»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
The Race(ism) is on...get used to it!
| The Alley |
|
The Race(ism) is on...get used to it! |
|
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA 
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIx9aYM3Do4&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuavbloSIpc&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3EADdr-5AY&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PFrmAMBRSQ&feature=related |
||
| © Copyright 2012 Michael Mack - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
I'm not sure what your point is Mike, could you elaborate? . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Sure...Obama is in a spot. He can't run on his record, he's lost believability, he has to do some dodging and weaving. Attacks of racism will fill that bill. Undoubtably, his supporters like Sharpeton, Jackson and MSNBC will be pushing the race button whenever they can. Can I prove they are doing it under the instructions of Obama? No, but I doubt he will mind at all. As they tried to play the race card against the Clintons during the nomination, the same will happen here. As my links show, it has begun...and it's only the beginning. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Maybe they will Mike but as far as I can tell the clips you linked to aren't evidence that they've started. Apart from the fact that whoever uploaded them has included the word 'Racist' or 'Racism' in the title none of the clips themselves contained any racism or claims of racism. The first is Cenk Uyger from the Young Turks who did a stint at MSNBC last year talking about Gingrich's attempt to get minorities to vote Republican with input from guest Al Sharpton. The second is a critique of Maddow's suggestion that Ron Paul would have voted, and still would vote, against the Civil Rights Act for libertarian rather than racist reasons. The third is Ron Paul giving an anti-racist, anti-war, anti-war on drugs answer to questions during debates. The fourth is a video explaining how to spot the 8 signs of terrorist activity. Where's the racism or claims of racism? . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I'm sure I can go through MSNBC's comment and find several cases...leaving for work, now, though. COmments by Sharpeton and Jackson are a matter of record. In the meantime, you can check out the exchange between Juan Williams (of FOX) and Gingrich on last night's debate and William's insinuations of racism against Newt. It didn't go too well for him. [This message has been edited by Balladeer (01-17-2012 11:00 PM).] |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: I listened. I think you'd better be explicit. I don't understand why it should take courage for a Republican to talk to blacks. I've heard you report conversations with blacks about one thing or another, and there was never any question of a requirement for extra special courage required, and you're certainly Republican enough. The comments about the Republican positions being against the economic interests of many black voters, were to the point when Al Sharpton raised them. Why should people vote against their own economic interests and their own political interests when they see their own interests as being in line with the national economic interests as well? You expect it from the wealthy; why shouldn't you expect it from the poor? The comments by Mr. Gingrich sounded fairly racist to me, as though White folks had something to fear from Black folks for some reason that was simply too mysterious to understand. Try to take away people's voting rights and see how welcome you are to hold congenial dialogue with them about why that's such a great idea. Imagine how that'd feel if there'd been a history of slavery involved. Maybe you're one of those folks who wouldn't have any thought of that highly charged history pass through his or her mind, and if you are, bless you. You're a far better person than I am. As a Jew, I still remember history of being a slave in Egypt and am grateful for such freedoms as I have every year, and am unhappy about every slight against them, no matter how small. And that's being a non-observant Jew, at that. I'm not only sensitive to anti-semitism, but to racism directed against anybody I can think of, and yes, that includes blacks. Sorry, Mr. Gingrich is skating far too close to the edge for far too many people. The brouhaha on Rachel Maddow was about Rand Paul and not Ron Paul, and it was created by Rand Paul's refusal to say that he was against government's right to desegregate lunch counters, and it was a merry and lengthy debate which I watched in its entirety. Rand Paul thought the government did not have the right to regulate business and to say what business could or couldn't do, or that was his direction. Apparently he felt that equal protections for people under the law was less important than protecting business against the rights of people, but he wouldn't get into that. It was the sort of answer, in my opinion, that distinguished Governor Romney's most recent exchange about drug policy. Stubborn, cruel, pedantic, at least racist in appearance and not very thoughtful. To blame Dr. Maddow for that answer when she tried to give him every chance to wiggle out of it — if you watched the entire interview, as I did, it's possible you might come to consider that she tried to allow him an out or ten as well — is somewhat unfair. You might have a look at the interview in its entirety and see for yourself. You may still disagree with me, you may not. I'm trying to be fair about this stuff, and I hope I'm doing a decent job here. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
The comments by Mr. Gingrich sounded fairly racist to me, as though White folks had something to fear from Black folks Thank you, Bob, for proving my point. Their tactics will work well on liberals, which really doesn't matter since they would have that support anyway, but I believe it will hurt them with the independents. I believe that people are getting pretty tired of hearing RACISM! whenever anyone speaks out against something a black may do or say and I don't think the tactic will work for them. I didn't say I didn't want them to take that route.....I just said that they will and it's coming. They are too dumb to know it may hurt rather than help. Maddow? Somehow I missed her referr1ng to Strom Thurmond or Al Gore's dad with respect to their civil rights records.....maybe because she hasn't. Just another instance of media's selectivity. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: I don't know whether on not Ms. Maddow has commented on Senator Gore Senior's record in this case or on Senator Thurmond's record in this case. Both have records of racism as Democrats, and Sewnator Thurmond had one as a Republican as well. I expect that Ms. Maddow's comments will become louder and more pointed in both cases, certainly, as both men become more popular in this current Republican Primary. [Edited - Ron] As for myself, for the reasons I mentioned above, I think that discussion of actual racism, especially when it's happening in the present tense, takes a particular importance that shouldn't be toyed with, and that shifting the subject to the racism of the dead is something that I'm absolutely willing to do in another thread. I didn't like it then, either, and we can talk about that all you'd like if you have an interest in discussing it. Even the racism of Democrats such as FDR, should you be so moved. [This message has been edited by Ron (01-18-2012 11:44 PM).] |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Bob, you needn't waste castigations on me. It would be a waste of your time. My point is valid. Maddow has no problem bringing up whatever racism charges she can throw at Rand Paul but ignored in the past similar charges against democrats. Yes, they are now dead and Rand Paul is not running for president...same difference. As far as bringing them up, yes, we have before in the alley. I'm certainly not going to waste time going through past threads to find them but we discussed both Gore's father and Strom Thurmond here before. That must have slipped your memory. What kind of republican am I? One that believes in fair play. Thank you for asking. I think that discussion of actual racism, especially when it's happening in the present tense, takes a particular importance that shouldn't be toyed with Please show the actual racism that is happening in the present....outside of democratic imaginations, I mean. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
I'd start out with Dr. Gingrich's comments about the courage it takes to talk to blacks, which I mentioned above. I would also suggest that attempting to cut large numbers of people of color off the voting rolls would also qualify, and has some historical precedence. We've discussed this before in relation to law suits and judgements against the Republican party for attempting to disqualify legal voters of color in Ohio, Florida and other states as well. Exactly how these attempts to get voters to produce special voter identification cards that are especially difficult for voters of color and Democratic voters to acquire would be different from those previous Republican illegalities needs to be demonstrated to me, Mike. I would call this sort of thing racism because it is directed specifically at racial blocks of voters, usually black and hispanic. The Justice Department seems to be disallowing the Republican laws directed at this sort of thing in South Carolina now. I am not clear what the status of these sorts of laws happen to be in other states. That should be a start for you. This follows successful suites in several states against the Republicans along similar lines in 2000, 2004 and 2008. These are documented in "The Finest Democracy Money Can Buy," which I've cited before when the discussion has come up before. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Apparently you saw the criticism and didn't read it, Mike. I thought it was funny. Your comments about Senator Gore, Sr. and Strom Thurmond were accurate. They were both somewhat on the racist side, I thought, though you did forget that Strom was a die hard Republican from the Voting Rights act on, and that he found a warm welcome for his views in that party for the rest of his life there. The time had come for Dixiecrats to change or move on with that landmark piece of legislation. The change should have been more complete, but it was pretty solid. The racists tended to go republican in the south at that point, and many of them are still there. That's the reason why many of the Blacks ended up as Democrats when for a very long time they'd been solid Republicans and proud of it. Any disagreement you have on the matter, I'd be happy to hear about; and if you have any fine points you can offer me new information on, I'd be happy to learn from you. But I think I've got my basics right. If yoiu'd like me to say that I didn't like the racial politics of Senator Gore, Senior, for the most part, I really didn't; and I certainly didn't like Strom Thurmond's either, either as a Democrat or as a Republican. I would bet that Ms. Maddow would agree with me on those points. Would you? As to whether you believe that any of these things are to the point right now, I'd guess you'd be the one to know that. I know I don't approve of the racial politics of those folks, but then I think that I'm more interested in the racism of people who are running, democratic or republican, and of people who are alive, democratic or republican on the whole unless there's something that really connects them in a vital way to the subject at hand. The Republican Primary, the Democratic Primary, the way the two parties are acting toward each other. I think the Republicans are talking about racism because it's one of the important Republican issues — finding ways to split the Democratic base and getting Democrats quarreling against their common interests. That's a good way for a smaller party to win an election. I'm not surprised to see the form of the hread, I simply don't like the nature of it. [Aggressive attribution of negative qualities] > [this is what we expect from you] : [Let's have a discussion of your basic evil nature] > [any defense you offer is evidence of the correctness of our original assumptions about your negative qualities.] The sad part of this particular chain of reasoning is that any number can play from any side. It is invulnerable to any actual logical investigation and it is basically a description of the circular nature of paranoid mind-sets for either the left or the right. From this particular point of view, person A is always right, person B is always wrong and there is no way that these conclusions can be disproven. The thing about actual reality is that discussions must always be conducted in such a way as to allow for either party to allow for the possibility of being wrong, and few people have enough self esteem to allow themselves to be exposed to the possibility of that outcome. We are simply too competitive, most of us, to allow for that. My own theory is that it may have something to do with successful reproduction strategies, and that being right and being alpha are very highly valued, and that biologically nature hasn't managed to figure out that you can make everybody follow your strategy and be a real winner aqnd then get your whole tribe wiped out because it's the wrong strategy. Just a side thought about capitalism and global warming. