How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Not a Neener Neener Neener Post.   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  ]
 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Not a Neener Neener Neener Post.

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


100 posted 11-13-2008 09:02 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

I would love to not have suspicions of malicious intent, Karen. Of course we all want good and true leadership and I wish I didn't have this horrible feeling of foreboding.

It probably has a lot to do with the "required" aspect of it in all these new Corps that he says he is starting. And if the college plan is truly just a tax credit for voluntary service and isn't required as it says it is in the first word of the statement, then I would think it would be a good idea. I also am suspicious of the fact that the wording on his websites was constantly changing as soon as someone shed a spotlight on a particular item of concern.

My suspicions are probably also fueled by the fact that Obama hasn't exactly been an open book. He has sealed every record concerning his birth, his education, both here and in Indonesia, his college thesis, his activities as a community organizer, his activities as a lawyer,etc. Too much mystery surrounding him: his past, his admiration for Saul Alinsky, his associations with anti-American radicals, his work with Bill Ayers in disbursing money to Chicago area schools to implement programs in line with Ayers radical views, and his attending a church for 20 years that espoused anti-American and anti-white rhetoric, and then saying he never heard such things while he attended, was not the least bit credible, to me.

I'm also not comforted by the fact that his election has been praised by the likes of Hamas, Hugo Chavez, and The Communist Party USA.

And of course we have to keep an eye on those in power. But I think folks should have questioned and investigated what these proposals were all about before he was elected to the most powerful position in the world.


  
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


101 posted 11-13-2008 09:50 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Ok, Grinch, unless you can point me to a reference to prove your point, we will have to agree to disagree on the rich not spending money. I have no references for my side of that argument. I can only base my thoughts on personal references. I actually associate with a fairly large crowd of "rich" individuals and I can assure you they spend money. They are rich because they spend money to make money and not just squander it.

If the market is stagnant or shrinking unemployment in manufacturing and service industries will rise.

I thought that was the point I was trying to make. Unemployment rising would mean fewer people employed which would mean fewer people having money which means less chance of eliminating the stagnation. More people being employed would be more people working which would mean more people earning a salary and more people with purchasing power which means stimulating a stagnant economy. More people being employed would result from companies hiring them which has a better chance of occuring if their corporate taxes are not raised, rather than being raised.  That is my view, although i will be the first to say I'm not either an economist nor am I even that knowledgable of economic practices.....and my head spins even thinking about it

one way would be a re-distribution of wealth via tax changes to increase consumer demand by giving the money to people whoíll spend it.

Is it such a radical idea to give the people who need it and will spend it the "opportunity" to earn it by giving them jobs to earn it (which relates to my above paragraph) instead of just "giving" it to them? I may be wrong but your posts read to me like you favor the Robin Hood approach of taking from the rich to give to the poor instead of giving the poor the opportunities to earn it, which will also make the rich richer, in which case everyone gains. It's not because Sherwood Forest was in England, is it?

Another would be for the government to manipulate the market by increasing public funded works, building bridges, repairing roads, constructing dams etc. Because the work is passed to private contractors this has the benefit of stimulating the construction sector and at the same time promotes employment and increases consumer spending - more people earning money means more people spending money.

Now you are talking. That's what I've been trying to say is the ideal way, in my opinion. That has nothing to with taking from the rich to give to the poor. I don't understand why this would not be THE way, instead of ANOTHER way. Yes, FDR did this very admirably.

As I say, economics is not my forte. I just try to use the best man on the street  thinking I can to come up with my conclusions. No one will ever name an economic practice after me but I guess I side with the "teach a man to fish" idea of economy stimulation and I won't agree with the 'raise the taxes' mindset to solve whatever problems come on the scene nor would I ever be accused of cutting open the goose to get at the golden eggs.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


102 posted 11-13-2008 10:45 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

Mike, even if we agreed that raising taxes increases unemployment (and I don't think it does), it doesn't necessarily follow that we shouldn't raise taxes. Following your logic, we would have to conclude that paying ANY tax would result in fewer jobs. If our only goal is to stimulate employment, it would seem that business should be exempt from all taxes? And while we're at it, they should probably be exempt from minimum wage requirements, OSHA, and anything else that costs them money. Then they can afford to employ more people?

It's a balancing act, Mike. Paying too much tax hurts the economy. Paying too little hurts society. The problem we have right now, I think, is the result of trying to have it both ways. People want to spend the money to avoid hurting society without simultaneously raising that money to pay the bills being incurred. How many households or businesses do you know that can run year after year after year with more expense than revenue?

The time to think about not raising taxes was before we spent the money.


