense of lowering standards, but in the sense of making it a job more people want to go into. That, by itself, allows it to become more selective and therefore increases the quality of instructors. As for pay increases, I believe there is utility to having more learning in one's field - but I would also like to find a way for the quality of instruction to be a factor in pay increases. The rationale for this is very simple: What teacher would accept the notion that they should not give grades on work done or tests? "But if I am not assessing them on the basis of what they have done for class, they have no incentive to learn the material!"

(BTW - I am the teacher who is opposed to grades, to answer my own question there.)

Quote
Keep dreaming.

The question was "what do you want to hear?" not "What do you expect to hear?"


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: Donotremove on August 13, 2007, 11:55:16 AM
Why is this discussion not in Education where more people might expect to tind it?

The question of what is a teacher worth is of vital importance and should be discussed by all citizens.  If the bedrock of any society is education then teaching is not only critical to the success of that society, teachers would be of strategic necessity?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: josh on August 13, 2007, 12:37:08 PM
Why is this discussion not in Education where more people might expect to tind it?

The question of what is a teacher worth is of vital importance and should be discussed by all citizens.  If the bedrock of any society is education then teaching is not only critical to the success of that society, teachers would be of strategic necessity?

The question is here, to me, because of wondering what stances on education are/will be. Do the candidates support vouchers or charter schools? How do they feel about No Child Left Behind Unless Smart or Dumb or Somewhere in the Middle? What role does the federal government have in schools.

Sure, we can discuss that stuff in Education, too.

I want to know how the candidates feel about gifted ed, myself!


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: obertray on August 13, 2007, 12:47:03 PM
As such, this argument is nonverifiable and therefore unadmissable in the court of public opinion.

Huh?

Since when has "verifiable" had anything to do with "admissible" when it came to the court of public opinion?


When you are on the losing side of the argument, defending a position with nothing but exposed flanks you cannot afford to resort to anecdotal evidence.

Obertray,

Time magnagement problem? No, I was pioneering a new era in education. During some of those late yours that drifted on occasions to 2am, I was on the internet developing contracts for my students who were pioneers in using the Internet to develop their reading and writing skills in the days before the web was created.

Ok, That's different from several different points. First: Over your tenure, how many times did this happen? If you were in the field for 20 years, how many of the 20 Christmas breaks were spent on this extra labor. Let's not expect the exception to be used as the rule here.

Second as you were "pioneering" you were engaged in your own activities by your own choice and I see no reason to credit the entire teaching profession with a raise because you were working on your own "Pioneering "project. People tinker in their basements on projects all across this country, if they come up with a better mouse trap they can go to their boss and say "I have a better mousetrap, I'm willing to give you the right to first refusal on it" (assuming he works for a mouse trap company) but he has no right to go to the boss and say, "I've been working on this new mousetrap after hours and now I want you to pay me for those hours."

Third is that this goes to the definition of "Need" which was how we got here in the first place. You don't have books at grade level (and yet you can't seem to borrow books from the lower grade level and work from them) and yet you're working on a computer based internet learning system that is going to require the district to purchase computers for "special needs"  children because you "Need" them to fit your new teaching program. This goes to show how "Need" grows infinitely from want.

The fact that Abraham Lincoln was educated in a one-room schoolhouse (they sill exist in Montana, linked by the Internet for the past twenty years, just to update you), is sorta akin to saying that since the Native Americans cleared land for growing corn by using stone tools, there is no need for modern foresters to use power tools. Your argument is just plain silly. Your argument, not mine, is th emotional response, preferring to look back to the "good old days". Socrates educated a handfull of select young men, not hundreds of diverse children as today's school teachers do.

Yes it was just silly, silly to expect you to see beyond your agrumenttive stance to what was being said. The veracity of which being illustrated above (that "need" is a relative term). To make a statement that is so filled with unquantifiable, unqualifiable goals with unsustantiable objectives is to make noise of zero consequence. Figure out what it is that you want and then demand that a candidate represent that want. But the figures have to be based on some solid foundation.

As I said before, I want a candidate I choose for the next president to pledge to fully fund schools so that teachers do not have to pull money out of their salaries for basic needs to their classroom. I really don't think you have a good grasp of the needs that go unmet.

I will grant you (FSOTD) that I lack said grasp. But what you lack is the understanding of how nebulous terms like "Fully Fund" and "Basic needs" not to mention "pledge" are in the world of politics.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: josh on August 13, 2007, 01:10:49 PM
how nebulous terms like "Fully Fund" and "Basic needs" not to mention "pledge" are in the world of politics.

Fully fund is not nearly so nebulous as 'basic needs' or 'fund,' by itself, is. ('Pledge' is thoroughly specific. It means "This is a promise that I am making, that I may believe when I make it, but to which I will not feel bound if you elect me.")

Fully fund is usually applied explicitly to a law that mandates an action, hence the term "unfunded mandate." Two prominent examples of mandated actions that are partially funded but not thoroughly funded are NCLB and SPED.

In the manner of which she was speaking, she means, merely, that the schools in question should provide school supplies and text books for their students, rather than not doing so. So, a fully funded classroom would have at least a ratio of 1/1 when it game to required texts/students. Far too many schools, overwhelmingly in urban areas though some in poor rural areas as well, do not have this simple standard met.

Finally, can we stop with the deprecatory comments about each other?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: obertray on August 13, 2007, 01:41:26 PM
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/08/13/us/13rove09.jpg)
Warning: Object In Mirror May Be Closer Than He Appears


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on August 13, 2007, 03:14:01 PM
Josh,

My feeling on gifted ed go back to an undestanding I had during my college years, that gifted ed was a subtopic in special ed, and should follow the same pathways to success. There should be individual IEPs developed and followed. There should be funding to provide the extra needs in personnel, trips, books, and other needs that are part of the full learning for these students.

As you pointed out, special ed is still not fully funded. Districts are notorious for hoodwinking parents into accepting easily afforded services that do not meet the unique needs of their children. I could talk all day on this subject, but suspect that most folks in the teaching profession are aware of it, and parent of special needs children already know it, and the general public doesn't give a rat's a** for it anyway.

In the world of medicine, for example, research/pioneering is included in the price of the resultant drugs, sometimes for far longer than is necessary to pay for those who did the development. We need to have similar structure provided in education. The fact that I was willing to pioneer should have been enough to have given me the wherewithal to do so, as it typically is in the business world. Instead, I ran campaigns to secure old computers to get the kids started, stayed up late to write programs for those old computers to meet their needs.

Josh, I don't know how many Christmas vacations I spend creating worksheets to replace the non-existent texts, or to creat programs to use on old computers, but I will point out that over my years as a teacher, I fell out of the habit of entertaining over the holiday, decorating beyond a necessary level, and in some years we did no entertaining and no decorating. This allowed me more time to do what I really wanted to be doing, advancing the cause of using computers with the special needs students. The students responded very well. Reading levels went up, often three grade levels at a time. Many of my students were able to finish high school in regular classes, where they were welcomed because they were ready to learn at a higher level.