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I would bet that Ms. Maddow would agree with me on those points. That's the point, Bob. Ms. Maddow wouldn't even discuss them. I think the Republicans are talking about racism because it's one of the important Republican issues — finding ways to split the Democratic base and getting Democrats quarreling against their common interests That's the point, Bob. It's not the republicans talking about racism....it's the democrats, liberals, and mainstream media. Exactly how these attempts to get voters to produce special voter identification cards that are especially difficult for voters of color and Democratic voters to acquire would be different from those previous Republican illegalities needs to be demonstrated to me, Mike. Sorry, Bob, but I find that entire thing laughable. I cannot, for the life of me, see where that should even be an issue....expecting people to have to produce I.D. to vote. You want to hear something funnier? Unions claim it is also biased and yet in union issues, voters must show I.D. to vote! Is requiring drivers licenses to operate a vehicle prejudiced against blacks and minorities? How about showing I.D. to open a bank account or get a credit card? DO people have to show I.D. to get food stamps or government assistance? I'm thinking they do....but mention a requirement of I.D. producing to be able to vote, and democrats go berzerk with screams of racism. Blacks have bought the goods that the Democratic party is THEIR party, without ever sitting down and asking themselves what the democrats have done for them. I'll wager that if you were to compose a list of what democrats have done for minorities and I compose the same for what republicans have done in the same regard, My list would be a lot longer. Maybe we can do that one day, if you are willing. I have a feeling that blacks and minorities may have a change of heart this time. Always before, there's been a white guy promising blacks a better life under him and, when it didn't work out, oh well. This time, however, there was a black guy telling them the same thing and perhaps they had more faith it would be so. It seems to me he hasn't fulfilled their expectations and their votes may not be as automatic, although if they have gone through their lives without ever getting an I.D. card, I'm not sure how educated they would be on current events anyway. Should be interesting if he carrries their 98% this time. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
[Edited - Ron] [This message has been edited by Ron (01-20-2012 10:38 AM).] |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: I watched the debate Mike, I thought Gingrich's plan to get poor kids becoming janitors was elitist rather than racist. He didn't after all propose that all kids become janitors and forego the time they should be constructively using to get a good education, he insisted that it should be poor kids that took on the task of unblocking toilets, cleaning floors etc. If that isn't the opening salvo of class warfare I don't know what is. Gingrich's idea would be slightly more reasonable if it encompassed all kids but even then it would still be an extremely dumb idea. Would little Tom, Dick or Harriet be better off in the Science lab learning about the periodic table or outside in the corridor cleaning up puke for less than minimum wage? . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I will have to look at a transcript, grinch. I don't recall him specifying that only poor kids find jobs, although it would make sense if that's what he meant, since poorer families would be the ones better served by participation in part-time jobs. The opening salvo of class warfare? ROFL!! WHere have you been the past three years? That "opening salvo" is so old it has whiskers - Obama whiskers. Would little Tom, Dick or Harriet be better off in the Science lab learning about the periodic table or outside in the corridor cleaning up puke for less than minimum wage? I don't understand that comment at all and, frankly, have a hard time believing you said it. You are against students taking part-time jobs then? I can assure you millions have - and I was one of them. Would these students then be better off in a closed science lab, assuming there are not science classes at night? Your comment makes no sense. One could even say that a student could actually learn more, learing about the responsibilities that go along with working for a living than he could by studying those periodic tables, which I have never used in my life. I would also go so far as to say that, in my opinion, the one working would have a greater respect for the education he is working for than those who have it handed to them and I would go further to say that, in my opinion and based on no facts whatsoever, that those working wind up getting more out of school and turn out to be more successful. Schools teach a lot...and DON'T teach a lot of what youngsters really need to know to live and succeed in this crazy world. There are no classes on relationships, they don't learn about money management or investments, or many areas of life more important than the angles of an icocylese triangle. There is more realism to cleaning up puke than there is to learning about how to love the six different sets of quarks. I have to believe your comments are more politically motivated than anything else and you you could make an even more convincing case in favor of taking part-time jobs than in not taking them. Instead you prefer to paint the picture you have. Ok... |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Mike, Newt has made it clear in several speeches that he was talking about poor kids, here's an example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vc7byJV0jVY&feature=related Do I have a problem with kids having part time jobs? That'd be slightly hypocritical Mike considering I had two myself when I was in school - one before classes started and one at the weekends - but that's not what Gingrich is suggesting. His suggestion is that poor kids work in reception, in the library and as janitors during the school day. Are my comments politically motivated? Perhaps. I guess my opinion that kids mopping floors and cleaning toilets instead of attending classes may be coloured by my conservative leanings but I'd like to believe that even those on the left could see the stupidity in Newt's suggestion. A dumb idea is a dumb idea Mike, whether it comes from the right, the left or the centre. . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I guess my opinion that kids mopping floors and cleaning toilets instead of attending classes That's not valid and you know it. It's not an either/or. He is referring to part-time jobs off school time, which of course, you know. Trying to portray it as one or the other is very weak. Were you unable to attend classes when you worked your jobs? I doubt it. Neither did I. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
[ quote: I was a middle class kid who worked part-time in my father's wholesale business for $.25 an hour at a time when the full time guys got $1.00 an hour for the same work. It's not like my dad every really paid me, and the other guys I was working with were really thrilled to have a ten year old competing with them and slowing them down. One of the original reasons why child labor laws were passed was to prevent industrial accidents. If my father had been a little bit more concerned with following the child labor laws and a little less concerned about passing on the virtues Mike and Speaker Gingrich are talking about, I would still have full use of my left arm, which got caught in a conveyor belt one afternoon in August in 1960, when I was 12. I was one of many kids who was well served by participation in formal and informal full and part-time jobs programs such as the Republicans are advocating now, and which their precursors felt were good for the backbone of the nation before unions got the child labor laws passed. This is the same fight to turn back the clock and the same candy coating is being put one the same poisonous content in the hope that enough idiots will be willing to take a bite to get legislation passed. I have almost full function back on the arm now, by the way, though it's almost taken fifty years to get it back. Having worked on locked inpatient units for many years, I know exactly what it's like to mop up bodily waste, and I have absolutely no romantic attachment to it the way Mr. Gingrich seems to have. If there are those who believe that knowing the basics of geometry are a waste of time, I would agree with them. Just as knowing the Periodic table in itself is a waste of time. They miss the point, however, when they say so, since the rules of Euclidian geometry or of basic chemistry are generally not taught by competent educators as simple objects of memorization, though this seems to be the position many such as Mike would seem to hold. Were this the case, one would do as well to memorize another slug of numbers in the sequence of pi. This might be useful, at least, as practice in mastery of an actual system of memorization, such as the classic "Memory Palace," taught by the Jesuits in the 17th Century and still taught by some folks today. Once mastered — I haven't, but many actors in Shakespeare's day did, and there are people who still make money teaching it today — it makes life very much earlier indeed, and it's practical as air or bricks. An interesting little book on the matter, The Memory Palace of Matteo Ricci. No, the usefulness of Geometry is that it's the first real contact kids today have with logic and formal proofs, and how to connect fact and inference into the most straightforward way of proving something is true or not true. For any formal thinking task, this is a set of tools as useful as a hammer, a plane, a level and a screwdriver for a carpenter. Without learning these basics, a set of comments a person might make on any subject will have a much more difficult time being square and in true, and the connection one set of comments they make with any other set of comments they make on the