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


103 posted 11-14-2008 12:31 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Well, Ron, of course our only goal is not stimulating the economy. Taxes are used for more things than that..like defense, infrastructure and the like. Even if you don't feel that raising taxes don't raise unemployment, do you at least feel that raising corporate taxes will raise the prices of the products these companies create, resulting in higher costs for all consumers? I agree that it's a balancing act but it doesn't seem to me that the government treats it that way. They seem to use corporations as the cash cow they can always squeeze a little tighter whenever they need more money. Why does the United States have one of the two highest corporate tax rates in the world? Does that seem like fair balance? The government takes a pint of blood whenever they get low and expect the patient to keep living and functioning, regardless of how much they continue taking.

The problem is with the government, not the corporate world and even the average citizen. They squander money and then demand higher taxes to make up for it. They have a blank check and no one to call them on it. Our problems won't be solved until government gets it's act together and not go tax-hungry to make up for their shortcomings. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening without an actual revolt by the people....and I don't see that happening, either. There is no John Galt walking around out there.

Thanks for the reply and making me think a litte. Sometime we can talk about the $79.00 an hour auto workers and really have a lively conversation
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


104 posted 11-14-2008 05:31 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
Even if you don't feel that raising taxes don't raise unemployment, do you at least feel that raising corporate taxes will raise the prices of the products these companies create, resulting in higher costs for all consumers?

Yes, I do agree. Indeed, I think that's the most likely effect.

quote:
They seem to use corporations as the cash cow they can always squeeze a little tighter whenever they need more money.

Because corporations, while legal entities, don't vote. It's the cost of democracy.

quote:
The problem is with the government, not the corporate world and even the average citizen. They squander money and then demand higher taxes to make up for it.

To some extent, Mike, I agree. Government management is almost an oxymoron, grossly inefficient and inherently with too little accountability.

However, squandering money is only a small part of the problem. The bigger part is spending money. Wars aren't cheap, even if run efficiently and without waste. Neither is socialism. Or rebuilding an infrastructure that's beginning to crumple from age. We're spending a lot more money than we're squandering. That money is inevitably going to come out of the pockets of the citizens, whether through direct taxes, increased prices on consumer goods, or an economy that leaves devastation in its wake.

It always rolls downhill, after all.
Susan Caldwell
Member Rara Avis
since 12-27-2002
Posts 8464
Florida


105 posted 11-14-2008 10:16 AM       View Profile for Susan Caldwell   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Susan Caldwell

"Require 100 Hours of Service in College: Obama and Biden will establish a new American Opportunity Tax Credit that worth $4,000 a year in exchange for 100 hours of public service a year."

Denise, we read sometimes the way we want it to read...I read it as saying, in order to get a tax credit of $4000 a year the student would have to perform 100 hrs of service.  

Seems like a fair shake to me.  A choice.

I am hopeful, and I am ready to put my time where my mouth is.  I will be volunteering for programs mentioned within his Blueprint for change.  

To many times and things have become a self-fulfilling prophecy for me and in my life.  I refuse to even entertain the thought of failure this time.

"too bad ignorance isn't painful"
~Unknown~

Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


106 posted 11-14-2008 12:18 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
More people being employed would be more people working which would mean more people earning a salary and more people with purchasing power which means stimulating a stagnant economy


Thatís true Mike, but as I said it ignores completely the most important requirement - an active consumer market.

quote:
More people being employed would result from companies hiring them which has a better chance of occuring if their corporate taxes are not raised, rather than being raised.


Unfortunately tax isnít the guiding factor when it comes to employing staff Mike, companies only employ the minimum they require to meet the demand for their product - itĎs called maximising profits. They only take on more staff when they need to increase output to meet an increase in demand. Itís a cyclical system

Increased sales produces an increased demand which requires increased output which requires more staff.

If you want to use the Robin Hood analogy:

You rob from the rich to give to the poor so they can buy from the rich.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


107 posted 11-14-2008 01:55 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Susan, according to Rham Emanuel, the Civilian National Security Force will require all people ages 18 to 25 to serve and that college age people can fulfill some of their obligation that way.

It sounds like everyone will be required to serve regardless of whether they are in college or not. Now whether everyone gets a tax credit, I don't know if that's just for those in college or not, he didn't go into that aspect of it. Although he did specify that everyone would have to do 3 months of basic training in a barracks setting, and that people shouldn't mind too much, because it will be a "shared American experience". It doesn't sound like a whole lot of choice to me. I don't have the link handy right now for his interview, but you can probably google it to find it. It was a combination radio interview and then the end of it was a video clip of an interview.
JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 09-14-2006
Posts 2275


108 posted 11-14-2008 03:40 PM       View Profile for JenniferMaxwell   Email JenniferMaxwell   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JenniferMaxwell

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdF5TQIv1fU
Susan Caldwell
Member Rara Avis
since 12-27-2002
Posts 8464
Florida


109 posted 11-14-2008 04:04 PM       View Profile for Susan Caldwell   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Susan Caldwell

I can't access utube at work.

and I have volunteer work tonight.

so have to get back to this later...