Clark, the problem with using books from the lower grades, is that although the reading level is suitable,  the content is not. Fifth graders learn, for example, an overview of geography and history, whereas high schoolers are expected to go into greater depth in these studies. In addition, a number of my LD students arrived in high school with a third grade rather than a fith grade reading level. Content textbooks at a third grade level are almost non-existent.



Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: obertray on August 13, 2007, 04:39:26 PM
Weezo,

I'll no longer comment on the education thread here. I don't want you to think that I don't appreciate you efforts, and I know of other teachers who spend their lives doing what they love to do, exciting children to the possibilities of learning.

I just don't think that this thread is germaine to the "Campaign trail" topic, unless you are running for president... are you?

In a paper today, The NY Daily News, the front page is a story about Bloomberg's "other half(?)", one Diana Taylor (who has quite the resume herself). This reminded me of the interview I heard with Sam Waterston (among others I can't recall at the moment) where he is the spokesman for some "Third Party" organization (OK I'll Google it... Unity 08 http://www.unity08.com/buzzworthy/sam_main )where they want to try to pick a good third party candidate and Bloomberg is a name hotly mentioned in the literature. So of course I think that the puff piece is a groomer for the candidate to start to leak out the pertainant data required for a run.

Now, I don't know if what they say about Bloomberg is true, I do know that it'll become the slur on him, and so there needs to be a lady around, even if she's just chin hair or it not, there needs to be enough of an answer to that question.

I will say that I found it interesting that it was Waterston at the forefront of Unity'08 given that co-star Thompson was reportedly "mulling" a run for the office, and granted, SW has a monetary dog in this fight in that Fred's running would mean that the L&Os with him in would have to be shelved until after he lost (for myself, that would be fine, I would really like to start seeing the Michael Moriority eps again, but SW doesn't get residuals on those eps!)

The dollar dog to the heel, it still is more than a little telling that a co worker will come out with an "Anybody but this dufus, or a Democrat" effort. And Thompson will be running or not with a gigantic bullet hole in his foot (Maybe he'll claim a purple heart) I hope he runs and I hope they tag him but good (I'll keep dreaming).


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on August 13, 2007, 05:05:40 PM
Ober,

If you choose not to discuss educational issues on this thread is best exhibited by just not replying. Why announce your decision?

Notwithstanding, I think that the candidates should better address education as a campaign issue. There are more than 53 million school children in the US, and many of them are not getting a fair shake at the American Dream because their schools are understaffed and underresourced. I am concerned that the newest announcement from the House Committee on Educationa and Labor is that NCLB will be renewed, funding not increased, but they are going to add a requirement for "rigorous" curriculum to include "21st century skills". If by 21st century skills, George Miller is referring to computer skills, he needs to ante up the money for the hardware, software, and training to maximize it all. I coud advise him, if only he's ask. Perhaps, when I am finished with my current story, I should send the link to him, since he appears in the story, and maybe it will give him some ideas! Of course, since the story is written for elementary students, it does not go into the financing of the "new law", any more than NCLB goes into the financing of developing these new curricula and putting them into use.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: kidcarter8 on August 13, 2007, 05:21:15 PM
Supplies, my ass!

Biggest educational problem is getting the kids off the ipods and video games and Myspace pages/chatrooms and into their books - YEAH - WHATEVER ONES THEY HAVE!!!!!

Fuckin a-hole 2 income, vacation without the kids,  leave it to the nanny parents at the forefront.

(Disclaimer:  I do appreciate those that use the nanny system and still find the time to bond with/keep up with their children)

Sometimes the kid has a shit teacher, but the parents see this and can do some things within the system to right the ship

Sometimes the parents are AWOL and a great teacher can pretty much BE that child's life (BRAVO!).

When there exists BOTH, well.......................there's trouble.  How about we look at Europe and Asia and ask how THEY have fewer situations where the child is so rudderless, lacking both a solid home and educational base? 



Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: josh on August 13, 2007, 06:11:30 PM
How about we look at Europe and Asia and ask how THEY have fewer situations where the child is so rudderless, lacking both a solid home and educational base?

Increasingly, the Asian schools are seeing the same sorts of situations that we are. They are still 'behind' us, but as with everything else, they are closing the gap fast. In Japan and Korea, they have had major cheating scandals recently on their national standardized tests.

In England, the rudderless and unsuccessful students are so rampant that there is major national funding to understand what the problem is and what the solution is (or if there is one). In France, the immigrant population has been either rioting or on the edge of rioting for quite a while - and with the new government the prediction is for more of the same, not less.

Kid, you know better than to believe the U.S. government propaganda. Their propaganda is just as spun as ours.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: thecap0 on August 13, 2007, 08:01:11 PM
ober,

This goes to show how "Need" grows infinitely from want.


Let's see now.  Do you have a cell phone (Maybe with picture capabilities)? A blackberry? A WEii? An electronic day Planner?  A laptop?  Do your kids, if any, have a GameBoy? An X-Box? Separate rooms with a computer in each?

Unless you can answer each and every one of these with a "NO!", it seems to me that you might just be the living embodiment of wants morphing into needs.

If you DO have any or all of these, can you explain why you should have your wants fulfilled and not schools?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: josh on August 13, 2007, 08:34:46 PM
ober,

This goes to show how "Need" grows infinitely from want.


Let's see now.  Do you have (lots of things)?

Unless you can answer each and every one of these with a "NO!", it seems to me that you might just be the living embodiment of wants morphing into needs. If you DO have any or all of these, can you explain why you should have your wants fulfilled and not schools?

I  am not convinced that his having those things constitutes his needing them, either in his mind or in actuality.

And he gets his wants fulfilled because he controls his own budget. I am sure there have been times when he had things he did think were needs that were less forthcoming than they might be now.

Finally, "should" is problematic. It blames him for his life vs. the schools using a moral imperative. "What right do YOU have to have your desires met?" As soon as we look at the problem that way, I find that we create a new source of conflict that distracts from the ones we mean to focus on.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: Lhoffman on August 13, 2007, 08:41:48 PM
As to "rudderlessness"...there is a most interesting phenomenon among Japanese students known as Hikikomori.  The student withdraws from life in general and refuses in many cases to even leave his room.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: thecap0 on August 13, 2007, 08:43:59 PM
Josh,

I  am not convinced that his having those things constitutes his needing them, either in his mind or in actuality.