same subject is not something they will be able to evaluate using adult thinking processes such as inference and deduction. They will only have access to the way they feel. Feeling is to esteemed for many things, but it doesn't do policy well, and it isn't good for long term evaluation of planning of detailed operations. quote: I am unclear about what your point is here. Did somebody say that school is supposed to teach everything? It's supposed to teach the curriculum, which is a matter of legal record. That means it is supposed to supply a body of common experience that the citizens believe is necessary for the people in a particular area to function as a citizen in a democracy. That's what the concept of public education is about. Logic and reasoning are two of those skills, and these skills have traditionally been taught by studying Geometry and Latin. I don't happen to agree that Latin is a subject necessary to study to learn these skills, but I do agree about Geometry, for reasons I've mentioned above. quote: Well, there may a politically motivated problem here. Speaker Gingrich is advocating breaking the child labor laws. He is not advocating the child labor laws for all children, mind you; but only poor children. If his purpose is actually to teach work responsibility, then, of course, he would be suspending child labor laws for all children, and would insist that all children work in jobs with potential hazards to them. Please, show me where he insists that all children be taught that responsibility, so his political aims might not be suspect. Please show me where these children would be paid a competitive wage, so it would be clear that they would not be trying to undermine people who are trying to support families. It is entirely possible for people to take part-time jobs under current law. Indeed, many high school students when I was a kid could hardly wait to do so, and that seems still to be the case. Why does breaking the law and putting children as risk seem so appealing? Indeed, you accuse Grinch of politically motivated distortions, when it is Mr. Gingrich that is advocating breaking the law and where part-time work is already quite legal for students in many states, so long as they do not violate child labor laws. It seems perfectly clear that Dr. Gingrich suggestions are an attempt to strip children of the hard won protections of their childhood and of their safety reformers fought for so many years. Young children are supposed to be children. They are supposed to be protected and educated. They are not supposed to be exploited or used as an act in a media circus by the likes of Dr. Gingrich with this put-’em-to work suggestion. I may agree with Dr. Gingrich about the unworkability of the current foster-care system. That does not mean I support his suggestion that we should start up a mass system of orphanages, as he suggested; and it does not mean that I agree that we should attack the children of the poor by putting them to work at age ten to make Dr. Gingrich and his Republican friends happy. I think taking a 10 year old’s childhood away is sadistic, and is clearly against the welfare of these kids. The law allows part-time-work for kids when they’re a bit older. Dr. Gingrich should learn to contain the greed of his backers until then, and perhaps his own as well. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
How can one argue with such points so brilliantly laid out? Thank you for your input, Bob. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Your psychic abilities are failing you Mike - If I knew it wasn't valid I wouldn't have written it.  Gingrich is suggesting that poor kids work as receptionists, librarians and assistant janitors paid for by getting rid of the overpaid unionised workers that normally do those jobs during the day. If Gingrich's plan includes replacing those day workers with cheaper nocturnal poor kids it's even dumber than I thought it was. Which brings me back to my original point - Gingrich only wants this to apply to poor kids. If it's such a good idea (which it isn't) why not all kids? quote: Mike's right, this is a particularly good point. Twenty years ago Gingrich thought it would be a good idea to stop paying poor folk to look after their kids, his grand scheme was to forcefully separate the poor kids from their families and stick them in orphanages. Presumably those orphanages would be privately owned in line with the trend of privatising prisons so instead of paying parents to hold families together big government would be paying big corporations to rip them apart. So much for family values. Mind you it'd make Gingrich's latest child forced labour plan easier it implement, he could close the loop and put the government created orphans to work. I'd suggest changing the name though, orphanages have such a negative connotation - how about Workhouses or Forced Labour Camps? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
That sidestep won't work, grinch. My comment was directed at your referring to kids either working or attending classes. That's not a valid statement since no one suggested they do either one or the other. If you feel he did, please point out where. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
I already did Mike. Unless the poor kids are going to be working as receptionists, librarians and janitors when the school is closed it's going to be during school time. Is that the idea Mike? After school, while the rich kids are at football practice, piano lessons or chilling out at the mall the poor kids are slaving away up to their elbows in blocked toilets and HVAC maintenance? By the way, who's going to supervise all those spanner wielding poor kids once the unionised folk that used to do that job are claiming unemployment? While you're on the subject of sidestepping issues Mike can you explain why it's only poor kids that are being targeted by Gingrich? . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
No, you already did not. I see nowhere where he suggested going to work instead of going to class. There are plenty of jobs outside of school hours. Instead of answering questions with questions, how about an actual answer? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Gingrich said: "You pay them part-time in the afternoon to sit at the clerical office and greet people when they came in." Belleview High School in Marion County Florida opens at 09:30 and closes at 15:35 - unless he's planning to extend the school day Gingrich is going to force the poor kids to work at some point between 12:00 and 15:35. If Belleview is the same as other schools there's one or two lessons held during that period that the poorer kids should be attending. That's a bit of a dilemma, should poor kids be in lessons during the afternoon with the rich kids or should they be 'greeting' visitors, cleaning up puke and fixing the heating system? quote: Not according to his above statement Mike. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Yes, my comments were in fact fairly to the point. You should address them, since Speaker Gingrich is advocating that we break laws that are an attempt to protect not only children but childhood itself, and since it is legal for children above a certain age to work part time now. Speaker Gingrich makes not even the slightest attempt to protect Children here, only to exploit them as little workers. While he speaks about the advantages of making good workers of children for the advantage of the system, he does nothing about talking about making sure that our children are protected against work accidents or exploited in potentially high pressure situations physically, emotionally or sexually. Rather than avoiding dealing with these points, it would be useful for somebody who is suggesting that any form of child labor other than the forms now considered legal should actually address them. I was a child worker starting at age eight. I was injured on the job seriously at age 12 and the supervisor at that time was my father. He actually did a fair job of supervision, by the way. It's simply not safe to have child workers running around many job sites. You, Mike, are generally a decent guy, but Mr. Gingrich has made some seriously odd proposals, including the proposal about orphanages I mentioned above. While some of them may not be as sadistic as they originally sound, it seems to me that some of them really are, and this appears to be one of them. Why? Well, for one thing, it has to do with matters of brain development and cognitive development which make child workers very undependable and which require a lot of supervisory time which older workers do not require. The most glaring illustration has to do with something called conservation of size, and shows up in younger children than those we're concentrating upon here, but you will be able to find other examples of cognitive development issues in children between eight and fifteen or so that will make them difficult to supervise as well, though the issues will be somewhat different. I use this one simply because it's easy to describe and large. If you want to research other developmental issues, you might start with the work of Piaget, The Swiss developmental Psychologist who did so much of the basic work in the field and graze about on your own. If you ask a younger child which is worth more, a nickel or a dime, you will always get the same answer. That is, the nickel. The child isn't stupid or irresponsible; it simply hasn't acquired the ability to make a distinction between "bigger" and "more valuable." In fact, you will see vestiges of this in some people throughout life, even though they may intellectually know better, they may still believe a taller person is a better person for exactly that reason; there are areas of the brain that may still be functioning according to that old, incorrect programming. Using a younger mind to do a job that requires an older mind can be a very expensive proposition. Your comment to me earlier didn't engage the points made. The points were valid then, they remain so now. You may not like them; I wouldn't blame you for being unhappy with them, but to make a valid argument on the Part of Doctor Gingrich, you will have to deal with them because they are among the main problems that he is trying to dodge. If you want to deal with the issues that The Speaker brings up rather than simply play politics on this, there they are. The proposals are damaging to children and to the country for the reasons that I mentioned. If you want to tell me that they are not damaging to children for any of the reasons I've brought up, I';d be happy to deal with the facts of the matter. If you believe I'm simply trying to play politics on the matter and that I don't have the welfare of the children primarily in mind, tell me how, where and why. IU will be pleased to deal with you on an examination of the facts of the matter as best I am able. Have a good weekend, get in a round of golf, be well. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