"too bad ignorance isn't painful"
~Unknown~

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


110 posted 11-14-2008 04:13 PM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

Denise "sounds like" is an acknowledgement that one is guessing.

I love and respect you, my quick-witted and lovely friend, and I share your sense of doom. Mine is more retroactive than "impending", however.

I don't want to look back to opine that The Bush Doctrine, and the whole of the dirty laundry list that came with that smells more of facism than a possible program that might not ever come to fruition.

The doom is understandable. It's not paranoia. We are literally in a world of trouble, right now and time is crawling while we have a lame duck president and the house is on fire.

I'm not suggesting all the political critics just shush up. But don't you think we could at least let the man get inaugerated and then judge the new administration by its fruit?

We are in so much trouble that we now need to look beyond partisanship, because if we wish failure upon this administration, then we are truly doomed.

Our economy has to be the central focus right now. It's just...well? Rational self-interest?

And hugs. I have anxiety too. (I'm considering trying beta-blockers.) But there is one legacy of the Bush administration for which I'll express gratitude--it sure woke everybody up.

The eyes of the entire world are on Barack Obama.

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


111 posted 11-14-2008 04:23 PM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

@ Jenn's offering!

My neighbors and I had put together a civilian security force post-Katrina.

It was rather informal, but it was successful.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


112 posted 11-14-2008 05:41 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

quote:
if we wish failure upon this administration, then we are truly doomed.


Youíve managed to insert a lot of sense into one sentence Karen.

If I were looking for the single biggest accelerant and sustaining factor in economic recession and depression Iíd put my money on something very similar to what you describe. Itís the antipodes of ďthe feel good factorĒ. You could call it ďthe feel bad factorĒ. Itís a self fulfilling prophecy that can be seen in action if you look at the run on small US banks that occurred between 1929 and 1933. If you want a more contemporary example you donít need to look much further than any significant drop in share prices on Wall Street. Ronís alluded to it a couple of times and FDR put it into a few, very famous, words:

The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.

Even Bush recognised it, he was derided, wrongly in my opinion, for the call to the nation to ďgo shoppingĒ after the 9/11 attacks but the meaning was clear - at least to me. Economists were forecasting that the American markets would go into free fall and Bush recognised that the true market force wasnít dictated by the mood on Wall Street, it was forged on Main Street in the belief of the consumer. He recognised that if he could convince them that everything was going to be OK then everything would probably be OK.

Think happy thoughts.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


113 posted 11-14-2008 05:54 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



Dear Denise,

quote:

My suspicions are probably also fueled by the fact that Obama hasn't exactly been an open book. He has sealed every record concerning his birth, his education, both here and in Indonesia, his college thesis, his activities as a community organizer, his activities as a lawyer,etc. Too much mystery surrounding him: his past, his admiration for Saul Alinsky, his associations with anti-American radicals, his work with Bill Ayers in disbursing money to Chicago area schools to implement programs in line with Ayers radical views, and his attending a church for 20 years that espoused anti-American and anti-white rhetoric, and then saying he never heard such things while he attended, was not the least bit credible, to me.




     Perhaps we might break this down a bit.  Some of this I'm simply unclear about.  Other parts of this I'm puzzled about, but I'd like to understand your objections here.  I say this because many of them seem sort of . . . basically . . .  unobjectionable to me, and I guess I'd like to understand what's so terrible about them, and why you're so riled up about them.  

quote:

     My suspicions are probably also fueled by the fact that Obama hasn't exactly been an open book.



     You understand I am a Liberal democrat.   I want to be clear about that up front.  If Senator Obama had not been a reasonably open book, however, you would not actually have much of the information you do have.  And much of the information that has been spread about about the Senator from right wing talk shows has been false or deliberately confusing.  Such as the repeated use of the senator's middle name with heavy-handed emphasis, implying that the senator is muslim.  And the claims that the senator attended a madras and was an Islamic extremist.  In such an atmosphere of distortion, it is not surprising that even well meaning folks would have considerable confusion about the man.  I am not surprised that you do.  

     I think it would do both of us some good to ask where this confusion has come from, though.  At this point, I believe that a substantial amount of the confusion, including the examples I cited above, came from the right, were initially unsubstantiated and in the end disproven.  After the initial barrage, I wanted proof up front, since I felt the method had been displayed; and if serious consideration from me was desired, clear proofs should have been given.

     I don't believe they wanted to convince me, though; I think they wanted to convince you.  I think you were and are too smart to be swayed by utter deceit.  I think, thought, that your trust can be and has been undermined.

