How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 The Race is on...get used to it!   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  ]
 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

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

The Race(ism) is on...get used to it!

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


75 posted 01-27-2012 07:27 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


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 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


76 posted 01-27-2012 08:11 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
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.


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:
Grinch, you seem to be suggesting that legislative bills start out as legislative bills and have no antecedents?


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:
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.....


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 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


77 posted 01-27-2012 08:38 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


“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 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


78 posted 01-27-2012 10:50 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

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 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


79 posted 01-28-2012 07:07 AM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


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 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


80 posted 01-28-2012 10:27 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

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 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


81 posted 01-28-2012 12:15 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


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 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


82 posted 01-28-2012 03:42 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

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 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


83 posted 01-28-2012 04:53 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


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 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


84 posted 01-30-2012 01:42 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer


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 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


85 posted 01-30-2012 01:48 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

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 02-29-2000
Posts 3797
Tennessee


86 posted 02-04-2012 09:35 AM       View Profile for rwood   Email rwood   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for rwood

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 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


87 posted 02-04-2012 03:32 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> The Race is on...get used to it!   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

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



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