There is obviously more to that than meets the eye, perhaps the study hours of the students. To have students skip classes to work at the school would certainly not be allowed by the school or the clerical office, unless the hours coincided with the free time of the student. That's only logical. Interesting how you validate the title of this thread.. After school, while the rich kids are at football practice, piano lessons or chilling out at the mall the poor kids are slaving away up to their elbows in blocked toilets and HVAC maintenance? should poor kids be in lessons during the afternoon with the rich kids or should they be 'greeting' visitors, cleaning up puke and fixing the heating system? Yes, you claim that it is "elitist" rather than calling it racist but a rose by any other name, since the majority of poor are black or hispanic. You mentioned cleaning up puke twice. Is there some outbreak of puke in the school system going on I'm not aware of? Believe it or not, I went through 4 years of high school without seeing a pile of puke to be picked up. Guess I got lucky. You really don't have to go to such an extreme non-event to try to prove a point. The fact that you do is telling. unless he's planning to extend the school day Gingrich is going to force the poor kids to work at some point between 12:00 and 15:35. You had corrected me in another thread by telling me that the president could not arrest someone for marijuana use. Please tell me how Gingrich is going to be able to force poor kids to work. I'd like to know that one. I confess I have seen a lot of threads here that have made me shake my head in disbelief but this one really ranks way up there. Form a man stating that it would be a good idea for students to take on jobs to (1) make extra money and (2) to learn about responsibility and the business world, look what we get. Bob claiming that the comments are racist. You claiming that the comments are not racist, but elitest. Class warfare Child labor laws stripping children of the hard won protections of their childhood Exploiting children Putting children in unsafe working conditions and the list goes on........amazing stuff. It would make a great SNL skit. LIBRARIAN: Billy, would you like a job after school replacing returned books to the shelves and doing odd jobs? BILLY: Why are you asking me that? Haven't you heard of child labor laws? LIBRARIAN: But, Billy, it doesn't break the law and it would give you a chance to make a little spending money. BILLY: and what about the unsafe conditions? What if a book falls on my head? What if my foot gets run over by a cart and I'll have a limp for the rest of my life? Did you ever think about that? LIBRARIAN: Ok, I'm sorry, Billy. I thought perhaps you could use the extra money. No offense intended. BILLY: Oh, yeah? Why didn't you off the job to the rich kids, let them have a chance to get maimed for life? LIBRARIAN: Well, actually, I did offer them the job but they didn't want it. BILLY: See? You say you care about the poor like me but you offer the job to the rich kids first! You only come to the poor black kids with jobs the rich kids don't want. You want me to give up my quality time with my Nintendo and Xbox for a few lousy bucks? LIBRARIAN: Billy, I'm sorry. I was just offering you a job. I didn't mean to offend you. I'm sorry you feel that way. BILLY: Oh, what the heck. I'll just be one more exploited poor person...but I ain't cleaning up no piles of puke! LIBRARIAN: I don't think you have to worry about that, Billy. BILLY: I'll start tomorrow. Today I have to help my 8 year old friend Mary, who got busted for selling 5 cent a glass lemonade without a license. What's this world coming to, anyway????? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I could also do a reverse skit, where the poor student is making a case for getting part-time work but the school telling him that they are not allowed to help only those who need it and are giving the jobs to the rich kids, too, to make it fair that they are offering jobs to ALL students, so no grinch might scream foul. The student would, of course, scream that the system is only interested in favoring the rich and the poor don't have a chance in the system. The school system would be accused of being republicans, and the democrats would all speak in defense of the poor student. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
You could waste your time, and mine, with SNL type skits Mike or you could discuss the points raised. 'Why only poor kids?' Would be a good start, when I raised the point earlier as evidence that Gingrich's idea was elitist you avoided the issue, now you seem to be trying to ridicule it without actually addressing it or the evidence. If Obama suggested that rich kids should clean toilets some people would be screaming 'class warfare' at the top of their voice but the other way around doesn't seem to raise an eyebrow - odd that. quote: That's a common misconception Mike invented by racists and repeated by people who should know better. In fact the majority of people below the poverty line in the US are white - the total is 46.2 million and the number of whites living under the poverty line is 31.6 million. Fortunately, I knew that. Which is why I insisted that Gingrich's idea wasn't racist and why your claim that it's a rose by any other name doesn't hold water. quote: Good Point, in fact I'd like to know the answer to that one too. One minute Gingrich claims that poor kids don't have a work ethic, that they have no concept of turning up every Monday morning, that they don't understand the notion that they can do stuff and get money for it - unless it's illegal. Then in the next breath, Gingrich is claiming that he's going to get them to all work afternoons as janitors. Maybe he was just lying, now that's something he has a history of doing. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Skit is not a waste of my time. It reflects how I feel about the topic - a joke. If it wastes your time, then the obvious reply is - don't read it. For the life of me I can't understand why anyone would be upset about the work program favoring the poor. I would think every democrat, all the way up to Obama-san would applaud it. After all, that falls in to what they claim is their way of thinking - helping the poor, distributing the wealth, taking away from the haves. If Gingrich were to talk about giving the jobs to the haves, then the have-nots and their supporters would be screaming bloody murder that they were being left out. What is your problem with the poor and/or needy getting the jobs? I don't understand your complaint but, then again, I don't understand your complaint about being against anyone getting the jobs. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
While he speaks about the advantages of making good workers of children for the advantage of the system, he does nothing about talking about making sure that our children are protected against work accidents or exploited in potentially high pressure situations physically, emotionally or sexually. Bob, that's as far as I read with regards to your comment...sorry. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
The former House speaker argued that children would be an affordable alternative to unionized workers - and that "they'd be getting money, which is a good thing if you're poor." "New York City pays their janitors an absurd amount of money because of the union," Gingrich said. "You could take one janitor and hire 30-some kids to work in the school for the price of one janitor, and those 30 kids would be a lot less likely to drop out. They would actually have money in their pocket. They'd learn to show up for work. They could do light janitorial duty. They could work in the cafeteria. They could work in the front office. They could work in the library." "They'd be getting money, which is a good thing if you're poor," he added. "Only the elites despise earning money." http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57359900-503544/gingrich-my-position-should-not-offend-blacks/ |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
To insist that most poor people are people of color or are hispanic might or might not be considered racist. That is open to dispute. That it is literally ignorant is not. That Mike might not have the facts at his fingertips is understandable; Mike is a trusting guy. For a Ph.D. taking responsibility for a policy statement in a Presidential campaign shows exactly the sort of untrustworthy information and leadership one might expect from Dr. Gingrich. His statements are inflammatory and offer exploitive solutions at the expense of the defenseless and powerless among us. For those that admire this sort of behavior, he is the perfect candidate, and I suggest that they campaign for him loudly in exactly the tone they use here in front of all their independent friends, using exactly the same arguments they offer here, with no modification at all. I believe that such statements may work very well within conservative circles to work up the feelings of other conservatives 1/21/12 The radical right is trying to figure out how to deal with nominating a candidate for the Republican nomination. That much is the business of the Republican party and its various constituent pieces. My own affiliation is Democratic, and as far as I’m concerned this is all to the good for the chances my own party has in the election. The debate that Dr. Gingrich is offering for public consumption is one that I hope gets wide publicity. The belief that Dr. Gingrich seems to have that the American public wants to steal the protections of childhood from the children of the poor is one that I believe is one that absolutely should be tested in the cauldron of an election. The suggestion that the children of the poor should have their childhoods stolen from them while the children of the rich should be encouraged to have safe and protected childhoods is one that I believe would cause the sentiments of everybody who has every read Charles Dickens to indulge in a spontaneous fit of projectile vomiting. Many Americans other than Dr. Gingrich and his friends have a fairly solid history of cherishing the notion of childhood as a special time and place. If it is not one in fact, many of us believe it should be one, and strive to help make it so. We regard this as an ethical, moral and often a religious obligation. To have Republicans take a position against such a set of traditional American values is not in the least surprising for those of us who have listened to the varieties of positions advocated by the radical right over the past hundred years, during which time the right has fought tooth and nail against — among other things — child labor laws. For Dr. Gingrich, this latest provocation to decency is more of the same. While few people would defend the wonders of the foster-care system, for example, very few indeed would go so far as to advocate bringing back a system of orphanages to replace it. Sign Dr. Gingrich up among them. To have such a position as the death of the child labor laws advocated so publicly, however, seems to me to be a bit new. To have it advocated in front of Independent voters whose notions about the actual goals of the Republicans may have been swayed by some of the phony election year republican propaganda about constitutionality, freedom and wanting what’s right for the country, however, seems to me to be a little bit risky. The actual motives, running more accurately to Arbeit Macht Frei, work camps and exploitation to the point of slave labor seem to be coming a bit too close to the surface; and some if not many of the independent voters cannot help but notice. Most of them pride themselves on being called “Independents” because they aren’t good at taking marching orders. One cannot help but wonder whether the exploited children themselves will believe they are benefiting, when the Republicans will have to either break the existing law to put the little kids to work, or change the laws designed to protect children from exploitation in order to do so. I, for one, will make a point of keeping these facts in front of any and all independent voters I know. I, for one, will keep reminding anybody who will listen that I have asked that the actual facts of the matters under discussion be dealt with, and that at every turn the facts I have raised have been ignored in favor of childish jibes. Were the jibes an attempt to lessen the tension while dealing with this cynical recommendation of economic and emotional exploitation of children, I might let them pass. Offer me evidence they are so now, and I will let them pass now. In the meantime,children deserve better from adults who are supposed to be responsible for protecting them. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