     I don't proposed to win it back.  I'm not that convincing, nor do I believe Obama a flawless man.  I simply believe him to be more than good enough for the task at hand.  If you want people to try to convince you he's other than more than good enough, I am not one of them.  My feeling is that he is basically Republican Lite and is just about at the center of things politically, perhaps a Rockefeller Republican, the way we used to do things, before the country began to believe that  everything to the left of center was communist, and that Liberal was a bad word.  Before Republicans began to turn on each other for not being right-wing enough.  

     If you are confused, you aren't alone.

     You say about Obama; I say all of us and pretty much about the trustworthiness of the entire political enterprise in this country.  You are, however, the world-expert on yourself, and perhaps I've got you wrong.  

quote:

He has sealed every record concerning his birth, his education, both here and in Indonesia, his college thesis, his activities as a community organizer, his activities as a lawyer,etc.



     Honest, I don't think so, but I'd be interested in hearing objective proof.  This means something from a source that doesn't have an affiliation to the Republican Party, a right wing talk show, or Fox news.  I don't mind U.S. News & World Report, and I like The Economist, both of whom seem to me to have a right-leaning bias, The Economist more clearly so.  The Christian Science Monitor is always good, as is anything that goes to considerable pains to lay out both sides of the story.  As long as the news is objectively reported and without bias, I don't care if it is Right or Center.  Since I am Left Wing myself, I'd rather you didn't quote any Left Wing publications, and I will try to avoid doing so as well.  I don't think you would accept their reliability or objectivity, and I wouldn't want you put you through that.  Simply look for sources that you believe are truly objective in other places.  The Times of London, even though it's a Murdoch paper, seems to have been left pretty much editorially intact as near as I can tell.  Anything from there is fine with me as well.

     I look forward to seeing what you can come up with from sources that you believe aren't politically biased toward the right, and what you consider constitutes and doesn't constitute bias and distortion from that direction.

quote:

Too much mystery surrounding him: his past, his admiration for Saul Alinsky, his associations with anti-American radicals, his work with Bill Ayers in disbursing money to Chicago area schools to implement programs in line with Ayers radical views, and his attending a church for 20 years that espoused anti-American and anti-white rhetoric, and then saying he never heard such things while he attended, was not the least bit credible, to me.



     I don't know how to respond to the notion of "too much mystery" other than to respect it.  It's a personal call in so many ways.  I was uncomfortable with Clinton in 1992 for the same reason.  I much preferred Harken, though I suspect your preferences were other.  In 2000, I much preferred Gore over the much more mysterious Bush, and I can only respect if not agree with your reservations here.

     I didn't know Obama was fond of Saul Alinsky, but then as an organizing guy, if he hadn't been fond of Alinsky he would have to have been a fool.  Alinsky was extraordinarily well thought of in intellectual circles in the 50's,60's, and on.  At Cornell in the School of Industrial and Labor Relations, his stuff was required reading, as it was at Harvard and every other school of business and of business and labor relations.  I am an admirer of Saul Alinsky.  Even if you're not somebody who shares his politics, you'd be foolish not to have studied his techniques and his writing.  What you have against this particularly insightful thinker is beyond me.

     Even if it's a matter of politics, I'd point out to you that they study Mao and Sun Tsu at West Point, and anybody who's studied diplomacy in any depth at some point or another has had to look at the decision of the German High Command during World War One to send Lenin back to Russia in a Sealed Train.  Some thinkers and some actions are simply so basic that being unfamiliar with them is criminal.

     Association with anti-american radicals is hardly such a terrible thing, historically.  I have some family that are Republicans, yet I am able to live with myself handily.  They even manage to return the favor most of the time.  Charles Lindbergh, as I recall, was quite taken by the German's just before in the second world war, as was George Bush's Grandfather.  Several U.S. presidents used Armand Hammer to communicate with Josef Stalin, who was about as anti-american as they came.  Being a Radical in the 1960's didn't necessarily make you anti-American, though it might have in the eyes of the FBI and President Nixon, whose enemies list was, shall we say, capricious to say the least.

     The very notion of "anti-American radical" in this country, might I remind you, often says more about the people raising the alarm than about the people found alarming.  I suggest as an example that famous old anti-american radical, Albert Einstein, whose security clearance was blocked by the FBI. They also tried to block his citizenship.  They had a 1400 plus page dossier on him filled with unsupported lies.  I just finished Isaacson's recent biography of the man, in which the dossier figures.

     Just out of curiosity, on the commissions in which Ayers and Obama served together, which were the radical ideas?  How would you identify them as such, and how would you recognize them as bad?  And which ones originated with whom?

     Are any of these Radical ideas outside the mainstream of modern educational thinking?  Which ones might they be?