Exactly so!
I don't think I'm asking for a WANT when I say that I wish my Board of Education would provide up to date textbooks in sufficient quantity that I can give each of my students her/his own copy.
I don't think I'm asking for a WANT when I say that I wish my Board of Education would provide me as a teacher of geography with a set of wall maps which do not show the USSR in bright orange.
I will vote for any candidate who will promise me that (s)he will raise our taxes so that I can provide my students with these NEEDS.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: obertray on August 13, 2007, 08:50:59 PM
"If you choose not to discuss educational issues on this thread is best exhibited by just not replying. Why announce your decision?"
I thought I 'd give you the courtesy of explaining why I was changing the topic before I did so. Pardon my having manners.

Thecapo wrote:

My Christmas list and then
"Unless you can answer each and every one of these with a "NO!", it seems to me that you might just be the living embodiment of wants morphing into needs."

To which I would reply (if I were still talking about education here) Yeee AH and I'm the only one! I'm the guy who invented and promoted and supported consumerism.

My other answer would have been, You got a washing machine in the house? You own a car? You buy bottled spaghetti sauce? How's that air conditioner working? You'd better use it because you don't want to smell too loud because you don't buy anything that you don't NEED, like underarm deoderant!

No poop Capo, we're all victims of consumerism. Victims?  Probably more like acolytes! That's why saying "Fill our needs" is a bottomless pit. Just yesterday the lady from the county offices was in my office and she was saying that there were several things that were needed around the building that they wouldn't get until the end of the fiscal year when they saw how much money there was that they wouldn't want to give back, so that there budget wouldn't be cut next year.

I have children in schools, I want schools to have everything and a bag of chips. But I come at this from a political angle (given that this is the "Campaign Trail"  forum  not that I'm saying people ought to change their postings) and so I say that terms like Fully fund, and basic needs are worse than worthless terms because using them is like tearing off your right arm and giving it to your opponent to beat you with. Sorry, that's politics.

As to your poor analogy... I know that I am fulfilling wants when I buy the electronic crapola I buy. Even when the upgrade is business related I know it's because I want to make my life simpler (with the occasional required upgrade due to operating system compatibilities recognized as an exception.)


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: incadove0 on August 13, 2007, 08:57:04 PM
I will vote for any candidate who will promise me that (s)he will raise our taxes so that I can provide my students with these NEEDS.

If those students are to be cannon fodder in a draft they supported, I wouldn't.  Though I'd like to see all schools and teachers' salaries well funded.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: josh on August 13, 2007, 09:00:31 PM
That's why saying "Fill our needs" is a bottomless pit. Just yesterday the lady from the county offices was in my office and she was saying that there were several things that were needed around the building that they wouldn't get until the end of the fiscal year when they saw how much money there was that they wouldn't want to give back, so that there budget wouldn't be cut next year.

I have children in schools, I want schools to have everything and a bag of chips. But I come at this from a political angle (given that this is the "Campaign Trail"  forum  not that I'm saying people ought to change their postings) and so I say that terms like Fully fund, and basic needs are worse than worthless terms because using them is like tearing off your right arm and giving it to your opponent to beat you with. Sorry, that's politics.

You ignored or skipped past my comments on the subject of "fully fund."

And while you may dislike the phrases, you have yet to say "No, your school does not need a current map. And the notion that your students need to all have textbooks is terribly quaint." When Cap is specific about a particular need rather than a vagueness, it does not get answered - only the vague line of which the specific is a part gets a response.

I can see yours as a political angle - and a familiar one, at that.

So, given what Cap is saying he wants, how would you phrase it such that people with your perspective would actually respond to it?!


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: obertray on August 13, 2007, 09:55:12 PM
I have children in schools, I want schools to have everything and a bag of chips. But I come at this from a political angle (given that this is the "Campaign Trail"  forum  not that I'm saying people ought to change their postings) and so I say that terms like Fully fund, and basic needs are worse than worthless terms because using them is like tearing off your right arm and giving it to your opponent to beat you with. Sorry, that's politics.

You ignored or skipped past my comments on the subject of "fully fund."

Not intentionally. I agree with your definition of Fully Funded (And I thought your definition of  "Pledge" was well worded and funny) But your definition of fully funded and the one expounded by The Cap0 and Weezo are at odds.

And while you may dislike the phrases, you have yet to say "No, your school does not need a current map. And the notion that your students need to all have textbooks is terribly quaint."

Strawman much?

When Cap is specific about a particular need rather than a vagueness, it does not get answered - only the vague line of which the specific is a part gets a response.

I see so the new technology of this forum requires me to answer every post as it comes up even when it has come up while I'm responding to an earlier post. I responded to Thecap0's list (how that is classified as "vague" I'm not sure, perhaps there is a button on this forum that I haven't yet discovered that I accidently pushed so that my direct response appears as vague on your terminal). I did say however that I am in favor of schools getting what they need, but the list of needs seems to run from crayons to inventing the internet to maps of the world as if the geography has changed. The USSR is in orange, Horrors! Give a kid an extra credit assignment to paste up the new names of the countries since the Soviet Union broke up! Requisition a new map, by all means, but in the meantime, try a little creativeness!

I can see yours as a political angle - and a familiar one, at that.

So, given what Cap is saying he wants, how would you phrase it such that people with your perspective would actually respond to it?!
That's a semi fair question. Loaded with more shit than a Chrismas Goose,  (most of it wrong too) but one that I'll artlessly dodge by saying "I'm on your side and I'm tired of hearing the same lame argument again and again and again and so when you come at me with the same stuff, I'm going to shut you out because you show me that you have not even come halfway to meet me. ANd I'm on your side, halfway to me is still miles from our opposition"

We might recall that I was the one who offered the idea of making teachers wealthier by making their salaries tax free. At least that's something NEW! The response I got was "A 20% raise isn't enough". How about a 40% raise? Taxable, you'll be in the same place as my plan, but it'll cost the taxpayers twice as much, but that's ok with you all because that way it's done the way you think it should be done.

Forget the fact that Schools are paid for through Real Estate taxes, as opposed to my idea which is income tax funded. And so how much support for increased funding are you going to get in times when people are losing their homes to (what they will say is) "high real estate taxes."?


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: josh on August 13, 2007, 10:34:34 PM
I say that terms like Fully fund, and basic needs are worse than worthless terms ...Sorry, that's politics.

You ignored or skipped past my comments on the subject of "fully fund."

Not intentionally. I agree with your definition of Fully Funded (And I thought your definition of  "Pledge" was well worded and funny) But your definition of fully funded and the one expounded by The Cap0 and Weezo are at odds.

Ok. And thank you. And I think neither Cap nor Weezo have really put forth a clearly delineated sense of fully funded, beyond examples, as I noted elsewhere.

And while you may dislike the phrases, you have yet to say "No, your school does not need a current map. And the notion that your students need to all have textbooks is terribly quaint."

Strawman much?

Not intended as such, sorry. I am not looking for you to either say that or not say that. I am looking for you to say "Yes, I can see those as needs" or "I really don't think those are needs" or even "It is hard to say from here which are and are not needs, but I can understand why a teacher might perceive them to be needs."

When Cap is specific about a particular need rather than a vagueness, it does not get answered - only the vague line of which the specific is a part gets a response.

I see so the new technology of this forum requires me to answer every post as it comes up even when it has come up while I'm responding to an earlier post.

Yep! (Though to be honest, I thought I had looked at the sequence and that that was not what happened, it certainly could well have been! Wouldn't be my first time mistake of the day.)
I responded to Thecap0's list (how that is classified as "vague" I'm not sure, perhaps there is a button on this forum that I haven't yet discovered that I accidently pushed so that my direct response appears as vague on your terminal).

His list was not vague, but neither was it relevant to school needs. Your response to that was not vague and I was not suggesting that your responses were vague - merely responding to the less specific parts. (See above, about books and maps - and in this response from you, I note your comment on the maps question. Books are a bit harder.)


I can see yours as a political angle - and a familiar one, at that.

So, given what Cap is saying he wants, how would you phrase it such that people with your perspective would actually respond to it?!

That's a semi fair question. Loaded with more shit than a Chrismas Goose,  (most of it wrong too) but one that I'll artlessly dodge by saying "I'm on your side and I'm tired of hearing the same lame argument again and again and again and so when you come at me with the same stuff, I'm going to shut you out because you show me that you have not even come halfway to meet me. ANd I'm on your side, halfway to me is still miles from our opposition"

Ok. I am confused. Is your "quote" section directed at me or is it a response to what I asked for or is it a mock response that does not represent your actual view? The lack of tone over the net means that if I try to decide I know what you mean, I have a HUGE chance of being dead wrong.

We might recall that I was the one who offered the idea of making teachers wealthier by making their salaries tax free. At least that's something NEW! The response I got was "A 20% raise isn't enough". How about a 40% raise? Taxable, you'll be in the same place as my plan, but it'll cost the taxpayers twice as much, but that's ok with you all because that way it's done the way you think it should be done.

Your math does not work. If teachers end up with the same amount of take home money, then the plan has not cost the tax payers twice as much - though it changes where in the tax stream it comes from as you note. And, speaking of strawmen, I have not advocated either in favor of or against your notion, nor for an X% increase. So, you really don't know how I think it should be done. (For what it is worth, I am still working that out for myself!)
 
Forget the fact that Schools are paid for through Real Estate taxes, as opposed to my idea which is income tax funded. And so how much support for increased funding are you going to get in times when people are losing their homes to (what they will say is) "high real estate taxes."?

We can't get the current salaries paid a good chunk of the time, let alone raises of a substantial sort. And more than not, I am unconvinced that the teachers merit pay increases beyond (or including) COLA. The reason to raise the pay, if any, is to change who goes into the field. Unfortunately, I have seen enough research and experiments to be fairly sure that increasing the pay any reasonable amount (less than double) will fail to make a major change in who is teaching - meaning we pay more without getting more. But the nature of who is teaching is a longer issue - TOTALLY relevant to this discussion, but not for this sub-thread.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: thecap0 on August 13, 2007, 10:49:38 PM
Josh,

Unfortunately, I have seen enough research and experiments to be fairly sure that increasing the pay any reasonable amount (less than double) will fail to make a major change in who is teaching - meaning we pay more without getting more.

I suppose, then, that the answer lies in MORE than doubling teachers' pay.
Not to brag on myself, but I am an Ivy League grad (Columbia, 19XX) with an earned doctorate and 43 years of experience teaching.
I do agree that the minimum qualification for teaching in secondary school ought to be a master's degree in the content areas.  Next, "education" as a major needs to be eliminated.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: josh on August 13, 2007, 11:32:18 PM
Josh,

Unfortunately, I have seen enough research and experiments to be fairly sure that increasing the pay any reasonable amount (less than double) will fail to make a major change in who is teaching - meaning we pay more without getting more.

I suppose, then, that the answer lies in MORE than doubling teachers' pay.
Not to brag on myself, but I am an Ivy League grad (Columbia, 19XX) with an earned doctorate and 43 years of experience teaching.
I do agree that the minimum qualification for teaching in secondary school ought to be a master's degree in the content areas.  Next, "education" as a major needs to be eliminated.

I, on the other hand, am a multiple-college dropout who has also not finished graduate school (but has gone), and with (a mere) 30+ years of teaching.

The problem is this: It is not the money that you teach for. Nor the summers off. Nor why Weezo taught. And this is why the money is really not the fix, for all that I wish it were that easy. Schools are not home to intellectual thought. I never hung out at the public schools I taught in for the conversation. A small percentage of teachers are both bright and like to think. Few enough of the others fall into either category. Until a school is a place in which a smart person would like to hang out, we will have a hard time keeping the bright ones and luring more.

*climbs off soapbox*

Remind me to tell you about the teacher search at my school when we had an opening. I think it will communicate better than what I have already said what I am talking about.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: incadove0 on August 13, 2007, 11:33:39 PM
Equally funded.

We hear from teachers who are underfunded, but not as much from those who report how lovely it is to have sufficient funds for supplies in the district they work for.

Why should it be any different elsewhere?  



Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on August 14, 2007, 12:38:40 AM
Inca,

We may not hear from those teachers who are well supplied with their wants as well as their needs because it is safer to just be smug and enjoy your job, than to spout off and have some politician come in and cut you off at the knees. One of my sisters is getting her masters through an online program, and there is one teacher who is well supplied with technology. He has two Smart Boards in his classroom, not in the building to be shared with whomever signs them out first, but in his classroom. Chris says that his attitude is that he's been teaching long enough to have "earned" these perks.

By comparison, most of the rest of the teachers in her courses, do not have a computer in their room for their own or instructional use - they have to mosey on down to the library or computer lab after hours, or, as most do, use their home computer instead of being supplied with the "perks" that sit on every secretary's desk in the business world. A few have those laptop carts shared with the whole building so that teachers have a difficult time learning how to make the most effective use of them. The last semester I taught before retirement, I subbed at a favorite school that had a cart system, that was heavily used on one other teacher. I planned lessons carefully around her schedule to use them in my room as often as they suited the lesson. I would have really preferred to have them always available so I could use them on-the-spot rather than with prior coordination and planning. With a decent computer in the classroom, even if only one, I was able to enforce one of my favorite rules for students - all assignment are to be completed even if it is after the deadline. I just sat the deadbeats down at my computer and told them to do the assignment while I went on with the scheduled lesson. It was a rude awakening to some of the students, but it instilled in them the need to complete everything assigned and not say "just give me a zero", when they didn't want to do a particular assignment. I had found the same method useful in teaching special ed kids in earlier years, some of whom arrived in high school with the notion that they would just be passed along whether they did or learned anything or not. The buck stopped in my classroom, and to the surprise of the slugs, they did find learning more interesting when they couldn't just cop out of it.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: incadove0 on August 14, 2007, 04:22:34 AM
He has two Smart Boards in his classroom, not in the building to be shared with whomever signs them out first, but in his classroom. Chris says that his attitude is that he's been teaching long enough to have "earned" these perks.

It's sad when people don't see that it has nothing to do with what teachers have earned, but what every child deserves and has a right to.



Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: incadove0 on August 14, 2007, 04:29:00 AM
But what would the country come to if education were truly equal?  We might not have any more cannon fodder. 
 
The cannon fodder might expect better.  Just imagine where they might go if they had decent maps!

Certainly not the Middle East, I'd imagine.  Maybe Canada, though.

But they need teachers who understand those maps too.  I once met an inner city teacher who didn't know the name of the next county or how to get there.

That is the true meaning of "ghetto."



Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: thecap0 on August 14, 2007, 05:50:14 AM
inca,

But what would the country come to if education were truly equal?  We might not have any more cannon fodder.

Precisely so!!

The alphas need a constant supply of deltas and epsilons to grind up in the military/industrial/prison complex.

The dirty little not-so-secret is that the power elites really do not want minority kids educated, for that would dry up their cannon fodder supply.  Of course, they open the gate just wide enough to let a few through.  That way, they can convince themselves that they really are not discriminating against anyone.

If anyone doubts this, let them spend a week in any inner-city high school in the country.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: josh on August 14, 2007, 06:31:14 AM
inca,

But what would the country come to if education were truly equal?  We might not have any more cannon fodder.

Precisely so!!

The alphas need a constant supply of deltas and epsilons to grind up in the military/industrial/prison complex.

The dirty little not-so-secret is that the power elites really do not want minority kids educated, for that would dry up their cannon fodder supply.  Of course, they open the gate just wide enough to let a few through.  That way, they can convince themselves that they really are not discriminating against anyone.

If anyone doubts this, let them spend a week in any inner-city high school in the country.

And this is how I separate out the true liberals from the liberals who are not paying attention.

The education lottery, where just enough win to give the others hope - and to make it easier to blame themselves and despair when they and theirs do not make it out, and to allow the conservatives and unbeknighted to join in that blame game. "It's the exception that proves the rule."

The problem is, I am fairly well convinced it is mostly accidental and unconscious, and that if it were being actively planned it could not be done nearly so effectively.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on August 14, 2007, 06:58:11 AM
Just so,

In my years as a pioneer on the cutting edge of the new use of the Internet for instruction of the special needs students, I ran into a whole lot of objections saying that "computers are wasted on special ed students", indicating that a lot of people, especially those sitting in the big chairs, didn't give a rat's a** whether or not these children could become productive members of society, or just more cannon fodder. A few of my students have turned out to beat the odds. I suspect that most of those I know nothing about now that they are in their late thirties and early forties, have not done anything exceptional. But I know that a few have, and among that few are some students who not only overcame barriers because of their learning disabilities but barriers due to their race, in a state where there is still a fair degree of prejudice even tho it is not as open as it once was.

Personally, I think a lot of the objection to using computers as widely in education as they are used in the working world is due to the fact that a lot of people fear that if the lower classes get the opportunities to really excel, it will push those upper class children out of their "rightful place in society". Computers are great levelers, as we see with the outsourcing of computer operations to India, etc.




Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: Dzimas on August 14, 2007, 08:43:36 AM
There is no doubt that the computer is a great tool, but it doesn't replace traditional learning skills.  If I can use architecture as an example, the better AutoCAD users are those who have developed drawing skills prior to learning the computer.  They have a better sense of how to make a computer-generated drawing have a better rendered look, rather than simply be a computer-generated drawing.  Similarly, I think good reading and writing skills come from books, not computers, as banal as books may seem these days.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: kidcarter8 on August 14, 2007, 11:08:16 AM


Personally, I think a lot of the objection to using computers as widely in education as they are used in the working world is due to the fact that a lot of people fear that if the lower classes get the opportunities to really excel, it will push those upper class children out of their "rightful place in society". Computers are great levelers, as we see with the outsourcing of computer operations to India, etc.




You're a total moron


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: josh on August 14, 2007, 11:18:21 AM
There is no doubt that the computer is a great tool, but it doesn't replace traditional learning skills.  If I can use architecture as an example, the better AutoCAD users are those who have developed drawing skills prior to learning the computer.  They have a better sense of how to make a computer-generated drawing have a better rendered look, rather than simply be a computer-generated drawing.  Similarly, I think good reading and writing skills come from books, not computers, as banal as books may seem these days.

Good reading skills, for most kids, certainly do come from books. Good writing skills pretty much never came from books and still don't. How people write and the variety of things that people write are certainly informed by their reading, but finding one's own voice comes from a different place.

What makes computers far more useful than books for writing instruction is that it lends itself to so many different types of writing approaches. But... that said, what truly makes them necessary is that they are the key to the future for these kids. A student who does not know how to use one will have huge parts of the work and communication world shut to him or her. It is like saying to a 10 year old "We will not allow you to make more than X dollars as an adult."


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: obertray on August 14, 2007, 11:38:15 AM
Not to put too fine a point on it but my children go to inner city public schools in this country. Truth be told they are getting a good education.

Yes, the science class had 0 none zip zilcherino books for the first few months, and the English class's literature books had been stolen over the summer so we had to adjust for that. Yes the principal's are generally meatheads whose only concern seems to be getting through the day without being shived themselves. The petty problem of a "rich white families'" little girl having an incompetent math teacher is easy for him to avoid.

But then there are the teachers, who can guide and inspire a class  (hell, a district) of students to pass the Math A regents exam. My elder daughter's 7th grade Math teacher had a motorcycle accident in Sept of that year, and the rest of the year was catch as catch can for substitutes, 8th grade was a missionary from the Congo, who discovered that we didn't need missionaries from the Congo here and went into teaching math as a survival technique, believe me his teaching was "from hunger". In ninth grade the teacher was able to catch her up such that she scored a 90 on the regents, held in January. Nobody in his school failed the regents, the rest of the district has adopted his schedule concept so that they have the same review time, scores have gone up across the district. Point being, teachers teach.

Second point being... My children are not being treated as potential cannon fodder. Making statements in that vein just serves to polarize the debate and should be avoided.

Josh,
While I like your rant, I will say that you point out the reason for your problem. The problem is getting bright inquisitive people to want to be teachers the reason they don't want to be is that they know that teaching will generally become a mind numbing experience more akin to factory work than  "imagineering".

My brother, at 55 has gone back to school to get a degree with which he may become a math teacher in his local highschool (his son is the science teacher there). The problem as we discussed t before is that the first question to a math teacher is "why would you want to be a math teacher, don't you know there is more money to be made 'out there' for someone of your skills?" it's true. And it's not a matter of a 100% more money either.

But I do think that you are on the right path there, If the teaching profession was more revered and teachers were seen as the intellectuals then there would be a better pool to draw from.And there would be more monies allocated towards them.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: josh on August 14, 2007, 12:28:42 PM
Not to put too fine a point on it but my children go to inner city public schools in this country. Truth be told they are getting a good education.

Yes, the science class had 0 none zip zilcherino books for the first few months, and the English class's literature books had been stolen over the summer so we had to adjust for that. Yes the principal's are generally meatheads whose only concern seems to be getting through the day without being shived themselves. The petty problem of a "rich white families'" little girl having an incompetent math teacher is easy for him to avoid.

But then there are the teachers, who can guide and inspire a class  (hell, a district) of students to pass the Math A regents exam. <snip> In ninth grade the teacher was able to catch her up such that she scored a 90 on the regents, held in January. Nobody in his school failed the regents, the rest of the district has adopted his schedule concept so that they have the same review time, scores have gone up across the district. Point being, teachers teach.

This is very much the crux of the problem, as the electorate goes.

Truth be told they are not getting a good education.

You outline the problems, the inadequacy, and then note that some of the teachers are doing their jobs or can make up for the inadequacies, that things are not only adequate, they are good! Your standards are lower than mine, or something.

The teacher who is brilliant enough to make up for the absence of teaching the year before should, instead, be helping these kids to fly so much further, but is trapped in catch-up mode. Lack of books, poor math teachers... these are what we are accepting in our schools - or if not so much accepting, then throwing up our hands and admitting that it is beyond our control (when it is only beyond our immediate control).

This is not a good education. The amount that is expected of students to learn in a year has little or no pedagogical or psychological basis. The Regents Exams, while more rigorous than many state tests, is hardly an elevated plateau. Granted, it makes the MCAS and other such 'tests' look even more like jokes than they do by themselves, but that hardly makes the Regents actually praiseworthy.

The biggest problem I have with NCLB is that it gives the unthinking false hope and belief in our schools while penalizing the students of this country - especially at the top and bottom of the talent pool.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on August 14, 2007, 12:33:28 PM
The advantages of reading on the Internet in addition to books, is that the screen can be controlled for the reader's needs. This may not be too important to a majority of people, but for people with low vision, no vision, and/or visually related learning disabilities, the computer can provide option that cannot be duplicated as easily and cheaply as on the computer. Some of my students could read significantly better with certain color combinations between text and background. A significant number of them could focus on the words better with a blue or yellow background. In addition, depending on how the content is made, you can adjust the size of the text on the screen. Some fancy-schmantzy web designers thwart the ability to change the text size, which is advantageous even to someone like me, who is suffering from glacoma and my field of vision is diminishing and my glasses never seem to suit my needs in reading.

Another advantage of reading on the Internet is that there is a vast library of books in the public domain that have been converted to text, and can be read easily online. If you really want to read sitting on the john, you can print up the current chapter and enjoy away. Again, in printing from the Internet, you can print the text in the size and color of your preferrence. Of course, newer books may not be available yet, but they are often pretty quick in coming in text, as many blind people now read by speech reader rather than by books-on-tape or using braille. For those who prefer braille, a special (expensive) printer can convert any text to braille on demand.

As to writing, if children learn the keyboard when the learn the alphabet (my own recommendation - I don't know if any experts have expressed this), they can very easily write their thoughts on a keyboard long before handwritting is good enough to express their thoughts. Young children also do well at dictating a story. I used to have them dictate it to me since I was never at a place that had voice input on the computers, and the one child that I was able to talk the parents into trying it, got frustrated when she spent weeks programming the input to her deep country southern accent, only to lose in in a harddrive crash just after she got it working. The stories that children dictate at the Kindergarten and First Grade level are much more sophisticated than what they write in handwriting at that age. The tedious forming of the letters severely inhibits their ability to keep a story thought in mind.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: obertray on August 14, 2007, 01:07:41 PM
"You outline the problems, the inadequacy, and then note that some of the teachers are doing their jobs or can make up for the inadequacies, that things are not only adequate, they are good! Your standards are lower than mine, or something."

I'm sorry, is there some way that you know my daughter that hasn't been disclosed, or are you using her for your stalking horse?

What standard do you want to use? The SAT's? Well she hasn't taken that yet but she did far above the norm on the PSATs. The district we go to has a well developed set of AP courses which are matriculable as college credits... Uhhh, is that a fair enough standard?

I will say that this school district also does extremely poorly in the state standardized tests and has an exceptionally large porportion of "free lunchers" in the mix.

I am one of the people who believe that the problems in schools is not in the schools. Schools are a coalmine canary for society in general.

This is not to say that schools can't be better, they can be, they should be. This is not to say that we as a society shouldn't put a greater valuation to intellect, we should.

This election is not about those things however, and school funding in this election cycle will be about as important as ... as...as... tell you the truth, I can't think of something that will resonate less with voters... I wanted to say Abortion Rights, but those people are organized, heck, I think Cuba will be more important to voters than Schools will by next year.

Thing you have to remember about school is that everybody went through it and everybody conjures up their worst teachers with ease when they are asked to be negative about school, which is the popular position in this country.

"Your math does not work. If teachers end up with the same amount of take home money, then the plan has not cost the tax payers twice as much - though it changes where in the tax stream it comes from as you note. And, speaking of strawmen, I have not advocated either in favor of or against your notion, nor for an X% increase. So, you really don't know how I think it should be done. (For what it is worth, I am still working that out for myself!)"

So I'm not leaving this hanging....

Actually the math on the payer's side works out pretty close to double what the increased salary (taxable) is in that you have to pay the increase, you have to pay the tax on the increas and you have to pay the SSI FICA on the increase and then there are the administrative costs involved with facillitating this transfer of wealth.

On the reciever's side the math is further from the truth but still beyond the midway point between actual and hype (closer to the actual than to the hype). The 40% increase from 50M to 70M would mean that the taxes taken out would raise from average 15% to average 17.5% so your take home is around 52M (After fed and SSI) versus 47.5M if it were tax free. So a 40% increase gives you about 10% more in your pocket.

you seem to be a reasonable guy Josh, and you seem to want to take the role of moderating effect, so I'm not attributing the statements of others to you, or giving you false arguments (ala Strawmanning)  I'm just using the tax example to demonstrate that I AM on the side of a more fully funded teacher and school district, but that I think it has been approached wrongly.
 



Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: obertray on August 14, 2007, 01:24:27 PM
"I used to have them dictate it to me since I was never at a place that had voice input on the computers, and the one child that I was able to talk the parents into trying it, got frustrated when she spent weeks programming the input to her deep country southern accent, only to lose in in a harddrive crash just after she got it working."

What? You've never heard of a tape recorder?

The great problem with reading on the internet is the ease with which books can get Orwelled!

History can be changed overnight when there is nothing but the internet to document it.

Seriously, your advocating for your pet project, and I respect the effort you put into it, but it's not germaine to the election. schools have computers now, maybe they're shared but most schools have computers and a paid IT position to keep them running.

I will say that my mother (who spent many years teaching innercity high schoolers how to read at a basic level) was not a fan of the computers and programs available at the time (in the '80s '90s) saying that the problem is that the kids are smart enough to figure out that the computer will give them the right answer if they just keep banging A. B. C. D. randomly on the multiple choice exercizes. "Wrong try again. Wrong try again. Congratulations!" "Wrong try again. Wrong try again. Wrong try again. Congratulations!" Congratulations!" "Wrong try again...." they'll do that all day, they don't have to pay attention at all. At least this was how it worked at the time.

Maybe what we could do is use the internet and connect our students to a one on one teacher in India! that way we could fire two thirds of our teachers Pay the India teachers with half the savings and split up the money among the ones who remain! Just kidding...sorta'.

You know I bet I could make money with that idea.



Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: josh on August 14, 2007, 01:55:29 PM
"You outline the problems, the inadequacy, and then note that some of the teachers are doing their jobs or can make up for the inadequacies, that things are not only adequate, they are good! Your standards are lower than mine, or something."

I'm sorry, is there some way that you know my daughter that hasn't been disclosed, or are you using her for your stalking horse?

Bwa ha ha ha...

No, I don't know her. My point is that your standard for a good education is low. I am using only the information you provided me. I suspect that had she taken the SAT as a 7th grader, that her scores would have been commensurate with those of college bound seniors. The SAT is a mildly useful tool, but for an individual it speaks less to schooling than it does to many other factors.

*shrugs* If you believe she is getting a good education, I doubt that I am going to be able to shake that belief. My suspicion is that her education may be fine but that her schooling is uneven at best and if she is well prepared leaving high school that it will be more due to home than school.

Thing you have to remember about school is that everybody went through it and everybody conjures up their worst teachers with ease when they are asked to be negative about school, which is the popular position in this country.

They also remember all the news reports about the terrible things going on in other people's schools - and the less than informed people they meet day to day.

I deal with kids, parents, and educators from all over the country (and a few other countries, but not many). I am not going from interviews or news reports. I deal with two types of educators: a) the ones who are trying to figure out how to meet the needs of the kids that we share, and b) the ones who are resistant to doing just that, for whatever reason. (The number of folks who have tried to get me to change my mindset on that by telling me that 'if my attitude is negative walking in then it is no wonder I have these issues, and if I would just play nice I would not get that resistance' is fairly large and, unfortunately, mistaken.)

Dollar calculations will be by PM or not at all.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: incadove0 on August 14, 2007, 02:36:59 PM
My children are not being treated as potential cannon fodder.

That is nice for your children.

Making statements in that vein just serves to polarize the debate

You are as polarized as you choose to be. 

and should be avoided.

Avoid away, then.  I will continue to exercise my first amendment rights on behalf of the American cannon fodder not as fortunate as your own, and refuse to support any candidate who cannot demonstrate their commitment to a non-militaristic future, and thus, their ability to put their money where their mouth is as far as funding for equal education for ALL students is concerned.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: obertray on August 14, 2007, 02:56:16 PM
"I suspect that had she taken the SAT as a 7th grader, that her scores would have been commensurate with those of college bound seniors."

Come on, quit Joshing me!

This is telling me that you believe that the information needed to do well on the SAT is taught by the 7th grade.

It has been a long time since I have seen an SAT (or seventh grade) but, I'm willing to put your theory to the test. I happen to have another daughter who just finished 7th grade and we have an SAT study book with a disc. Maybe I'll have them both take the test (I'm willing, but then I'm not the one taking the test). Just to see if you're right.

[Avoid away, then.  I will continue to exercise my first amendment rights on behalf of the American cannon fodder not as fortunate as your own, and refuse to support any candidate who cannot demonstrate their commitment to a non-militaristic future, and thus, their ability to put their money where their mouth is as far as funding for equal education for ALL students is concerned.


Incadove0,

Thank you for being the person I use to explain this.

There is a tendency of people to adopt a philosophy that follows this logic: 'A' is not equal to 'B', therefore 'A' Equals 'Not B'.

It's the most popular rhetorical device in the modern political dialog, it's the genesis of statements such as "Either you're with us or you're with the terrorists!" Because of course if you are 'A' and I am 'B' then if you are not with me than you must be against me.

While I disagree with your assumption that all inner city school students are being kept down so that they may be used as cannon fodder (and I proved that you are wrong, but don't let that get in your way) it doesn't mean that I don't support an end to a military based economy.

I am against single issue voting, however. I find that it blinds people to the realities of the political world.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: incadove0 on August 14, 2007, 03:37:23 PM
It's the most popular rhetorical device in the modern political dialog, it's the genesis of statements such as "Either you're with us or you're with the terrorists!" Because of course if you are 'A' and I am 'B' then if you are not with me than you must be against me.

Since you are the one who expressed feeling polarized, let's remember that this statement applies to yourself.

While I disagree with your assumption that all inner city school students are being kept down so that they may be used as cannon fodder

Please point out where I said anything so simplistically literalistic.

I am against single issue voting, however.

Please point out where I said anything about supporting a candidate based on one issue only.

BTW, misrepresenting another person's POV is a common rhetorical device known as "strawmen."



Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: josh on August 14, 2007, 04:13:07 PM
"I suspect that had she taken the SAT as a 7th grader, that her scores would have been commensurate with those of college bound seniors."

Come on, quit Joshing me!

This is telling me that you believe that the information needed to do well on the SAT is taught by the 7th grade.

It has been a long time since I have seen an SAT (or seventh grade) but, I'm willing to put your theory to the test. I happen to have another daughter who just finished 7th grade and we have an SAT study book with a disc. Maybe I'll have them both take the test (I'm willing, but then I'm not the one taking the test). Just to see if you're right.

Edited to add: I do not think that how an entering college freshman does constitutes well or even close. If she beats them, she will have done well for her age.

Please do. I wish we had had this conversation a few months ago, so she could have taken the SAT in 7th grade the way her peers did from hundreds of junior highs around the country! If your younger girl does about what I expect (anywhere in the 460 - 540 range on the M and/or V and/or both sections) then she stands a good chance of qualifying for a couple of national programs. But again, we can take this off the campaign trail!

I know hundreds or maybe thousands who have done this over the last 20 years.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: incadove0 on August 14, 2007, 04:35:51 PM
(and I proved that you are wrong, but don't let that get in your way)

You proved nothing wrong since (1) you made up the position you then "disagreed" with, and (2) personal experience shared over the internet is not "proof," though this point is irrelevant, since you are down on count (1).

I am against single issue voting, however. I find that it blinds people to the realities of the political world.

If someone's opinion dictates to them the great importance of one single issue, I think they should vote the way they think.  Now that doesn't mean I vote on single issues, nor does it mean that I wouldn't.

But spare me "the realities of the political world."  The reality of the political world is that most people, behind the curtain, vote the two party system, the money behind commercial campaigns, along with a bunch of manipulated prejudices, ignorance, and the convenient political machine fictions, oft pushed, that there's no other way to do this.







Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: obertray on August 14, 2007, 04:46:28 PM
It's the most popular rhetorical device in the modern political dialog, it's the genesis of statements such as "Either you're with us or you're with the terrorists!" Because of course if you are 'A' and I am 'B' then if you are not with me than you must be against me.

Since you are the one who expressed feeling polarized, let's remember that this statement applies to yourself.

Yeah...No! I didn't express a feeling of polarization I expressed an opinion that certain concepts are so far from the center that they define the extreme position (the pole). But, nice try I guess.

While I disagree with your assumption that all inner city school students are being kept down so that they may be used as cannon fodder
Please point out where I said anything so simplistically literalistic.

You mean like this?

But what would the country come to if education were truly equal?  We might not have any more cannon fodder.  
  
The cannon fodder might expect better.  Just imagine where they might go if they had decent maps!

Certainly not the Middle East, I'd imagine.  Maybe Canada, though.


I am against single issue voting, however.
Please point out where I said anything about supporting a candidate based on one issue only.

BTW, misrepresenting another person's POV is a common rhetorical device known as "strawmen."



Please point out where I said that you were about supporting a candidate based on one issue only.

There's only one way to deal with strawmen and that's to throw the haymaker!


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: obertray on August 14, 2007, 05:10:10 PM
"I suspect that had she taken the SAT as a 7th grader, that her scores would have been commensurate with those of college bound seniors."

Come on, quit Joshing me!

This is telling me that you believe that the information needed to do well on the SAT is taught by the 7th grade.

It has been a long time since I have seen an SAT (or seventh grade) but, I'm willing to put your theory to the test. I happen to have another daughter who just finished 7th grade and we have an SAT study book with a disc. Maybe I'll have them both take the test (I'm willing, but then I'm not the one taking the test). Just to see if you're right.

Edited to add: I do not think that how an entering college freshman does constitutes well or even close. If she beats them, she will have done well for her age.

Please do. I wish we had had this conversation a few months ago, so she could have taken the SAT in 7th grade the way her peers did from hundreds of junior highs around the country! If your younger girl does about what I expect (anywhere in the 460 - 540 range on the M and/or V and/or both sections) then she stands a good chance of qualifying for a couple of national programs. But again, we can take this off the campaign trail!

I know hundreds or maybe thousands who have done this over the last 20 years.

That's very interesting information.

My brother administers a school in arab world where the determinant of success is the score on the SAT. That the students may take the SAT as many times as it takes for them to get good scores is not really the point here. The point is that the SAT is a widely accepted norm by which student ability is rated. Mensa at least used to accept an outstanding score on the SAT as qualifier for inclusion. In its own way I guess that goes to show that it is less about academics and more about native intellect... I guess.

So yes, you've proved that you have a higher standard than I when it comes to what a good education is. However, I can say that we have several friends in the area who send their children to private schools and the education their children are getting is miles behind what my children are getting, many MILES! I feel confident that there are schools that do offer a better learning environment than the ones in our district, but ours is widely seen as a premier place for the exceptional student to be challenged. Is it perfect, hell no! Is it "fully funded"? Not by any definition that has been offered here. Does it serve its community? I'd have to say yes and no. If a student stays in school there are educational platforms for students interested in pursuing occupations, trades, careers and professions. However, the dropout rate is very high (as is the teenaged pregnancy rate) and so there is that portion of the community that will not be well served.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: incadove0 on August 14, 2007, 07:44:59 PM
There's only one way to deal with strawmen and that's to throw the haymaker!

Very well, you are thrown.  I shall talk to you again when you are no longer speaking only to yourself.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: weezo on August 14, 2007, 08:05:45 PM
Maybe you are right that education will not be a campaign issue.

But, if a candidate mentions his/her goals for education, my ears will perk up. Will I vote for the person only on that basis, no. I have no intention of voting for a Republican no matter how nice they talk. So, it's either a Democrat or an Independent for me. So far, I like Obama the best, even if Hillary did pull the rug out from under him. She's a savvy team player, which is not what I want in a president, but I'll still vote for her over any Republican. Depends on who the Independent candidate is.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: madupont on August 14, 2007, 09:44:05 PM
weezo, that girl you took dictation from and who had her story crash is as a matter of fact going to be a well-known writer some day.  I can guarantee it,as they say in New Orleans.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: madupont on August 14, 2007, 09:54:34 PM
obertray

I'm afraid you could not get rid of 2/3rds of the teachers by hiring teachers in India to deal with classes over the computer. Your math is wrong.
There is so much population in India that the teachers who teach the classes you are thinking about are over worked.  The teachers who are really excellent teach one on one and for that you have to start learning Sanskrit. You could perhaps do this by computer, learn Sanskrit, whether you could get the excellent teacher to teach by computer is another matter. 

Perhaps your math is in keeping with the schools that you have mentioned but in what "inner city". I lived in one for awhile and after all these years learned that my friend the civil rights lawyer who represented my interests died without being able to change the attitude of the city fathers or the citizens in half a century as to what integrated schooling really is.  Therefore people of my generation and younger for quite some time did not get mathematics classes up to par. When they were bussed they did get what white students had been receiving, sometimes all day they had that, but many opted out when they were bused back to the inner city at lunch time because they could not eat together in the North. People of intelligence generally get severely frustrated with the discrimination that the privileged have no sense of whatsoever, and therefore they dig in and go their own route, eventually leaving their peers well behind.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: madupont on August 14, 2007, 10:44:25 PM
obertray
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/15/world/asia/15india.html?hp


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: Dzimas on August 15, 2007, 01:23:51 AM
Good reading skills, for most kids, certainly do come from books. Good writing skills pretty much never came from books and still don't. How people write and the variety of things that people write are certainly informed by their reading, but finding one's own voice comes from a different place.

Have to disagree with you on this one.  I get far more out of reading than I do the computer, especially when it comes to appreciating good writing.  Whether you choose to read the printed word on computer or in a book is a matter of choice, but a good book still wins out in my mind.  Call me anachronistic, but whenever I go on vacation I make the conscious choice to stay away from computers, and I feel much better for it, even if I have to sort through a mountain of e-mail when I get back.

As far as "voices," most are affected anyway.  The "voice" is predominantly shaped by peer groups and television, but the better literary voices usually come through books, modified and shaped to suit one's personal inclinations.


Title: Re: Campaign Trail
Post by: Dzimas on August 15, 2007, 01:30:50 AM
One great advantage to the Internet is that it has allowed more persons to get published through amazon and other on-line publishing services, which will print and sell books on an order basis, provided you put up the cash.  Same for recordings.  The Internet also allows one access