If you were sorry, you'd take your fingers out of your ears, open your eyes, and deal with the legitimate criticism. Or you'd at least read far enough to be able to talk about why you thought it wasn't legitimate. Adults have responsibilities to children. As a cop, you'll have had to enforce them from time to time. Were they wrong before? Are you saying those laws are wrong now? Tell me which ones. Tell me why. Are you in favor of exploiting child labor or aren't you? You know Gingrich is advocating exploitation of child labor, because he's said so, and he's said it's a good thing. Are you or aren't you in favor of exploitation of child labor? That's pretty straightforward, isn't it? And how do you talk to your police friends about this? My point? My point is that Gingrich is advocating breaking the law. The law is there to protect children. The law already allows exceptions for children old enough to work without having it destroy their childhoods and under well supervised and safe working conditions. Where are Gingrich's caveats that support anything like these exceptions? I have seen none. I am more than willing to look at any that you're willing to point out, and you should be thrilled to show them to me, shouldn't you, since such things would certainly go some way in undermining my case, such as it is. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
"Only the elites despise earning money?" Well, count me in. I certainly don't despise every means of earning money, mind you, because I've earned some in my time doing things from janitorial work to putting together power sources, do teaching poetry to schizophrenics and to adolescents in an alternative school to doing group, family and individual therapy and doing social work in a VA: And also drug and alcohol adicts with other psychiatric problems that complicated the clinical picture. I also publish the occasional poem. I've never minded money for any of these activities, nor for working with developmentally delayed folks. Most of my favorite folks have been crazy or retarded, and none of them ever talk about Elites. Only Republicans talk about Elites. Newt Gingrich talks about Elites. He's worth how much money? He's got what, a Ph.D.? He's running for what, Dog-catcher? His constituency is what, white, older, and richer? That must make him somebody's poor and shabby uncle, right? I do despise pimps, however, and there are a lot of other occupations I despise that earn good money, including occupations that exploit children. And if you think you have to be some hoity toity nose in the air do gooder to be one of them, I'm proud to sign up for that partticular list. I'm anti-pimp, anti-destroyer of childhoods, anti-exploiter of nine year olds and pro supporter of child labor laws. Furthermore, I'll want to know where you are when it comes time to sign up on that list, and why in heaven's name you think there would be something wrong with hating child molesters, pimps, and people who make money from ripping the heart out of the childhood of some kid who doesn't know enough how to protect him or herself against the kind of monster who'd be cruel enough to be willing to make a dime on doing so without a second thought, and who'd even try to make some sort of feeble case about it being for the kid's own good. Some money shouldn't be earned, and should brand the hand of whoever tries to pick it up. That's what this bleeding heart do gooder thinks. Since you thought the inference was worth making, I thought the inference was worth an explicit response. And it is addressed to the very notion that there might be something "elite" about hating activities that exploit childhood and children in any way at all. It should come from something drilled into the soul of every adult human being: The need to protect not only children, but their childhood as well. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. What happens if the janitorial positions Gingrich talks about are taken by Asian Americans who manage to get top grades as well? I’ve paid a little more attention to Mitt recently and think he is limited by his sense of decency. Newt isn’t. I also noticed that some columnist criticized Mitt as being the whitest candidate running for the nomination in a long time. . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Are they children? |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. Who are children? By some measure it's up to age 26. . . by which time I had been to Vietnam and graduated from university on the GI Bill and was pursuing a career. PS: I had my first job at 13 I went through high school while working 40 to +50 hour weeks cooking chickens and swabbing greasy floors as my immigrant parents couldn’t afford me an allowance. I learned the value of work and money. I was not unique. . , |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. There is a limit to white guilt . . . For many having voted, (in George Will’s estimate), for the least qualified candidate in living memory is it . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Huan, were you aware, at 13, that your childhood was being ripped out of you and you were being exploited while you were working. Did you feel your life was in danger and you were running the risk of being maimed for life due to unsafe surroundings.....or were you happy to have the job, being able to bring much-needed revenue into the family? Just askin'.. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: It's simple Mike and can be summed up in one word - equality. As soon as you start to treat one group of people differently to another group of people you create discontent and friction and the only way to describe it is by sticking an 'ism' on the end of whatever qualifier distinguishes the two groups. Some people insist that the qualifier is race, but Gingrich was careful to say poor kids and as I've pointed out there are more white poor kids than there are black so the qualifier here isn't race, it's class. I've already stated I'd be against Gingrich's idea if it were aimed at rich kids but not because they'd be getting something that the poor kids weren't, I'd be against it because, I believe, they'd be losing something. As I see it that's the major difference between us, you see Gingrich's idea as giving something and I see it as taking something away. It doesn't really matter which one of us is right in that regard though, either way they obviously aren't being treated equally. So would both all kids working part time be a better idea? I'd say an unequivocal yes but not during school time. If Gingrich was proposing re-igniting something like the scout movement and bob-a-job week outside school hours I'd be all for it. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15350640 Ironically an idea like that would have to come from the Republicans because if Obama or the Dems suggested it there'd be more references to the Hitler Youth than you could shake a stick at. “So when I’m President, I will set a goal for all American middle and high school students to perform 50 hours of service a year, and for all college students to perform 100 hours of service a year. This means that by the time you graduate college, you’ll have done 17 weeks of service.” – Barack Obama, July 2, 2008, Colorado Springs Am I worried that little Tom, Dick or Harriet might get hurt? Not one little bit, I'm a firm believer in the adage that what doesn't kill you makes you stronger and that kids need to be taught to learn and they don't do that while wrapped in cotton wool. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Ah, yes, equality - that thing that dictates ninety year old great-grandmothers get patted down so that no specific group will feel slighted. I take it, then, that you are against anything the government does that favors one group over another? Btw, how is that plan of Obama's working out? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
[Edited - Ron ] [This message has been edited by Ron (01-22-2012 05:56 PM).] |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Yes that's thing I'm talking about Mike, I'd prefer it that nobody got patted down but if it's going to be done it should apply to everyone. I'd be willing to change my mind of course if you can guarantee that there's absolutely no possibility of a ninety year old knowingly or unknowingly carrying an explosive device, blade or firearm onto a plane. quote: Pretty much - yes. quote: It was shot down in flames by a bunch of short-sighted idiots who've decided that anything Obama suggests is automatically a radical Marxist, socialist, Maoist, communist plot to destroy America. . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Poor guy. The oval office, senate and House under democratic control and they still couldn't do what they wanted...except for health care and a few other little things. There oughta be a law.... |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
[Edited - Ron ] [This message has been edited by Ron (01-22-2012 06:01 PM).] |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Mike, If Gingrich suggested that every kid should work in their local community for at least an hour a week outside school hours would you support the idea? . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Interesting question... I really don't know. It doesn't seem like a bad idea but I don't know what kind of connection you are trying to make. It is, however, a good example of how absolutes don't work with every situation. There is a big difference between volunteer work and work one is getting paid for. The volunteeer work could be viewed by those who don't want to do it as a punishment. The job work would be viewed as an opportunity by those willing to participate and would not be mandatory for those not wishing to do it. For you to claim that anything the government does must be done on an equality basis is unrealistic, at best. It also means you would be against things like food stamps, higher taxes for the rich, college loans and anything the government deems to be done on a "need" basis. It would go against a whole lotta Obama programs...along with programs from earlier presidents, not to mention government housing and more things than I could list here. I find it interesting that people who would scream about the "unneedy" rich getting the same benefits from government programs as the poor would also would scream about the poor getting the benefits of part-time jobs over the rich. If that makes sense, I don't know what it is. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Following a controversy over language that appeared on Barack Obama’s official website suggesting that Americans would be mandated to complete up to 100 hours of community service as part of a national service program, the original text has been memory-holed and replaced with a more sanitized version. Despite numerous bloggers picking up on the switch, along with screenshots from before and after proving the language was changed, mesmerized Obama supporters are still claiming that that detractors had invented the language and that the website had not been altered. The text from Obama’s change.gov website, which went online shortly after the election result, originally appeared as follows (emphasis mine). Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year. The text was changed at some point on Friday afternoon/evening to the following (emphasis mine). Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by setting a goal that all middle school and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year and by developing a plan so that all college students who conduct 100 hours of community service receive a universal and fully refundable tax credit ensuring that the first $4,000 of their college education is completely free. http://www.infowars.com/obama-website-scrubs-mandatory-community-service-call/ hmmm....short-sighted idiots indeed |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Wow, Mike, you mean Obama suggested that people actually be required to serve their country? And up to a 100 hours a year? That seems a little extreme. Oh, wait. When you and I were that age, I think the requirement was more in the neighborhood of two years? I have no doubt, Mike, that you're right: Obama's original intention was to require community service of all teen and young adult Americans. I suspect he wanted to not only help the communities across the nation, but also instill a sense of responsibility that is sadly lacking in much of our citizenry today. Personally, I think such a plan would be as dangerous in America as it was in Nazi Germany, not because of evil intent, but simply because some things can't be safely legislated. I've always believed that civic responsibility, much like the work ethic discussed earlier, should be taught in the home, not in the school and certainly not mandated by government. Unfortunately, that isn't happening in this country very much any more. And, in large part because it isn't happening, Obama no doubt abandoned his plan when he realized it would never fly in a land currently more interested in bread and circuses. In my opinion, it was a valiant -- if misguided -- attempt to help correct a basic flaw in our current national character. It was meant as a signal, I think, that we need to return to a time when we helped ourselves by helping each other -- instead of expecting Government to do everything for us. I would hope the irony of trying to pass laws to make that happen wasn't lost on any of our current hoard of politicians. Obama included. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Bravo, Ron. I agree wholeheartedly with most of what you said. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: I'd certainly be against them if they weren't available or applicable to all Americans equally Mike. Ron, As odd as it may seem I pretty much agree with all of what you said. Especially this: quote: Do you think that there could ever come a point where the cost of not legislating outweighs the possibile danger of that legislation being abused or corrupted somewhere down the line? . |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. "In my opinion, it was a valiant -- if misguided -- attempt to help correct a basic flaw in our current national character. It was meant as a signal, I think, that we need to return to a time when we helped ourselves by helping each other -- instead of expecting Government to do everything for us. " Or a Clinton like shift to the right in words to get a second term. . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I'd certainly be against them if they weren't available or applicable to all Americans equally Mike. Really? So you think that higher taxes for the rich apply to all Americans...or all Americans that become rich, do you mean? Of course, in that case, the eliteism against the poor that appals you would also deal with all Americans. Ditto that for government housing and the rest... You don't get it both ways. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Ron, I can see in a small way where you can equate mandatory community service with the draft. That's fine and I don't have a problem with it. The interesting part is that, as soon as there were negative responses to it, Obama's people went back, changed it to voluntary with cash rewards and then claimed that they never changed it, that it was that way all the time. I guess it was out of their realm of intelligence to think that someone could have saved an original copy of it to compare. So how sincere was Obama's plan, to have it trashcanned so easily.....and was it something he believed in or was it something to get votes, something thrown out there to be deleted at any signals of discord? |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Inherent in your question, Grinch, is the assumption that my biggest concern lies "somewhere down the line." Any law can be abused, and indeed I suspect that any good law WILL be abused, which is precisely why the guilty sometimes walk free and the innocent too often have to pay damages for frivolous law suits. Elimination of potential abuse inevitably results in grossly unfair laws. We should guard against abuse as much as we can, of course, but I don't think we should ever allow the potential for abuse to stop us from doing the right thing. Admittedly, some laws don't just open the door to potential abuse but seem rather to almost encourage it. The so-called Patriot Act immediately springs to mind. These, too, are dangerous and, yea, the danger is usually "somewhere down the line." Laws that try to mandate "good behavior," in my opinion, are dangerous from the very moment they are passed. They are dangerous because things like ethics, morality and honor can't ever be legislated, can't ever be defined by majority rule. Trying to force people into a common mold both robs the individual of the emotional rewards of voluntary compliance and tries (albeit unsuccessfully) to rob society of the strengths of cultural diversity. I'm absolutely convinced that "good behavior" has to be defined by the individual if it is to have any real meaning. So no, Grinch, I don't believe there could ever come a point where the cost of not legislating ethics, morality and honor will outweigh the cost of forced homogeneity on society. quote: Mike, I guess I'm not entirely sure who "Obama's people" are, because I've not seen any official government statements claiming what you say they've claimed. If you have references, I'll take the time to read them. In any event, if someone has lied about the change in direction it's certainly not a lie I would condone. Works both ways, though. If obviously biased writers are wrongly accusing Obama staff of blatantly lying, that too is not something I would condone. quote: Beat me, Mike. I've never seen anything to indicate it was ever really thought through well enough to qualify as a plan. On the other hand, even in my world, which is far less fraught with controversy than a politician's, I understand the necessity of "picking our battles." Of course, I've got a few ex's out there who would probably say I was never very good at picking the right ones. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
As I linked to in #47, the post and change were at "change.gov", Obama's website as president elect. That would certainly mean Obama's people made the change. It also, though, makes my query about throwing it out for re-election invalid, since it was posted right before he took office for the first time. Why he posted it and why he backed away so quickly is something I still don't understand. Interesting....my ex-wives accused me of choosing the WRONG battles!! |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Yes, but that's no indication they then lied about making the change. That, Mike, is the part that remains uncorroborated. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. “According to estimates by The National Institute for Literacy, roughly 47 percent of adults in Detroit, Michigan -- 200,000 total -- are "functionally illiterate," meaning they have trouble with reading, speaking, writing and computational skills. Even more surprisingly, the Detroit Regional Workforce finds half of that illiterate population has obtained a high school degree.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/07/detroit-illiteracy-nearly-half-educati on_n_858307.html I witnessed a similar situation in Rhode Island where being a teacher was a very good living. There was a least one honest union rep, ( I think it was in DC), who said when kids start paying dues he would represent them . . . . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Ah, I see what you mean, Ron. Well, of course it it written on the page I linked to but, of course, that does not make it true. I'll check around and see what I can find. I'm looking at it in what I consider to be a realistic view. They came out with the first plan, declaring the community service would be mandatory. According to Mr. Grinch, "it was shot down in flames by a bunch of short-sighted idiots who've decided that anything Obama suggests is automatically a radical Marxist, socialist, Maoist, communist plot to destroy America." These idiots were unnamed by Mr. Grinch but it must be true because Mr. Grinch declared in post #19 of this thread that "If I knew it wasn't valid I wouldn't have written it.", regarding another comment of his I had questioned. Therefore we must accept it as something he researched and is valid. So we have the original and then we have a second one which changes it to voluntary with financial rewards. There was no reference to the first one, no mention of a revision and, actually, one can read both of them as if they were original, stand-alone statements. The second one completely ignores the first one. That would suggest to me that they simply disavowed anything the first one said. With regards to the second one, I'm wondering if those same unnamed idiots shot that one down, too. I haven't seen it implemented. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/fact-checking-the-2012-state-of-the-union-speech/2012/01/25/gIQAa5CTPQ_blog.html?hpid=z1 It's nice to have this out there . . . . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I agree, even though it will be ignored by democrats it's good to see. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Yes. quote: No Mike I mean all Americans who are rich. Does it only apply to a subset of Americans (those that are rich)? Yes, but nobody is excluded from being part of that subset. quote: No Mike because it doesn't apply to all Americans. It only applies to poor kids who need, and want, to improve their work ethic. Rich kids who need, and want, to improve their work ethic are excluded. That's the elitism I was talking about Mike, as far as Gingrich is concerned only poor kids need to improve their work ethic. quote: If you didn't know who the idiots were Mike you should have asked, The idiots I was referring to were those folk who criticised Obama's idea because they claimed it was a clear attempt to raise and arm a private army. They "shot it down in flames" all over the web, they didn't manage to stop it being passed though, they simply managed to destroy any enthusiasm that may have made it work. What you got is the legislation that might bite you down the line without the possibility of it ever doing much good. Ron, I agree that legislation isn't the ideal way to go but I can't honestly see where the change is going to come from without it. I believe Bush I, who introduced the original legislation and later Clinton, Bush II and, as discussed, Obama, who amended it, all thought that too. None of them, in my opinion, would have tried legislation if they didn't think it was necessary to at least attempt to sow the seed of more ethical behaviour, not by legislating ethics but by legislating to reward and promote it. . |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. How do you wean people from a sense of entitled dependency in the face of an entrenched government base that depends for for its good living on their existence? . |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: I can't disagree. I would like to, but I can't. Unfortunately, I can't see where the change is going to come from with legislation, either. If the change doesn't come from within, the consequences are inevitable. quote: The trouble, Grinch, is that each is trying to sow the seed of their definition of ethical behavior. If they want to use MY definition, maybe we can talk. But I'm the only person I trust to instill ethics in my children. And, frankly, if I had to make choices on a continuum, the state would be my LAST choice. I'd sort of like to see the politicians start displaying better behavior before they try to teach it to our kids. quote: Seriously, John? How many politicians can you name who depend on a government job for a "good living?" It's easy enough, I suspect, to demonize politicians, but I honestly don't think one in a thousand has truly evil intent. Even the worst, I believe, want to do right by the nation and nearly all justify their dubious behavior behind a facade of the means justifying the end. That cycle starts from the moment we, the electorate, force them to tell us lies because we won't elect anyone who tells us the truth. And then we're surprised when they lie to us after they're elected? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