     Or is the phrase "radical ideas" by itself enough to stop your investigation, and check out the details to see if you yourself disagree with the ideas in question.  I freely confess I have no idea.  From the lack of specificity in your comment, though, I can't tell if you have any idea either.  If I should be alarmed, I actually need to know what I should be alarmed about.  "Radical ideas" is not a phrase I find frightening.  I actually need to know which ones.

     Witch burnings will goad me into action, while a real reconsideration of quantum entanglement, which may be even more radical after its fashion, leaves me more curious than alarmed.  Please bring somebody along to translate the math.  Telling me that warrants are no longer needed to tap my phones and that all somebody needs to say is "national security" to listen in to my wife and I talk funny on the phone to each other and laugh about it at at their little monitoring stations, that tees me off.

     That Obama never heard anybody voicing anti-white or anti-establishment (the convention for spelling that sort of far-right wing viewpoint has been for forty years "AmeriKKKa"  or "AmeriKKKan" with the capital KKK in the middle) strains my credibility as well as yours.    If you weren't aware of the distinction between "America" and "AmeriKKKa," Denise, I can only tell you that the distinction is very real to lots of folks, myself among them; and that it is as utterly tiresome and as grindingly boring as you might imagine any particularly doctrinaire piece of political baggage might come to be after it's been whacked over the head and embroidered by generations of dead serious ideologues.  Left wing ideologues in this case.

     Right wing ideologues have their own peculiarities.

     If you want to see what these left wing ideologues dislike, tune into any recent news stories about the KKK.  Blacks who've been on the receiving end of this stuff are simply unhappy with it, and with that strain of the "American" culture it comes from.  They are savagely angry about it.  Many left wing folks, myself included, feel much the same way.  I am an American, happy to be one in fact, but I want nothing to do with that particular piece of my culture.

     It's unfortunate that that particular piece of my culture has chosen to call itself "white culture."  

     I don't regard it as particularly white or cultured except perhaps in the most formally anthropological of ways.  I suspect you don't identify with the KKK either.

     And yet, there's this piece of confusion that's been promulgated.  Obama's as American as you are, Denise.  I suspect that you hate all those "AmeriKKKans" as much as that Reverend Wright of his.  I don't think you confuse what they do with "white culture" for one moment.  On the KKK end of things, though, they seriously believe they are fighting for what they think of as "white culture."  No Jews, no Catholics, no blacks need apply.  I believe all fall under the term "mud people."

     I've had KKK folk as the occasional client with problems with drugs and alcohol.  "Mud People" is what they say.  White, anglo-saxon Protestant ó that's their white culture.

     If Obama never heard how upset people in Chicago were with that sort of thing, I don't think he was listening.
Gotta agree with you there Denise.  On the other hand, I'm not entirely sure how a man of color is going to go about explaining this sort of stuff to the American people without sounding like he's doing nothing but playing the race card in a campaign that really out to be bigger than that, don't you think?  That's trying to be respectful of as many folks as it can be.

     Good enough and probably better than that isn't bad, considering the slogging he's had to do overall.  It's like one of those graphs that you see every now and then.  When you look at the original graph itself, it's got points all over the place, and the graph looks like it bounces from the top to the bottom extreme as it chugs along the x axis.  It makes no sense at all until you put it through a bit of statistical averaging, and that gives you the actual smooth curve of the trend, so you can see which way the thing is going ó steadily up or steadily down ó once those wild fluctuations are taken into account.

     Overall, Obama seems to be headed up for me in a good-enough way, on the basis of what I've seen.  I seen what you've had to say for quite a while, and I thought it was time to try to offer a bit of an alternative point of view.  I hope respectfully enough to keep you satisfied that those were my intentions, though I do tend to fly off a bit every now and again.  I hope I didn't do that for you here, and there are places where I think we do overlap as
well as diverge.

     I hope everything is well with you, and I hope everything do not work out as terribly as you fear it might.  Things haven't yet hit the true terror of what I expected eight years ago, though I confess they've come very very close, so I guess I can identify with the sense of forboding you talk about.  I guess I Think of the line from D.W. Winnicott, who once said, "The breakdown that is feared is the one that has already happened."  Or something close to that.

Best wishes, Bob Kaven


Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


114 posted 11-14-2008 09:39 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

This is the interview that I was referencing on Rham Emanuel and the National Civilian Security Force (and I think it was from 2006. Has this been in the works that long? ) :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0B7dOQwKm0

And I love you too, Karen. But the economy isn't my main focus. The preservation of our liberties as outlined in the Constitution is my main focus. In fact, I think it would be very easy to find them chipped away at (and to a greater degree than some claim Bush did) when everyone is focused on restoring the economy, even for the "sake of" the economy, or in other words, for the "greater good". And I don't wish the new administration failure, unless, of course, they want to re-engineer us into a socialist utopia. That isn't what our forefathers fought and died for.


LOL Bob, you tie my hands when you don't want me to use conservative sources. There is nothing to be found, in depth, from liberal news sources. But here is a link to a speech that Ayers gave in Venezuela. I think you might consider this a liberal, and therefore, acceptable source.
http://billayers.wordpress.com/2006/11/07/world-education-forum/


This is an excerpt from the below link outlining the Chicago Annenberg Challenge that Ayers and Obama were involved in:

The CAC's agenda flowed from Mr. Ayers's educational philosophy, which called for infusing students and their parents with a radical political commitment, and which downplayed achievement tests in favor of activism. In the mid-1960s, Mr. Ayers taught at a radical alternative school, and served as a community organizer in Cleveland's ghetto....

CAC translated Mr. Ayers's radicalism into practice. Instead of funding schools directly, it required schools to affiliate with "external partners," which actually got the money. Proposals from groups focused on math/science achievement were turned down. Instead CAC disbursed money through various far-left community organizers, such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (or Acorn).

Mr. Obama once conducted "leadership training" seminars with Acorn, and Acorn members also served as volunteers in Mr. Obama's early campaigns. External partners like the South Shore African Village Collaborative and the Dual Language Exchange focused more on political consciousness, Afrocentricity and bilingualism than traditional education. CAC's in-house evaluators comprehensively studied the effects of its grants on the test scores of Chicago public-school students. They found no evidence of educational improvement....

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rich-noyes/2008/09/23/barack-obama-bill-ayers-stanley-kurtz-makes-connection

I would hope these views fall outside mainstream modern educational thinking. But I could be wrong.

As to Obama's records being sealed, well if they weren't they would have been publicized, at least by the conservative outlets, as Michelle Obama's thesis was before it was sealed and then unsealed again until after the election.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


115 posted 11-15-2008 07:54 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

  I look forward to seeing what you can come up with from sources that you believe aren't politically biased toward the right, and what you consider constitutes and doesn't constitute bias and distortion from that direction.

Mark Twain said it best. "Those who do not read the newspaper are uninformed. Those you do are misinformed."

Bob, you show a perfect example of how we can justify our thoughts and feelings, no matter what they may be. I would go so far as to say that, if Obama's past actually belonged to Bush, for example, you could find ways to take those same points and blast him out of the water. It's called bias thinking. A good exercise would be to pretend you are NOT an Obama supporter and present arguments that would support THAT opinion. I feel you could do as well as you did in your post here giving him passes and excusing the murkiness of his past. You should try it sometime.

Having nothing to fear but fear itself is a nice slogan. So is ask not what your country can do for you..........how many Demorcats, or even Republicans follow that one?
The direction of the economy is not in our hands. We will do whatever the administration dictates we do. I agree wholeheartedly in giving the man a chance to live up to his word but it is not irrational to feel the fear, especially when so many of the things he said he would do are out of the realm of possibility, even acknowledged by top economists. As I said before, we will hope for the best and fear the worst.


You rob from the rich to give to they poor so they can buy from the rich.

Ok, grinch, so it's ok to rob a grocery store as long as you use the money to go back and buy groceries from that store. Got it!

Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


116 posted 11-15-2008 09:19 AM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

quote:
Ok, grinch, so it's ok to rob a grocery store as long as you use the money to go back and buy groceries from that store. Got it!


Sorry Mike I thought you were using the Analogy of Robin Hood to argue against raising taxes, I donít mind talking about robbing grocery stores though if you want to change the subject.

My view on crime, as it pertains to grocery stores in general , is that the move towards consumer convenience has created two problems. One is an increase in the cost of goods as grocery store owners are forced to open longer, raising staff and indirect costs that they have to pass on to customers. The second is that late night, or after dark opening increases the opportunity for attacks on grocery stores that are increasing being manned by just a single member of staff.


It could be argued that the store owner benifits with increased profit for instance to offset the increased chance of being robbed. I donít see any evidence however that opening longer benefitís the store owners, a similar move towards convenience in the opening times of British pubs seems to confirm this. Takings in pubs that stay open longer donít increase, people spend exactly the same amount but over a longer period. In fact once the indirect costs of lighting heat and staff are taken into account some pubs actually reported a downturn in profits and went back to the old opening hours.

Thereís another issue involved of course. Reducing the opportunity to rob a grocery store is all well and good but the chances are all youíre actually doing is shifting the crime to other areas. Itís a little like treating the symptoms rather than the cause, which brings us right back into the realms of economics in a social context and the thorny problem of convincing the poor to stop robbing the hood.

  
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


117 posted 11-15-2008 10:26 AM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

quote:
The direction of the economy is not in our hands.


Thatís just plain wrong, on several counts.