If I want to know who those idiots were, all I had to do was ask? Ok, I'm asking because you still haven't told me, outside of nameless people who criticized Obama's idea and shot it down "all over the web". I'll ask again> Who is "they"? All over the web? The web is a pretty big place, grinch. Are you telling me that these nameless people caused Obama to trash his plan just because they posted negative things about it? If that were the case, he would have trashed Obamacare, too, because it was certainly trashed all over the web, too. If bloggers could get Obama to back down on his proposals, what does that say about him and/or his proposals? SO he changed it to voluntary with rewards. Has THAT one been implemented then or have the mysterious "they" defeated that one, too? If you don't mind, I'll borrow a line of yours for Obama that you used for Gingrich.. Maybe he was just lying, now that's something he has a history of doing. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. I wasn't speaking of politicians unless you put all government civil service employees and their unions in the definition. . [This message has been edited by Huan Yi (01-26-2012 10:17 AM).] |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: "They" would be people like Paul Joseph Watson Mike. quote: No Mike. The plan wasn't 'trashed' or changed by Obama, in fact, as I've already pointed out, it passed through Congress and was signed into law with only one major amendment and a number of minor amendments. Any changes were made by Congress. quote: Sorry but you've lost me Mike. I've read the original bill and all the amendments none of which described anything other than a voluntary service with rewards. Nothing I read mentioned that it was mandatory, I may have missed it though; can you supply a link or reference to the particular version of the bill you found that in? I'd be interested to read it. Ron, I get your point and, after reading the history of the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, I think all the Presidents I mentioned got it too. It's clearly apparent that the legislation was designed to support volunteer groups with funding and encourage and reward participation by individuals while keeping the government out of the service delivery end. In years gone by those volunteer groups were funded by local business owners turned philanthropists, charitable donations and local fundraising events all of which have either disappeared or can't meet the demand. Perhaps the government is the last choice. In the UK the money for supporting good causes and volunteer organisations has come from a very unlikely source, a portion of the profits made by the company that runs the National lottery is distributed in the form of grants to worthy applicants. Ironically it came about via legislation, being part of the licence agreement to run the lottery when it was first set up. Does the US do the same? Is it an option perhaps? . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Thank you for at least one name. This person is responsible then? You keep referring to a "they" and "all over the web". Same question....who are "they"? All over the web..where? Got the plan changed....how? Surely, if you have the facts, you can be more specific that one name and "people like...". No Mike. The plan wasn't 'trashed' or changed by Obama, in fact, as I've already pointed out, it passed through Congress and was signed into law with only one major amendment and a number of minor amendments. Any changes were made by Congress. I don 't understand. In you post #42 you claimed it was "shot down in flames" and now you state nothing happened to it at all. Which is it? . I've read the original bill and all the amendments none of which described anything other than a voluntary service with rewards. Nothing I read mentioned that it was mandatory Then you may want to recheck. In my post #47, you will see this...from Change.org, Obama's website. "Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year." I know I';m from the hills of Missouri but there "to require" is to "make mandatory", not "make voluntary." Now, if you look at the second one, you will see the change of "plan to require" to offering those who do participate financial rewards, if they choose to participate...and yet you don't see any change there? So you have me thoroughly confused. The plan was shot down by someone but passed through congress. It was not mandatory and yet spoke of requiring schools to follow it. So, tell ,me. If the plan passed through congress, how is it going? And which plan passed? The one requiring schools to follow it or the one making it voluntary? Which plan was shot down...and how? |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. "In years gone by those volunteer groups were funded by local business owners turned philanthropists, charitable donations and local fundraising events all of which have either disappeared or can't meet the demand. Perhaps the government is the last choice." And that's ok? . |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: He's a good example Mike but if you want another how about John Ruskin. The list is very long, I can supply more if you like. The internet is full of people who decided to twist the words in the proposed legislation and make out that Obama was going to arm his personal version of the Hitler youth. I already explained that though, so how did they get the plan changed? They didn't, as I explained the bill wasn't substantially changed, what those propaganda merchants and wingnuts did was shoot down the idea of public service, to twist the intention and demonise everything connected to it. Their idiotic short-sightedness tarnished the name of any existing volunteer organisation that received funding through the existing legislation and any potential future volunteer. They shot down an idea and damaged a scheme that had been doing good work for over twenty years, a scheme created by Bush I, expanded and supported by Clinton then Bush II and finally Obama. quote: Both. You asked me how the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act was going and I said it had been shot down in flames by a bunch of short-sighted idiots who've decided that anything Obama suggests is automatically a radical Marxist, socialist, Maoist, communist plot to destroy America. I presumed that it was common knowledge that the legislation had already been signed into law and that it was clear that I was referring to critics who had nonetheless hamstrung the idea. If I confused you or was less than clear I apologise quote: I've read it Mike. In fact it was written by the first short-sighted idiot I mentioned, unfortunately it contains no reference to the actual text of the legislation, just a story about how some, out of context, web blurb was edited. There's no real evidence in the article. You keep insisting that the proposed legislation was mandatory and then was changed to voluntary. I can't find any evidence that it was anything other than voluntary. Your insistence that it was mandatory is, presumably, based on some real evidence, would you care to share it? Where in the original un-amended bill does it say it was mandatory? . [This message has been edited by Grinch (01-27-2012 01:31 PM).] |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Yes and no. . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Grinch, I showed you the document on the change.gov website. You call that non-evidence. So be it. Have a nice evening. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: I call it "non-evidence" Mike because it's clearly not evidence that the service described in the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act was ever mandatory. Just because someone claims it's true doesn't make it true. Have you read the original bill Mike? Does it propose that the service should be mandatory, if so where? . |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: I don't think the government's role should include encouraging or rewarding moral behavior, Grinch. That's not their job. If they were giving tax incentives to people refraining from eating meat on Friday, I suspect you might feel the same? Morality should not be defined by the state. quote: Ah, the irony! What if the government isn't the last choice, Grinch, but rather the reason other charitable sources seem unable to meet demand? When we expect the state to do everything for us it's absolutely inevitable that we stop doing things for ourselves. I think that's especially true when policy and attitude serve to rob people of the inner rewards of being charitable. quote: Grinch, you seem to be suggesting that legislative bills start out as legislative bills and have no antecedents? There seems to be at least some evidence that Obama's initial proposals underwent radical change between the time they were originally offered and the time they evolved into the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act. It's not unreasonable, in my opinion, to question that process. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Agreed....and I'm still at a loss to understand what "shot down" means. Mr. Grinch claims it was shot down while claiming the congress passed it with only minor changes. I've asked several times with no answer. I have also asked, if it is in force, how it is working out and I get no answer there, either. So I continue to be at a loss..... |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. Yesterday, listening to a local public radio station, I heard the complaints of a representative for a social program in Chicago that essentially seeks to support the self-esteem of handicapped Asians. She was complaining that the State of Illinois was in arrears for one and a half million dollars in funding. The State of Illinois is currently in arrears to the amount of some eight billion dollars despite a 66% increase in the state’s income tax and a sales tax that in some areas reaches 9% and beyond. And I asked myself how is it right however laudable the intent that this social program use the government of Illinois to take money from its residents whose median family income is under $50,000 to serve its purpose. The State of Illinois is currently owing 80 billion dollars into civil service pensions; pensions, apart from other after retirement benefits, which no one doing similar work in the private sector and longer could imagine in their dreams. Who mobbed Madison, Wisconsin; who marched on Springfield, Illinois demanding higher taxes? The Federal situation is no different if not worst. . |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Hmm.. That's a real possibility Ron but it raises an even more ironic thought - Do all acts of charity toward others ultimately inhibit people from doing things for themselves? Whether it's the state, the church or a philanthropist supplying the fish isn't the outcome the same? quote: Of course legislative bills have antecedents Ron and the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act was no exception. It was first introduced to the house as the Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act and before that it passed through a standing committee. Further back than that it was an outline document of ideas created by the executive branch and sponsors before the original bill for consideration was finalized drawn up and passed to the house for consideration. Obama could have changed the bill in the draft stage, before it was presented for consideration. That would certainly explain why the first publically released version I read was for a voluntary service. Is that what you meant Mike, or were you suggesting that the bill was changed after it was first presented? quote: I think you may have missed my answers Mike, they are there if you look - after clarifying them I even took the time to apologies if my original statements were unclear. I'll give you them again though. By 'Shot down' I meant unduly criticize and attempt to deter an idea using untruths and falsehoods. How can you shoot something down in flames without destroying it? A husband might shoot down in flames his wife's idea to paint the garage pink but it doesn't mean he's not going to end up with a pink garage. How is the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act working out? As I said It's been shot down in flames by some people, which has unquestionably damaged the volunteer groups and individual participation but it's still there and working. . |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. “Whether it's the state, the church or a philanthropist supplying the fish isn't the outcome the same?’ No, not when someone finds his hard work after state deductions won’t feed his own family. . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Well, Grinch, since we both speak English, perhaps it is a difference of countries. Where I come from, when something is "shot down in flames", it is gone, destroyed, buried, kaputski. If I would shoot down my wife's idea of painting the garage pink, then pink is the one color it would not be. I'm guessing, perhaps, the phrase came from dogfights in war, where planes were shot down in flames. Rest assured that, when that happened, the plane in question was not conducting aerial raids the next day. If a bill in Congress is "shot down", it is gone, not to be seen again. According to the Free Online Dictionary... Informal To ruin the aspirations of; disappoint. Informal a. To put an end to; defeat: shot down the proposal. b. To expose as false; discredit: shot down his theory. You may claim others tried to shoot down his plan, bill or whatever but, if they actually shot it down, that means they destroyed it....in America and, I feel confident, in England. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Again Mike, sorry about the confusion, my bad. The sort-sighted idiots shot Obama's theory down in flames , it was riddled with bullets and badly burned but Congress managed to patch it up and get it flying again. Better? Now you've cleared that up perhaps you can clear up the question of whether Obama changed planes while he was on the ground? Was the bill changed after it was introduced to make the service voluntary instead of mandatory? As Ron has correctly suggested is possible, did Obama consider a mandatory service but reject it before the bill was even introduced? Or did it play out another way? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Actually I asked you how the plan had worked out, not the theory, and you claimed it had been shot down in flames...but, since any further discussion on it would be shot down in flames, we can leave it there.  The text from Obama's website stated that community service would be required right after his election on Nov 8, 2008. After controversy, it was changed shortly thereafter. The bill was signed into law on April 21, 2009, so obviously his "cleaning up" occurred before. On August 20, 2010, the Corporation for National and Community Service issued a final rule implementing changes in the National Service Trust and other provisions as directed by the Serve America Act. One of the reasons for the criticism against Obama's original plan was a possible connection to the " civilian national security force" Obama had planned to implement, a civilian force "equal to, just as powerful and as well-funded as the military for civilian defense." I personally remember him saying that and feeling hairs stand up on the back of my neck. Apparently I was not the only one. http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&hl=en-GB&v=Tt2yGzHfy7s . Perhaps I had the sight of Black Panthers intimidating voters at the voting booths in my mind? There were those who likened the mandatory enlistment Obama originally called for as creating something similar to Marxist youth corps. If these are the idiots you refer to, I gladly join that group. No president has done more to create division in the country during his presidency. Every economic statistic and indicator has gone down during his term and yet, according to him, none of it is his fault. He spends time blaming Republicans, blaming the rich, blaming everyone he can to cover the fact that he has not fulfilled, even remotely, the goals he promised to accomplish during his first term in office. Could there be some sort of rebellion against him if it continues? It is not out of the question. Would he want to have a civilian military-style corps to combat whatever rebellion might occur? I would be concerned that he could. I believe the fact that, when the opposition to his "requirement" plan surfaced and he quickly changed it, there may have been some truth to it that he wanted buried as soon as possible...that's my opinion, the opinion of one of the "idiots".  |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Thanks for clarifying. I wouldn't categorise you with the idiots I was referring to earlier though Mike. based on what yu're saying you thought Obama's proposed legislation was going to be a plan to create a mandatory armed Marxist force before the actual bill was presented. Which is a legitimate opinion, I may diagree with that opinion but I can't prove that it isn't true. That's a million miles from the particular short-sighted idiots I was referring to who were still claiming the legislation was a plan to create a mandatory armed Marxist force after the bill was released, in fact some of them still are. . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Well, I don't understand that. If the "required" and "mandatory" were taken out of the final bill, how could they consider the bill to provide something mandatory? The critics of the Serve America Act argue that by expanding AmeriCorps, the United States government is providing funding to volunteering, something that should be done without compensation. . I know that that was a sticky point, with Obama asking for 1.1 billion to fund a "voluntary" program. Perhaps they felt that the money would be used to fund the "civilian security force" Obama claimed he wanted to create.....but I'm just guessing there. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
I think you're probably right Mike and maybe it is wrong to reward volunteers but that wasn't something new introduced by Obama. Obama's bill was basically just an expansion of the National and Community Service Trust Act of 1990. At the time Bush himself wasn't completely convinced that rewarding volunteers was a good idea but it seemed to work. It worked so well in fact that both Clinton and Bush II expanded the reward for volunteering programs - Bush II actually increased participation by 50% when he launched the Freedom Corp. Personally I'm still in two minds, the programs do a lot of good work but the contradiction in terms is hard to shake - I think as long as the rewards are large enough to be an incentive but small enough not to be seen as a sole reason to volunteer I don't have any real issue with them. . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
The liberal freak-out over a picture of Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican, pointing at President Obama continues, with Jesse Jackson and others calling the confrontation racist. Making matters worse, some liberals are using the incident as an excuse to call for violence against Gov. Brewer. "Next time Jan Brewer sticks her finger in President's face, the Secret Service should break it & drop her. #edshow #p2," tweeted a Massachusetts resident going by the name "chaplinlives." According to Newsbusters' Jack Coleman, the ultra left wing MSNBC chose to scroll the tweet during Wednesday's edition of the Ed Show. Coleman added: The tweet came from a Twitter user named "chaplinlives" who resides in Massachusetts -- or as we happy few conservatives with domiciles here call it, the People's Republic of Taxachusetts. Consider yourself warned -- "chaplinlives" uses a photo of a lion for a Twitter avatar (No, not the one in "The Wizard of Oz"), so he or she is not to be trifled with. http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-spokane/liberals-call-brewer-confrontation-with-obama-racist-advocate-violence ...and so it continues. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
The photograph of Arizona governor Jan Brewer shaking her finger at President Obama is about more than accusing the “Obama administration of turning a blind eye to illegal immigration because migrants will help Mr. Obama register more Democratic votes.” Brewer’s actions were more than disrespect for the leader of the most powerful nation on Earth, they were outward expressions of white supremacy befitting a pre-Civil War plantation owner scolding an errant slave who forgot to empty the master’s chamber pot. http://www.politicususa.com/en/obama-racist-jan-brewer |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
Off the cuff: If the finger in the photo was attached to a black hand it would still mean the exact same thing: The number of years Obama has left in office. That’s what Brewer says she was stating in that snapshot. Empowering a person as a White Supremacist Racist over a finger is just as wasteful with a label as the finger was with information. The writer, Rmuse, of "The Media Whitewashes Jan Brewer’s Racist Disrespect Of President Obama" is bemused, and unable to see beyond the "plantation" due to being stuck inside a "chamber pot," because he or she is obviously unaware that Obama is also accused of being a racist by many black Americans. The rest of the write is too heavily laden with bias to amount to much other, but what interests me more is how he or she, pointedly, left someone out of the article as if he doesn’t exist as a "Republican presidential hopeful:" Ron Paul. He exists. And he is gaining a firestorm of support from black supporters. WARNING: Bits of explicit language. Ron Paul- What Some Black People Think Why was Rmuse "reluctant to assail" Ron Paul? Is the writer a victim of the spin doctor’s lies that he isn’t even electable? Or maybe Rmuse is secretly FOR Ron Paul?? But is afraid to say so because it doesn’t jive with the claims that Republican Christian Conservative= White Supremacist Racist. Is he or she pandering to the media’s efforts to ignore him across the board? I dunno. But the person who is ignored in articles like these and in the media is just too unignorable, anymore. Whether you are for or against the man, he exists. And he’s making a ton of sense to "decent Americans; regardless of their race." Anyway, thumbs-up to you, Mike, for the link, and to Rmuse for making me more supportive of what writers don’t cover than what they do. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
 |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