Politicians arenít born into office Mike, you put them there and you have the ability to remove them if you so choose and politicians arenít unaware of that fact - you can use that. Granted thatís normally a long term and indirect control that you have on the economy but you have another thatís a lot more direct, itís how where and when you decide to part with your hard earned cash. What you do with regard to your money IS the economy.

In 1929 fears prompted by reports of a future reduction in consumer spending caused the stock market to crash, rumours then abounded that because of this some banks were short of cash (sound familiar?). A few people, in a bid to avoid losing their savings and fearing that they would lose them, started to withdraw their savings. This caused a run on the banks that forced a few of the smaller banks, who, lacking available funds, were forced to close their doors fearing bankruptcy. This fuelled the rumour and soon banks across America were inundated with customers demanding their money.

Banks, faced with the possibility of having to empty their vaults reacted in the only way they could, they stopped lending to new and existing customers and other banks. This impacted on businesses who relied on short turn loans and credit from the banks to pay their staff and order stock. Eventually both banks and businesses turned to an alternate method of saving money - they started laying off staff. The rise in unemployment increased government spending and reduced consumer spending - those in employment, fearing the worst, tightened their belts. The consequence was a total collapse of consumer spending.

Fear of a reduction in consumer spending caused a reduction in consumer spending.
Fear that banks would run out of money caused banks to run out of money.
Fear of unemployment caused mass unemployment.

Can you guess what the fear of a recession is going to lead to?

If youíre American and you want to avoid a recession you need to follow Bushís advice and go shopping.

If youíre the American President you need to give the people the money to go shopping.

Thereís nothing to fear but fear itself.
oceanvu2
Senior Member
since 02-24-2007
Posts 1007
Santa Monica, California, USA


118 posted 11-15-2008 04:56 PM       View Profile for oceanvu2   Email oceanvu2   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for oceanvu2

Hi all!  Maybe I should have just said Neener Neener Neener in the first place.

Had no idea that what began as a hope for reconciliation and support for the President-elect nationwide would result in the usual level of willful ignorance common to the American electorate nationwide.  

Bob -- You have every reason to ask for facts from unbiased or relatively credible sources from anybody.  I do it all the time, too.  You just don't have much reason to expect them to be forthcoming.  Objectivity is, apparently, one of the most difficult states to attain.

The nonsense of the far right and far left seems to be just that.  Liberals are slightly to the left of CENTER.  Conservatives are slightly to the right of CENTER.  American nut-cases of either stripe may cause a self-agrandizing stir, but their opinions have little effect in imposing realpolitik on Democracy.  Delusional thinking may be entertaining, but is nevertheless delusional.

Democracy may be the most conservative of radical ideas, and this might be the root of its endurance so far.

Ugh.  Jimbeaux  
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


119 posted 11-15-2008 06:24 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

You call discussion, with input from both sides, a display of willful ignorance, Jim?

Should we all just keep quiet and not voice our concerns or misgivings if we don't agree with your worldview?

If sources from liberal sites or the main stream media had been available, I would have offered them here. They aren't forthcoming because they don't exist. Doesn't that raise any red flags for you that the only in-depth information that can be found about Obama can be found everywhere except in the liberal and main stream media, the ones that you consider credible?  Some in the MSM are now admitting that they were biased in their coverage and reporting in favor of Obama. How credible do you consider them in light of that admission?

And where was all this desire for reconciliation and support for our elected leader for the past eight years?

oceanvu2
Senior Member
since 02-24-2007
Posts 1007
Santa Monica, California, USA


120 posted 11-15-2008 07:16 PM       View Profile for oceanvu2   Email oceanvu2   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for oceanvu2

Hi Denise -- I think I was misunderstood.  I was talking about nationwide willful ignorance about political issues which lead people to vote for personalities.

RE:  "And where was all this desire for reconciliation and support for our elected leader for the past eight years?"  

Well, I think GWB had it, then he lost it.  Maybe I'm wrong, but I think the majority of people, however slim a majority in the second election, hoped he would do a good job for America.  IMO, and in others, he didn't.  I think that is why he hurt his Party's chances from the get-go in this election.  I personally don't know anyone who felt, vindictively, "Boy I hope his policies fail and bring us to our current state of affairs.

But that was then, this is now, and so we move on.  Together.

RE:  "Should we all just keep quiet and not voice our concerns or misgivings if we don't agree with your worldview?"

I have two responses to that:  

First, of course not.

Second, My world view is irrelevant.  As far as I can tell, it has zero effect on anything.  There was a cumulative National majority-of-voters-view expressed in the Presidential election that it was time for a shift in focus.

And extreme left wing and extreme right wing nonsense is still nonsense.

I'm pretty mild mannered.

Best, Jimbeaux
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


121 posted 11-16-2008 08:02 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

You've lost me, Jim. Can you give me a current example of this "nationwide willful ignorance about political issues which lead people to vote for personalities" that caused you to say that you should have named this topic "Neener Neener Neener"?

"Second, My world view is irrelevant.  As far as I can tell, it has zero effect on anything.  There was a cumulative National majority-of-voters-view expressed in the Presidential election that it was time for a shift in focus."

How does the voice of the majority make irrelevant your worldview?

Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


122 posted 11-16-2008 09:04 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K


Dear Denise,

quote:

LOL Bob, you tie my hands when you don't want me to use conservative sources. There is nothing to be found, in depth, from liberal news sources.



     I think what I said and what you read must be two different things, Denise.  I didn't ask you to give up right wing news sources or conservative news sources, only biased news sources.  I suggested/i] two somewhat-to-quite-conservative but objective (reasonably objective, much though not all the time) news sources that you might check out.  I find [i]The Christian Science Monitor[i] politically hard to categorize but almost always objective.  You might want to check them out.  If they anger you as much of the time as they anger me, they may be doing a decent job.  I [i]think[i] they're conservative.  They're definitely Christian Science.  

     I said that I tended to avoid quoting liberal-left stuff here frequently, such as [i]The Nation[i].  Communist and frankly Socialist papers I try to avoid as well.  I haven't quoted [i]Mother Jones,[i] which to me seems a decent and objective left wing magazine.  I do this out of respect for the people that I'm trying to speak with, and with whom I believe I have basically a lot in common because I think that quoting from a full range of the literature tends to make folks less rather than more attentive.

     I don't believe I tie your hands by asking you to avoid biased sources any more than I tie my own hands.  My objective here isn't to win or lose an argument, but to put a difficult discussion on ground that everybody finds solid, so we can clear away the poison ó and I mean poison from both sides here ó and talk to each other like the decent folks that I think we are.  I don't know about myself, so much, but I'm pretty convinced that you are, and that Grinch is, and that Mike and Jennifer are decent folks.

     I was reading about a bunch of folks getting together around Life-Choice recently in a chapter from a book by  Naomi Wolf.  Everybody was able to go away feeling decent about the other folks once they got beyond the business of thinking they knew what the other people thought and felt.  I remember during the Vietnam War going to talk to a group of VFW folks.  By rights we should have ripped each others throats out, and by the end of the evening we were all really pretty decent friends.  That's basically what the American experience is all about, I suspect.

quote:

But here is a link to a speech that Ayers gave in Venezuela. I think you might consider this a liberal, and therefore, acceptable source.



     I'll have a look at the link another time.  Thank you for supplying it.

     I don't need "liberal sources" for them to make sense or for them to be useful.  Objective, unbiased and well backed are what I'm looking for, whatever the political point of view.  As I mentioned above, Rupert Murdoch, owner of Fox, who has a definite right-wing bias through much of if not most of his his publishing empire, has managed to retain a pretty solid objective point of view in his flagship "The Times of London."  He knows how to do it, even if he doesn't seem do it for "The Wall Street Journal," whose journalism used to be famous for its objectivity.  Quote from "The Wall Street Journal," if you like, but make sure that you don't get upset if you get some questions you wouldn't get about a quote from some other places.  Even "The New York Times," which you might think has a Liberal bias would get some questions from me from time to time.  You think it has a Liberal bias, I think it tends to jump on bandwagons, left or right, and it's coverage is good generally only over the long-haul when it tends to even out.  (Remember all those articles hyping the war in Iraq, way back when?  There were Liberals who were upset about that back at the time, including some idiots who were complaining about a conservative bias in "The New York Times," as there were during the various Clinton problems  and even now when some folks are saying on the left that "The Times" was too pro-McCaine and that commentary about the Minnesota election re-count is seriously bizarre.  

     About the last one, I happen to agree, by the way.  It's a pretty much regular recount, mandated by law.

     But the point is that even Lefties get paranoid about [i]The New York Times
.  If a paper is being run with anything approaching a decent editorial policy, everybody's going to think it's out to get them at one point or another.  They'll probably be right; it's the job of a newspaper.  And of course, it the job of political parties to try to play the ref, just like the manager of a baseball team.  Maybe next time, you can make the ref throw the call your way a bit.

Sincerely, Bob Kaven

    
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


123 posted 11-17-2008 04:45 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

I understood you Bob. There was no in-depth investigative reporting attempted into Obama's past/background by those you consider non-biased sources, that I could find. If I missed something, please point me to it. And even the sources that did attempt to conduct research into his past/background were thwarted by numerous sealed records.
JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 09-14-2006
Posts 2275


124 posted 11-17-2008 11:09 AM       View Profile for JenniferMaxwell   Email JenniferMaxwell   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JenniferMaxwell

The American Conservative
http://www.amconmag.com/
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Not a Neener Neener Neener Post.   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors