»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
Not a Neener Neener Neener Post.
| The Alley |
|
Not a Neener Neener Neener Post. |
|
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Hi all! Despite having threatened to put up a post which simply said, "Neener, Neener,Neener," more seriously, I hope those newly elected recieve the support and respect they are entitlted to. Best, Jimbeaux  [This message has been edited by oceanvu2 (11-05-2008 12:43 PM).] |
||
| © Copyright 2008 Jim Aitken - All Rights Reserved | |||
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Ditto |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
voting a YES. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Obama has become president on pure rhetoric. He has talked the talk and now it will soon be time to walk the walk. I give him the respect for making it this far and I will watch with an unprejudiced eye what happens when he assumes command. He has my best wishes at heart, although I will fear the worst and hope for the best. I do not disrespect a man simply because he belongs to an opposing party. If he succeeds, America succeeds and my applause will be as loud as anyone else's. We live in interesting times.... |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Aw, c'mon, Mike. Obama became President on sheeer more votes than McCain. McCain didn't/doesn't have a speech impediment; one can't say he lost beause he couldn't make a decent speech. He was amBUSHed. A case of terrible timing. So it goes, or went. These ARE interesting times, unimaginable as few as 15 years ago. I think our generation, yours and mine, just got poked in the eye. So, we'll see what the new kids, the 35-50 year olds can do. It was going to be their turn sooner or later, Republican or Democrat, and that time appears to be now. The US is an astounding country, full of contradictions, inconsistencies, and it's share of flaws, but ulimately magnificent. I follow the path of a major religion. It just isn't a Judeo/Christian/Islamic one. But I can still say with sincerity, God bless us one and all! Best, Jimbeaux |
||
Mistletoe Angel 
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
This is not intended as a "neener-neener-neener" post, but rather my perception as to why McCain's campaign failed to gain traction and why Obama's succeeded. McCain's campaign struggled because their message was inconsistent and seen to most as a negative-toned one, spending much more time attacking his opponent than explaining in detail what he would do to resolve our economic crisis, among other things. In addition, Sarah Palin's lack of qualifications in the eyes of most Americans hindered McCain's campaign, with the polls even suggesting it hurt his campaign more than George W. Bush. For months before yesterday voters were saying unanimously that they thought McCain was spending too much time attacking his opponent. Yet what did the McCain campaign, the Republican National Committee and their allied 527's do in the final three days? They were playing the Jeremiah Wright card, despite the fact that the public had already been exposed heavily to this issue and it did not sink Obama's campaign. ABC News first broke the story, NOT the Clinton campaign, and more than 3,000 news stories had been published during April on his controversial remarks. For one week in late April Obama dipped slightly in the polls due to the Wright controversy, but by the following week in early May his popularity had returned to its previous level. There's a reason why, despite his opponents tirelessly pushing that, William Ayers, Tony Rezko, Michael Pfleger, "Bittergate", Rashid Khalidi, his canceled appearance to Landstuhl Army Hospital, Obama's opting out from public financing, ACORN, not wearing lapel pins or crossing his heart during the National Anthem, his birth certificate, about being a Muslim when he's clearly a Christian (even if he was a Muslim, who cares?  ), his "lipstick" comment, accusations of him being some rabid socialist, comments he made about charging coal companies for greenhouse gas emissions, falsehoods about him taxing everyone with 401(k)s and complaining about him flying over to Hawaii to visit his now-late grandmother during the final days of the campaign...............Obama's approval rating is higher than it has ever been. Because while his campaign certainly wasn't free of going negative (he had a good share of that as well), regardless of how much you agreed or disagreed with him on the issues or had reservations about his lack of experience and not having enough substance to what he says, the prominent message and demeanor of his campaign was seen as optimistic, uplifting, visionary, forward-looking, cooperative.........qualities that traditionally move electors.I reluctantly voted Kerry in 2004 and I can certainly see why he lost nonetheless. Because he came across as too elitist, thus unconvincing and unpersuasive, to the populace that he would lift the country and move it forward. I voted for Obama this cycle and while I have some criticisms of him, I nonetheless felt comfortable voting for him and while everything may certainly prove to be wishful thinking in the end, I think there's potential he can be a very successful president. I gauge that perception on how he's able to often keep a cool, disciplined temperament in a tense environment, but at the same time he's unmistakably strong-willed, but in a more pragmatic sense. Regardless, we'll begin to have an idea about three months or so going into his first term if he more or less lives up to his soaring rhetoric or not. As John Wayne once said: "I didn't vote for him, but he's my president, and I hope he does a good job.", when he learned that John F. Kennedy had edged Richard Nixon in the 1960 presidential election. I certainly offered Bush the chance to prove himself despite my concerns at the time that he had stolen the 2000 election, and at one point, following September 11th, I truly believed his leadership was strong and commendable, speaking from the megaphone at Ground Zero saying that he could hear us, and that we would be hearing from those responsible as soon as possible and, at least from what we knew at the time, continuing to govern this country in a bi-partisan, engaging manner. Sadly he betrayed the trust of most Americans, which is something I'm not going to go through here again, and most will look back and believe he did not do a good job, but the point is I ignored his partisanship after having been elected, I put aside my prejudices, and gave him the chance to prove himself.........and I would hope everyone whose candidate didn't win this election cycle allows this president-elect the chance to prove himself in the first months of his presidency............just as I would have done had John McCain been elected, regardless of the accusations I've tossed at him these past eighteen months............or had Bob Barr had elected, or Ralph Nader, or Cynthia McKinney, or Mickey Mouse, etc. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Hi Noah, The first to break the Jeremaih Wright story was Sean Hannity of Fox News. Check it out when you get a chance. He broke the story sometime in 2007. |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
Today, I am sad. Sad that John Murtha was re-elected due to voter stupidity. Sad that another man whose main accomplishment was that he gave a good speech in the DNC is now our sitting President. I am still not sold at all on his 'credentials.' He has a very unimpressive resume that is no better or even different in substance than any other politician with limited Senate experience. I am sold on the fact that his group of limited friends is as circumspect of any political circle I've ever seen. I am scared that the very thing that the public railed against: one party running the government into the ground, is EXACTLY what they elected!! This country has a history of running the best when there is a balance of power IN power. Yeah, I'm a bit disappointed in the voting populace. They were sold a 'Presidency' by someone who is argueably the best salesman in the US. He told them everything they wanted to hear - and they bought it, hook line and sinker. He promised them untold riches and entitlements during a major economic crisis, and they bought it. Obama's first year will be wrought with every manner of mooch with their palms out. I feel I haven't watched a politician run: I saw a minister preaching hope; the political equivalent of Joel Osteen or Rick Warren. I see a man who openly said: I will bring the troops home, now, no matter what; flip his position, ignore the success of the Surge, and will now take complete credit for the end-game which is all but over. The best news of the war, only 13 casulties in the month of September, was sent to page 7A on USA Today a couple of weeks ago; briefly mentioned on newscasts, and then de-emphasized on purpose so Obama wouldn't look so stupid. Every grizzly death was reported until Obama ran - now, the media can't even report the best news of the war on page 1. I saw a candidate who didn't get a bit of bad press in his final month. Even the occasional negative story was explained away immediately: not by his staff -no - the media did it for him, providing excuse after excuse and not running the same story twice. Hell, they too eagerly ran the SNL tapes of Palin until my ears exploded, and that wasn't even real news. I even feel a bit sorry for Hilary Clinton, the sacrificial pawn of the Democratic party who can kiss off any Presidential bid until at least 2012, and probably 2016. She has been degendered by her own political party; good or bad, the reign of the Clintons is over for good. And now, the Democrats will effectively be able to repeal or enact any law they wish. If that doesn't put some trepidation in your heart, then perhaps you didn't learn the lesson of the Republicans. [This message has been edited by threadbear (11-05-2008 05:50 PM).] |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I agree with you, Jimbeaux and i share your disappointment, Threadbear, about Murtha. It seems incredible that such a person would get re-elected. Obama won the presidency for mainly four reasons... He was the beneficiary of the overwhelming public disapproval of Bush That is a given. Hillary or anyone else would have received it equally. He was the beneficiary of the timing of the economic crisis At the beginning of the campaign, Iraq and foreign policy were the top topics of the election. McCain held a clear advantage at that time. When Lincoln, Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac exploded, the focus shifted to the economic side, which favored Obama. He bribed the lower class to vote for him He offered to give an immediate rebate to everyone, including over 40% of working Americans who do not pay income taxes. He basically said, "Vote for me and you've got a thousands bucks coming in the mail". Anyone care to debate that this was not enticing to the poor? He ran a magnificent campaign financed by more money than any candidate had ever had His campaign manager was a genius at his job, and, aided by unlimited funds, got the job done. Those are the main four things I see. True, there are other intangibles. He's an excellent orator (as one senator said 'He could tell you to go to hell and make you look forward to the trip'), he has the ability to instill hope in people, and he broke the color barrier. Will any if these things insure he will be a good or effective president? of course not, but they have served to give him a shot at it. Now it's up to him. As I said, I hope he does well because that would mean the country would also benefit. Time will tell. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. The one good thing for the Boomers is that most of us will be dead or beyond caring . . . . |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
One month ago, a radio talk show host went out and did a man-on-the-street interview informal poll. He asked 50 random people who supported Obama to list one platform that they liked about him, and to mention one specific of it. ZERO for 50 was the result. They said: hope, change, he's not Bush. But not one could enuciate a single specific about the Obama platform. Obama is THE candy-coated candidate-elect of our generation. Now, everybody wants a lick. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
It's so nice to see America coming together again. I'm glad everyone has chosen to emulate the same class both candidates demonstrated Tuesday night. (I'm guessing some of you guys didn't have to give out much candy this Halloween?) |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I don't see it happening anytime soon, Ron. I personally can't "come together' with those of a socialist bent and with those vehemently intolerant of views other than their own. What I can do is be civil with them, as much as I can be, but that's about it. And that's quite a bit more than they gave conservatives and President Bush over the past eight years. I still can't fathom why more that half the country voted for someone they know next to nothing about. He's a mystery. Nobody knows anything about him other than a flimsy sketch, and his associations with extreme American-hating radicals. And yet it didn't seem to matter to the majority of the people. I think they have gotten what they deserve. It's too bad the rest of us will be along for the painful ride. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Sorry, Jim, couldn't resist: Party’s over for Palin: GOP goes to collect leftovers from her shopping spree.» After controversy erupted over Gov. Sarah Palin’s (R-AK) largely unauthorized spending spree, Palin announced that she would no longer be wearing the expensive clothing: “Those clothes, they are not my property. … I’m not taking them with me.” However, it seems that a few items did make it back to Alaska with her, and the GOP is coming to reclaim them: Sarah Palin left the national stage Wednesday, but the controversy over her role on the ticket flared as aides to John McCain disclosed new details about her expensive wardrobe purchases and revealed that a Republican Party lawyer would be dispatched to Alaska to inventory and retrieve the clothes still in her possession. A new story in Newsweek reveals that Palin “spent ‘tens of thousands’ more than the reported $150,000, and that $20,000 to $40,000 went to buy clothes for her husband.” |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: You’re seem to either be saying that you can’t come together with yourself or that socialists are anti-social - I’m not quite sure which. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
A Palin aide said: "Governor Palin was not directing staffers to put anything on their personal credit cards, and anything that staffers put on their credit cards has been reimbursed, like an expense. Nasty and false accusations following a defeat say more about the person who made them than they do about Governor Palin." http://www.newsweek.com/id/167581 Both sides of the story would be considered fair and balanced, Jen. And I wouldn't give credence to unnamed sources. It makes it kind of difficult to question them about their comments. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Fair and balanced, hmmmm. How about this from fair and balanced FOX News correspondent Carl Cameron: Cameron also said she (Palin) was unaware who the members of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) were, or that the United States - along with Canada and Mexico - was one of them. "We're told by folks that she didn't know what countries were in NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, that being Canada, the US, and Mexico," Cameron told presenter Shepard Smith. "I wish I could have told you more at the time but all of it was put off the record until after the election. "There was great concern in the McCain campaign that Sarah Palin lack the degree of knowledgeability necessary to be a running mate, a vice president, and a heartbeat away from the presidency." The Alaskan Governor's big spend on clothes emerged publicly last month, but McCain's aides also said that she spent "thousands more" than the reported $US150,000 on clothes during the campaign, much to the shock of the donor that footed the bill, the US magazine Newsweek reported. An angry aide, quoted in Newsweek, described the shopping spree as "Wasilla hillbillies looting Neiman Marcus from coast to coast", and predicted that the truth would eventually come out when the Republican Party audits its books. Newsweek reported that Palin was told she could buy three suits and hire a stylist, but that she instead started shopping for her family at top clothing stores, and also used the credit cards of low-level staffers to do some of the shopping. A McCain aide reportedly told the magazine that $US20,000 to $US40,000 was spent by Palin on her husband's clothes. Cameron also said the Alaskan Governor started to "go rogue" early on, as shown by her first disastrous CBS interview with Katie Couric in September. "She got very angry at staff, thought that she was mishandled, was particularly angry about the way the Katie Couric interview went," he said. The moment was then satirised by Tina Fey on Saturday Night Live in a video clip watched by millions. "She didn't accept preparation for that interview and the aides say that that was part of the problem. And there were times that she was hard to control emotionally - there's talk of temper tantrums at bad news clippings," he said. Cameron said there was a "truncated" vetting process for Palin's selection, after McCain's camp decided the then-shortlist was inadequate to "change the game" in the race for the presidency. So they opted instead for a candidate who reportedly once addressed McCain aides wearing nothing but a towel and another on her wet hair, Newsweek reported. The relationship between McCain and Palin was further strained after she was recorded falling for a prank call by two Canadian comedians pretending to be French president Nicolas Sarkozy. "Her staff didn't know the name of the French President," Sebastien Trudel told The Globe and Mail. "They asked us to spell it." McCain and Palin both left Phoenix in separate cars yesterday but Palin, for her part, "bears no ill-will to staff", Cameron said. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
As I said, Jen, the source was unnamed. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Unnamed for sure, that is until the first tell all book comes out. That's gonna be a doozy! |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
The day after the election, the stock market fropped almost 500 points, setting a record for the biggest drop the day after any election in history. In the two days following the election, the market is down almost 1000 points, the biggest two day drop since the crash of 1986. Main Street may be cheering Obama. Wall Street isn't, neither are businesses or investors. dick Morris states the main reason is the capital gains increase that Obama will implement. People are selling now before the rate almost doubles. He predicts it will continue to tank, with the exception of a day or so when speculators take advantage of low stock prices and it will drop until and unless Obama rescinds his plan to raise capital gains taxes. Is he right? It will be easy to see....keep watching the big board. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Starting early Mike? /pip/Forum6/HTML/001742.html#000054 |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
a little too cryptic for me this morning, Grinch.. I've done nothing but post the facts that the market has gone down drastically in the past two days (which it has), that it has set records (which it has), and that Dick Morris opines that it is partially due to the capital gains taxes, which are due to almost double. I have no idea if he is right or not but it has a plausibility to it and the days to come will be interesting. Whatever you think I may be "starting" is beyond me. I've not trashed Obama. The rise in capital gains taxes is his policy. Any connection between them and the movement of the market will become obvious in the days ahead. Undoubtedly, if McCain had been elected and the market nose-dived for the next two days, your tune would be a lot different. Don't wrack your brain, trying to read what isn't there. As you folks like to say, the proof will be in the pudding. [This message has been edited by Balladeer (11-07-2008 10:06 AM).] |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Chocolate pudding! What a MARVELOUS idea! Jiminey Cricket, even some of our European friends seem to think so. They seem to think that the US has somehow reasserted it's core values on a grand scale. Of course, the proof will be in the pudding, it always is. Can we take a poll? How many people think we the taxpayers, will float the Big Three auto makers to the tune of billions under George the (lame) Duck? I'm thinking we don't need to send Big Three executives to Japan to learn how to build cars for the 21st Century. We could just send them to Tennessee, where the Japanese build cars for the 21st century. Cheaper in the long run. And yes, I would hate to see the US auto industry fail, but then, it already HAS failed. Twice! And this is the taxpayer's fault? Here's a real question to which I do not know the answer: When we hear talk of the US auto industry losses, is that a reflection of business in the US market only, or does it include global operations where they make more efficient and popular cars under other marques? I dunno. Things are so international, as is fine, I just can't figure out if there is a difference between Divisional profit/loss and global profit/loss. Nobody is screaming about this yet, so maybe it's a non-issue, or a quiet issue. Anyway, whatever happens, it's clearly going to be all radical leftist socialist anarchist and not yet President Obama's fault. Glory forbid any good things should happen -- they won't be good enough. Some folks seem to have forgotten already under who's watch the stock market tanked, the real estate market collapsed, bank failures skyrocketed, the chief economist "goofed," retail sucks, and the unemploymnent rate is the highest in decades. Oh, I forgot. It's all Obama's fault. Or his fellow travelers. Yeesh, if we just concede now that it's all the Democrat's fault, can we possibly get on to something else? Best, Jimbeaux |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
And just what would those core values be, that our European friends think have been reasserted in a big way, Jim? Maybe you or they could jot down a few here. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Are we to support and respect those who have stated they will bring us: Redistribution of Wealth? You can call it Marxism, Socialism, Communism, "fair" or "patriotic", but you can't call it "American". There is a difference between voluntarily sharing your peanut butter sandwich with a classmate and having it forcibly taken from you by the teacher and given to someone else. I'm so surprised that someone in the MSM didn't point that out to Obama since that subtlety seems to elude him. Can someone tell me how someone who is currently paying 32% of their income in Federal income taxes (slated to go up to at least 41%) is not already paying their "fair share" over against those in the 15% bracket or the 10% or 0% brackets? And when you add in the Social Security, Medicare, state and local income taxes the higher level income earners are currently paying over 50% or more of their income in taxes. Why is it "fair" to take more from them and write a check to the people who pay 0% in Federal taxes? Articial inflation of Electicity/Gas prices by the government to regulate our behavior? Banning of incadescent light bulbs and probably anything else that is deemed by the government to be bad for the environment? I have a feeling that will be an ever-increasing list. So buy those lightbulbs now. They won't be on the shelves much longer. Plans to Bankrupt the Coal Industry? That will go a long way to help Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia, won't it? No off-shore drilling (at least not where the majority of the oil is located)? No nuclear power plants? A Civilian Securty Force funded at the same level as the military? Civilan Youth Corps, required 50 hours service per year for middle school and high school students, 100 hours per year for college students? A Classroom Corps, A Health Corps, A Clean Energy Corps, A Veterans Corps? Nationalized Healthcare for everyone, including illegal aliens, judging by the number of people promised coverage? How has government run health care been working in Europe and Canada? I've heard nightmare stories of waiting lists of 6 months or more, denial of life-saving coverage based on age, people having to sell their homes and/or coming to the U.S. to get the life-saving treatments they need. Is this the direction we want to go? I guess as we get older we will be hearing that it is our "duty to die". Sex "education" beginning in kindergarten? It remains to be seen whether parents will have an opt-out option as some schools have now in the older grades. It wouldn't surprise me if that option is taken away from parents, which would be a real shame for the parents who don't want their children exposed to it, but can't afford private school. And last but not least we will see a return to partial birth abortion, the most tragic result of the recent election. Support and respect? Nope, I can't seem to conjure up any. And yeah, the economy tanked on Bush's watch, with a few months left to go in his term. But you left out the fact that he tried, in 2005, to reign in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as did McCain in 2006, citing a coming catastrophe if they weren't. But Democrats in Congress blocked their efforts. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Feeling a bit touchy, Jimbeaux? I don't see anywhere in this thread people saying it was all the Democrats fault. It was....but I don't see it here.  Take two valium and call me in the morning. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Why not? It’s not as if it hasn’t been used before to stave off an economic depression: "Primarily this is because rulers of the exchange of mankind's goods have failed through their own stubbornness and their own incompetence, have admitted their failure, and have abdicated. Practices of the unscrupulous money changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men. True they have tried, but their efforts have been cast in the pattern of an outworn tradition. Faced by failure of credit they have proposed only the lending of more money. Stripped of the lure of profit by which to induce our people to follow their false leadership, they have resorted to exhortations, pleading tearfully for restored confidence....The money changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization. We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths. The measure of the restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit.” Does this sound familiar? What about this? “Throughout the nation men and women, forgotten in the political philosophy of the Government, look to us here for guidance and for more equitable opportunity to share in the distribution of national wealth… I pledge myself to a new deal for the American people. This is more than a political campaign. It is a call to arms” Marx? Stalin? Obama? Actually these are quotes from some guy called Franklin Delano Roosevelt right before he dragged America out of the last great depression. quote: To quote another great American: “ I'm often fond of pointing out that the best thing about a democracy is that people inevitably get pretty much what they deserve. This election proved me wrong. In this election, I think the American people are getting much better than they apparently deserve.” |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
It has been argued by some economic minds that FDR's New Deal policies prolonged the Great Depression, Grinch. Whatever great American is the author of your last quote, well, we're all entitled to our opinions. I don't happen to agree. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Shame on you, Denise, disagreeing with a "great American"! Who do you think you are (possibly a great American yourself?) You are right about FDR, of course, as there are a ton of references and facts showing how FDR did indeed prolong the depression, even if I do have to go against such a great student of American history like Mr. Grinch to point it out.Redistribution of wealth can have several definitions. Robin Hood was a good distributor of the wealth, robbing from the rich to give to the poor. Of course, he did it because the king was unscrupulous and over-taxed the populace to the point of starvation. Moral would be, don't over-tax the populace, which means Obama does not qualify for the Sherwood Forest Man of the Year award. Redistribution of wealth can also mean taking form those who have and giving to those who do not. For example, if one child has two toys and another has none, the teacher taking one from the child with two and giving it to the child with none would be a distribution of wealth. A vagrant banging on you car window demanding your spare change because you have it and he needs it would be a distribution of wealth. (Could that be the "change" Obama refers to?) A robber sticking a gun to your head demanding what you have is exercising a certain distribution of wealth, too. Yes, you say that's illegal...and it is. Interesting that when an individual does it, it's illegal but when the government does it, it's a moral and applaudible thing to do. Telling people who have worked hard to achieve whatever success they have that they have to give more of it to people who have not worked hard to become anything is a redistribution of wealth. Taking tax revenues from all working American and cutting one thousand dollar checks to everyone, even the 42% of the population that did not pay ANY income tax is also a redistribution of wealth (not to mention a great way to get votes from that 42%). There is are good forms of distribution of wealth. collecting taxes to build roads, schools, maintain the infrastructure of the country and do the things that are beneficial to all citizens is a good thing. Using distribution of wealth to provide people with the opportunities to better themselves through education and job opportunities is a good thing. Creating more jobs for people to have more ways to earn a living and provide for their families is also a good way to go. If the latter is Obama's plan, that's a good thing. If the taking from the rich to give to the poor is his plan (as evidenced by his passing out of checks) then it's not. He wants a heavier tax on the corporations, which hire people. He wants to lower unemployment. How over-taxing the people who provide jobs, to the point there will be lay-offs, will lower unemployment is beyond my imagination. When companies declared they may move their companies overseas due to the tax increases, Obama proclaimed there will be tax relief for the companies that stay in the country. I haven't figured that one out yet. In short, there are many methods of redistribution of wealth. Whichever plan Obama chooses to follow will dictate whether or not we move to a socialistic form of government. i wish he would take the time to realize just how generous Americans really are. The entire world know it, but our government seems to ignore it. There is a good chance the child with the three toys would give one to the child with none, practicing the distribution of wealth, and feeling good about it. Corporations give millions to agencies to help the poor. People reach into their pockets and give millions of agencies like the Salvation Army, Food for the Needy, outreach centers, and other related agencies to give relief to the poor...and they don't do it by government mandate. (Don't count in Joe Biden, who gave 3,000 over a ten year period to charities while making millions or Al Gore who, when faced with the fact he gave almost nothing to charities, claimed that he "gave his time".) Starving people are still trying to decide which tastes better with "time", mustard or mayonnaise. Most people are very generous in their giving. Forcing them to be generous has an adverse effect. How Obama handles it will measure his success and I will wait to see how he does. If he does it the right way I'll be the first to applaud. It's up to him now. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
You‘ll have to excuse me for my ignorance Mike, the only mitigating circumstance I can offer is that I‘m English - I‘ll gladly defer to your greater knowledge of American history and accept that FDR was a useless President who’s policies prolonged the depression. These two economists seem to add weight to your assertion. http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx?RelNum=5409 |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Oh, I forgot. It's all Obama's fault. Or his fellow travelers. Yeesh, if we just concede now that it's all the Democrat's fault, can we possibly get on to something else? and accept that FDR was a useless President who’s policies prolonged the depression. Wow...very interesting replies, gentlemen, one could almost say on the edge of defensiveness. "Historians have assumed that the policies didn't have an impact because they were too short-lived, but the proof is in the pudding," Ohanian said. "We show that they really did artificially inflate wages and prices." Even after being deemed unconstitutional, Roosevelt's anti-competition policies persisted — albeit under a different guise, the scholars found. Ohanian and Cole painstakingly documented the extent to which the Roosevelt administration looked the other way as industries once protected by NIRA continued to engage in price-fixing practices for four more years." That "proof in the pudding" sure does get around.... |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Perhaps if more of the younger people had been schooled properly in FDR policies and even Jimmy Carter policies (do you think any of them learned that under Carter home mortgage rates topped out at over 20%, and the unemployment rate was in the double digits?) they wouldn't have fallen for the great Pied Piper that they just helped to vote into office. I guess in addition to bribing the poor (which will help to keep them poor and will make even more people poor in the bargain and more loyal future voters!), dumbing down America hasn't hurt the Democrats at all, Michael. And I'd wager that when the economy REALLY goes into the toilet, reminiscent of FDR or Carter, it will be all Bush's fault. That's all we will hear from them for either the next 4 or 8 years. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Denise, Obama stated that, on his website which lists his plans, thoughts, policies, etc, the one topic commented on more than any of the others was - what kind of dog will he get? America needs no help in dumbing down...it is already there  |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Imagine that, Mike. And with all those issues I listed in my previous post as reasons why I can't support or respect him, issues that came straight from his site or from his campaign speeches. Dumbed down indeed. It would be laughable if it weren't so sad. And it's not like he didn't spell it all out for them. But all they cared about was that he was young, black, and eurocentric, a citizen of the world! Well, I'm sure they will feel important if they think they have any input into the pooch that is selected for Sasha and Malia. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Err.. I’m not sure what I’m supposed to be defending Mike, can you give me a clue? Is it my claim that a redistribution of wealth was the cornerstone of American policy under FDR and beyond and not as un-American as Denise made out? I thought I’d won that one. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Err.. I’m not sure what I’m supposed to be defending Mike, can you give me a clue? Actually, I can't, grinch. You made the comment that FDR dragged us out of the last great depression, Denise responded that, in reality, he prolonged to depression, which caused you to respond with FDR being a useless president, then. That's a defensive statement and I don't know what you are trying to defend, either. It's almost like a husband saying, "How do I look, dear?" and his wife responding "Your tie is crooked" which causes hime to say, "Fine. I suppose I'm just a useless individual who doesn't deserve to live!" The why to your reaction is beyond me. There was no claim that FDR was a useless president at all and there was no reason for you to interject that comment that I can see, except that her facts refuted your claims. Did that cause defensiveness? I don't know. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Is it my claim that a redistribution of wealth was the cornerstone of American policy under FDR and beyond and not as un-American as Denise made out? It was the cornerstone of FDR policy, to be sure, that does not make is automatically American policy. Roosevelt also instituted the Japanese interrment camps in the US. That was not American policy, either...it was his. Many of his New Deal policies were subsequently declared illegal and discontinued. "During all of 1933, 4,004 small local banks were permanently closed and were merged into larger banks. (Their depositors eventually received 85 cents on the dollar of their deposits.) Anti-New Deal economists Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz[15] said, "The 'cure' came close to being worse than the disease." To avoid future "cures" the Congress created the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) in June, which insured deposits for up to $5,000. The establishment of the FDIC virtually ended the era of "runs" on banks." |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Mike, I was under the, apparently misguided, impression that FDR was a great President, that the American economy was at it’s lowest point when he was inaugurated and steadily grew throughout his three terms (apart from the glitch in 1937). Both you and Denise have suggested that my assessment was wrong, that FDR, through presumably flawed economic management, actually suppressed the recovery, if you’re right I’d say that makes him a pretty useless president. In any case I conceded that point, I wasn‘t defending it, I deferred to your understanding of American history, mainly because it doesn’t affect my original argument - that the redistribution of wealth is, historically, as American as apple pie. I don’t mind defending that assertion as it’s a matter of historical record - FDR supported a redistribution of wealth and his policies, however flawed you believe them to be, were built around that idea. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Understood, grinch. As far as redistribution of wealth is concerned, I refer you to my post #28 of this thread,which you may have missed. There are many forms of wealth distribution, some good, some bad. We will wait and see which path Mr. Obama chooses. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I wouldn't exactly call the idea of redistribution of wealth as American as apple pie, Grinch, just because we have had some past leaders who practiced it to some extent. They were definitely the exception to the rule. Now all this talk of pudding and pie is making me very, very hungry!  |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
I’ve read it Mike, you’ve said a similar thing a few times recently, but to tell you the truth it’s such a sweeping subject I wasn’t sure where to start so I avoided commenting. I don’t mind chewing the fat with you regarding the whole redistribution of wealth question but to do that we need to cut it down a bit. My guess is that in essence you’re against a progressive tax where the proceeds go towards supporting the self-unemployed. Would that be the issue in a nutshell? That’s not a trick question by the way, it’s something I’m uncomfortable with too. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
My guess is that in essence you’re against a progressive tax where the proceeds go towards supporting the self-unemployed. Excellent question, Grinch, and that involves a lot of thought. I'll have to get back to you on this one.... |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Hi Mike, re the immediate above: rational comment! Grinch: American politics have always been based on hatred of the "other," whomever the "other" might be in anyone's mind at any time. It's not a rational process. Shortly after getting behind GW -- George Washington, that is -- politics became a struggle for power, and unfortunately, often personal power. Of the founding fathers, at least half of them thought the other half of them were idiots, a situation which has not changed significantly. I'm trying to remember my history to justify this statement, but about all I can come up with is that, uh, Civil War thingy, where more American citizens died than in any other war, by killing each other over some kind of issue which had something to do with something about defining core American values or something like that which EVERY MAJOR EU AND MOST OTHER WORLDWIDE NEWSPAPERS LAUDED FOR ITS REAFIRMATION ON THEIR FRONT PAGES FOLLOWING OBAMA'S ELECTTION. Of course, I can only recall the thirty or so pictures of the front pages shown here on the by our outrageously left wing major television networks. I know it's asking a lot, but you seem to be closer to the international scene than I am, but perhaps you can find time to help us with 3 or 4 hundred front page images from around the world? Sometimes, the subtlty of some posts is lost on me, too. I don't know how one gets around that. It may have something to do with the nature of the audience/speaker relationship, but perhaps that's a question for a different forum. Or universe. Mike -- I'm not defensive about anything. I do get a little disheartened now and then by the absolute ignorance of American History -- not yours or any one else's on Pip's -- but I'm astonished to find how many of my casual acquaintances have never bothered to actually read things like The Preamble to the Constitution, let alone The Constitution, or Heaven forbid, the Federalist Papers, or the Reader's Digest version the papers of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, let alone the wiki notes on Alexis deToqueville's European take on America. I admit that I cannot recite all 20,000 give-or-take pages of the documents and discourse that formed America, the Nation's, core values. Perhaps I'm a victim of deficiencies in the educational system, or just have a personal information retention problem. I'm hoping other's might step in to help me out here. Your-friendly-leftist-socialist-commune-living-income-pooling-poverty-redistributing-tax-the-rich-because-they-have-the-money-commie-and-part-time-satirist, Jimbeaux |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Mike, he says, ragging on, who are the purposefully self-unemployed? How is it determined that one is out of a job because one chooses to be out of a job. What percentage of the population does this constitute? Do any other factors enter into unemploment beyond choice? I do think you will think about this, because you have demonstrated your conscientiousness in this way. I really, really, don't think your making the "welfare queen or king" argument. I posted the statistics on that baloney in the Alley, which nobody bothered to challenge. Or even respond to. So I'm wondering whom these self unemployed you refer to. And I suspect you will tell us, because you are good at that! Best, Jimbeaux |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Oh Jim, by the way, it's Pelosi who is furiously working to bail out the auto industry, not George (the lame duck) Bush. Let's give credit where credit is due! |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Right you are, Jim. I AM thinking about that and, yes, there are many other factors that enter in. Several of my Nam buddies enter in to that statistic. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Jim, Actually I’m guilty for introducing the term “self-unemployed”. It’s a label proudly worn by quite a few of my fellow countrymen and, I presume, quite a few of yours. The term isn’t, I assure you, derogatory, they’ll proudly introduce themselves as such if you bump into them propping up a bar and ask them what they do for a living. The derogatory term for them over here is scrounger, though even that is gaining popular support as a badge of honour among their own ranks. They’re essentially able-bodied citizens for whom work is a four letter word to be avoided at all costs, instead they rely solely on government handouts. Females of the species are generally perennially pregnant presumably to augment their income with additional child benefits, they're equally work shy and particularly adept at projectile vomiting. There is yet another member of this species that are not work averse, these specimens claim the same benefits while undertaking casual employment on a cash only basis to avoid the inconvenience of such irritants as tax and national insurance. Another group have discovered the joys of Sickness Benefits whereby you gain extra allowance by convincing a GP that your back has the consistency of overcooked spaghetti or that your work flask is terminally broken. Putting an exact number on them is difficult, not helped by the Government who seem to add and remove them from official figures by changing their status. One minute they’re claiming unemployment benefit, the next they’re on jobseekers allowance before being shunted off on a Back to Work course for an hour on Tuesday to bolster the part-time student ranks. Presumably they're presented with a national certificate in self-unemployment at some point. Give them a fish and they’ll feed themselves for a day, give them a fishing rod and it’ll be on e-bay within the hour. The self-unemployed - god bless their little cotton socks. |
||
|
Sunshine
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-25
Posts 63354Listening to every heart |
As I have been reading through this dialogue of some very interesting and insightful viewpoints, one thought came streaming through over and over, past decades, past alliances, past innuendos and most certainly past differing governing societies: "As goes Rome, so goes the the World". Rome was a power, a strength, an enlightenment and a system that became a ruthlessness. I would hate to think that America has become ruthless. But that was the stream of consciousness that continued to come through in this thread. If Americans do not stand up for equality [and it seems that we have] but submit to a failure [and it seems that we might] than we are certainly doomed. What then prevails? What do the other "world leaders" have in mind? Grinch, I have always respected your thoughts, but I have oft'times disagreed with your philosophies. I would politely ask you, Sir; is the UK ready to take leadership again? After all, most of America has European genetics to some degree. Yet you yourself seem at times eager to say or imply that America is failing, and I always seem to sense some glee in your remarks. Keeping in mind that I have not had the time nor leisure to read all of everyone's comments to every thread here in the discussion area of a site built upon the shoulders on a valued American entrepreneur, as I am a 56 year old working woman who is trying to maintain a lifestyle to which I have reluctantly become acquainted with [read: doing better than my folks did] I do wonder why you wish to sling what some would call mud on America's decisions? What do you fear? |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Denise: Oh, thank goodness it is only Pelosi. Should a bailout bill come to pass, I know we can count on GWB to veto it. We still have heroes! Grinch: There will always be an England. Sunshine: Re: "I would hate to think that America has become ruthless." Me too! On an economic level, we don't seem to be particulary good at it, too many houses of cards collapsing at the moment. On a humane level, the world looks to us. This is good! Best, Jimbeaux |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Grinch.. I am not against a progressive tax but I am opposed to an unfair one. The United States has one of the two highest corporate tax rates in the world. I am against that. I am also against people being punished for being successful or working hard. It has always seemed to be fashionable to speak out against the rich companies or businessmen. Michael Jackson could make 100 million by recording songs in between molesting kids and no one minded. Alex Rodriguez can knock down 20 million a year by hitting a fast ball over the fence and everyone is ok with that. Let a company show a nice profit and they are evil, greedy capitalists. Go figure. These companies are the entities that hire people, millions of people and yet, when it comes time to raise taxes or create a villain, that's who they go after. I am against that. I have nothing against an individual progressive tax, as long as it's fair. I have nothing against part of it going to the unemployed. I;m not sure what you mean by "self-unemployed", unless you mean those unemployed simply because they don't want to work. Nor am I sure what you mean by "supporting". Is there anything wrong with unemployment checks or food stamps? No, I support those programs as a temporary fix and, not only is it a moral thing to do, it also helps to prevent crime that would rise out of the desperation of being unable to feed one's family with no help. I also believe in agencies that help the homeless and the unemployed. I believe in agencies that help them learn a trade or find work. I give classes at the Broward Outreach Center, which is an excellent organization. Homeless people are taken in and given food and shelter....but only for six weeks. During that time they are required to take classes every day, calsses pertaining to a variety of subjects dealing with handling life, building self-esteem, kicking a drug habit or finding work. If they do not attend the classes, they have to leave. It is an organization to help people help themselves. I believe in these organizations and ones like them. I believe in programs that help people retrain to find work and programs that help the mentally ill. I have no problem with the use of my taxes going to these programs, although many of them are supported by donations. What do I object to? I object to someone telling me that, since I have more than that person, I have to give him some of mine. I object to someone telling me that, with the harder that I work and the more time and effort I put into being able to provide more for my family, the more I have to give to people that are not working or putting effort into bettering their own lives. I object to the receiptents of my taxes screaming that I owe them simply because I have more than they do. I am a giving person and do not hesitate to help those I consider deserving whenever I can but I rebel at being told I am obligated to, especially by law. I know this is rambling and I'm not sure if it answers your question or not....just trying to put my thoughts down. What I have reservations concerning Obama with respect to this topic is two-fold. First he IS going after the big companies, the ones that provide livelihood to thousands and thousands of people. I think that is wrong. I think it will lead to some companies moving their companies to other countries, which will result in more unemployment, not less. It will reduce the money these companies have been paying into the government. Ireland right now is in it's heyday because, as the country having the lowest corporate taxes there are, global companies moving there are creating fabulous results for the Irish economy. Also, when you raise taxes on large companies, they simply raise the prices of their products or services, which ultimately affects the buyers of those products, namely you and me. Second, although Obama claims that there will not be a tax increase for the middle class, it is generally recognized that implementing all of the things he has promised to implement would be impossible WITHOUT increasing taxes on the middle class. He sets the cut-off at $250,000.00 but in Congress he has voted for tax increases for everyone making over $42,000.00. I simply don't believe him. He has the opportunity to prove me wrong. |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Hi Grinch: On rereading your post a little more seriously, silly me, I note: "It’s a label proudly worn by quite a few of my fellow countrymen and, I presume, quite a few of yours." I'll take your word for it about your countrymen, of which I am one though twice removed, but take issue with your "presumption." There's a problem with presumptions in this and most Alley discussions, of which many, except me, of course, are guilty. One may "presume" certain inanities such as "the sun will come up in the morning," inane because the sun neither comes up and there is only a morning because we choose to say so, but harmless. Some presumptions are downright harmful, such as one groups presumption that another group should be subject to genocide because they presumably deserve it. Your post (keeping it impersonal) seems to fall somewhere between the inane and the unconscionable, which isn't half bad. Though certainly not good. NUMBERS! FACTS! NUMBERS! FACTS! Nothing here so far. I understand that working from speculation and occasional sheer fantasy is more amusing than looking at reality. If I had to deal with reality all the time I'd be bored to death. But hey, it's late, I'm grumpy, and always expect more from others than I expect from myself. So I'm off to do serious prescription drugs and return to posts of sheer brilliance in this thread tomorrow. Best, Jimbeaux |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Mike: Re "What do I object to? I object to someone telling me that, since I have more than that person, I have to give him some of mine." Jesus said that. You could look it up. Best, Jimbeaux |
||
|
vlraynes Member Rara Avis
since 2000-07-25
Posts 8229Somewhere... out there... |
I don't post in the Alley much, and especially not in the political threads... but I do sometimes follow them, as I have been doing recently, and tonight, I find myself needing to add my 2 cents to the mix... With all due respect to all concerned and especially to Sunshine, since I'm quoting her here... This question... "I do wonder why you wish to sling what some would call mud on America's decisions?" Again, with all due respect, from what I have been reading in this and other threads, not to mention in the media and elsewhere, it is not only Grinch who is doing the 'slinging'... I don't know Grinch and can't speak for his motives or intentions, but it seems to me that a great many Americans are engaging in plenty of 'slinging' of their own... My intention is not to point fingers or offend anyone, but rather to question what, of any positive nature, is to be gained by Americans (or anyone for that matter) bad-mouthing, insulting and questioning the intelligence of their fellow Countrymen, simply because they don't agree... We all have our ideas/beliefs/concerns about what may or may not happen under the leadership of our newly elected President... that's only natural... but who does it benefit to cast stones, verbal or otherwise, at him as well as at those who CHOSE him as our leader, particularly before he's even begun to 'lead'? I just believe there is so much more to be gained by coming together for a common good than by tearing one another down because we fear the possibility of the 'bad'... Again.. just my 2 cents... Much love and respect to all... "When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace." --Jimi Hendrix |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Jim, if Jesus were around these days, I wonder if he would be a registered Democrat or Republican?  |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Sunshine, quote: Absolutely definitely not! In fact I’d even venture that the British never really led, even at the height of the empire, they, like the Romans before them, ruled. The British empire spread around the globe like a plague, raping the natural resources of every nation they laid claim to with little thought for the indigenous inhabitants. My ancestors were a nasty bunch of egotistical thieves interspersed with a few great men and women who recognised the fact and tried to change it. I don’t think any single nation should lead the world, my ideal would be each nation being allowed to rule itself with a United Nations that actually works to deal with disputes and global issues. quote: That’s probably because the evidence seems to suggest that it is, in fact, failing, ignoring the facts doesn‘t make them go away. quote: It’s not glee, it’s frustration and exasperation, America was once a nation the world looked to as an example, an ideal to imitate and aspire to. Internationally America has lost that image. It started a long time ago, in Britain it can probably be traced to the second world war. Since then the image of America has been slowly eroded and it’s name tarnished. I like Americans, I like America what I don’t like is that America could be so much more and, in my opinion, is throwing away the opportunity. When somebody says that the long term American economy is strong and I point out that the current projected debt is $53 billion dollars I’m not trying to rub anyone up the wrong way for the sheer fun of it, I’m simply pointing out that the facts don’t support the assertion. That could. I admit, be seen as slinging mud but the mud does exist, I’m not making it up, and if slinging it at someone gets them to recognise it’s existence and do something about it I see that as a good thing. quote: In the words of one of the greatest leaders ever to live - fear itself. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Jim, I like numbers but sometimes getting them is an impossible task, how many people in the US avoid paying tax for instance? There’s a paradox built into such questions, for anyone to give you the true figures they’d have to know exactly who wasn’t paying their taxes. The paradox is that if that were possible to ascertain the taxman would have done it and those people would suddenly find themselves paying their taxes. People claiming benefits falsely falls into the same category, if I could tell you who and how many were ripping off the system then you can be damn sure that some benefit fraud investigator would be doing the same thing. So numbers are out I’m afraid, lets move on to facts. The first thing we need to work out is whether benefit fraud actually exists, the easiest way to do that is to ind someone who’s falsely claiming benefit, we only need one to prove it’s existence. Do you know anyone falsely claiming benefits? I do, I know lots but they’re all UK citizens. Now here comes the presumption, the UK and US systems aren’t dissimilar, the opportunity for false claims exists in both, given human nature it’s reasonable to assume that if benefit fraud occurs in the UK that it also exists in the US. Fortunately we can eliminate this presumption, we can turn the existence of benefit fraud into a hard fact. All it takes is one person to admit that they know at least one person that is fraudulently claiming benefits. Does anyone know anyone in the US who is self-unemployed? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
It’s not rambling Mike or if it is it’s useful rambling in that at least I get a clearer understanding of your position. Your position is not a million miles away from mine - we differ when it comes to taxing businesses but I think that’s a simple disagreement of what a business is rather than a fundamental sticking point. Where there is some confusion is when you say you’re in favour of progressive tax but against paying more tax the more you earn. I see that as the essence of progressive tax: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_tax Can you clarify? Are you in favour of the amount of tax you pay increasing based on the amount you earn? BTW - The self-unemployed are the folks who could work but choose to live off the generosity of the state instead. I should point out that this doesn’t include anyone unable to work and my definition of unable is fairly broad, if a mother wants to stay home to raise her family and kids in my book that makes them unable to work. Mother and housewife are legitimate job descriptions. [This message has been edited by Grinch (11-11-2008 11:18 AM).] |
||
|
Sunshine
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-25
Posts 63354Listening to every heart |
quote: Thank you, Grinch. We agree.  |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Hi Vicky, It is not my intent to insult or tear down anybody. It is a well known fact that "dumbing down" in our educational institutions has been going on for a very long time, particularly in the government funded and controlled public schools. If we aren't taught the basic facts of history then we can't make informed decisions. If children had been taught that FDR's & Carter's policies were so devastating to our economy, they would never elect someone who espouses similar or even more far reaching policies, when they become of age to vote. Here is a link that may be helpful. There are many more on the internet that you can find. http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/ And as I expressed earlier I can't "come together" with others in support of Obama's stated agenda. That wouldn't be for the common good, in my opinion. So I will just have to agree to disagree with them. |
||
|
vlraynes Member Rara Avis
since 2000-07-25
Posts 8229Somewhere... out there... |
Hi Denise... thank you for acknowledging my comments... as I said before, I wasn't intending to point fingers or offend, and if I've done so, I sincerely apologize... I do respect your opinions and your right to have them... That, I suppose, was ultimately my point... that we ALL are (or should be) entitled to our opinions/beliefs, and to have said opinions/beliefs without fear of being condemned for them... To put it simply?... I just keep going back to the idea of... 'why can't we all just get along?' I'm not suggesting that Obama (or anyone else) is 'right', nor did I mean to suggest that his policies (or anyone else's) will necessarily lead to the 'common good'... the 'common good' that I was alluding to is... PEACE That's all... nothing more... just peace... I'm simple like that... "When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace." --Jimi Hendrix |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Deer-- Jesus would be a registered Unique. Grinch, You're teasing, right? I know one person who is currently engaging in outright public housing government health fraud, and public assistance. Does that mean there is only one such person in America, and she lives in Los Angeles? Ah, not necessarily. Having lived in public housing for years, I also know about 200 people who were not committing fraud. Does that make the number fraudsters one in two hundred? Ah. no. Maybe my computer is having a bad google day, but when I entered queries "American's convicted of Social Security fraud I found 22 people on the first ASK page and no statistical source at all on the first three pages. It makes me think nobody knows the numbers, or its not that big a deal, or I asked the wrong question. There will always be an England, part two: antipolygraph.org/cgi-bin/forums/YaBB.pl?num=1211086332... antipolygraph.org/cgi-bin/forums/YaBB.pl?num=1211086332/7 Just what the world needs, thought police. Best Jimbeaux |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Denise, I'm really confused. In England FDR is considered one of the greatest American Presidents by historians, personally I’d say he was the greatest American President. Until now. Can you explain in simple terms why his policies were so devastating and what you think he should have done differently in 1933. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Jim, You found 22 people who’ve been convicted of Social Security fraud, what does that tell us? Well it tells us Social Security fraud exists, so perhaps my presumption has been vindicated. Unfortunately, as you’ve pointed out, it doesn’t tell us how prevalent it is. There is a way to do that though, if the rules surrounding Social Security were changed to reduce the possibility of fraud the amount of money saved will tell us how rife false claims were. Take those able-bodied self-unemployed who sign a statement that they are actively seeking work but somehow manage to avoid getting a job. Why can’t we take them at their word and find them a job, instead of paying them to do nothing, let’s pay them for doing something. How about 40 hours of hard graft in the community in return for their unemployment benefit? That doesn’t sound unreasonable. Of course those people who are claiming benefit and working for cash will be a bit snookered, I suppose they’d have to decide whether to stop claiming or to give up the cash work. |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
"Does anyone know anyone in the US who is self-unemployed?" Deadbeat parents might fit that description. the ones that hide and live off others or work under the table to avoid paying child support. and there are a few perpetual students with no intent of becoming employed. Which that one is hard to knock, since many are "almost" a doctor or almost a lawyer, veterinarian, nurse, engineer, or all of them and just haven't decided....yet. when there's a system, there will be some abuse. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
His intentions may have been good, Grinch, but the results of his New Deal were devastating. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3357 |
||
|
Sunshine
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-25
Posts 63354Listening to every heart |
quote: Denise, I always felt his heart was in the right place, but the economic situation at the time was such that everything to grow the economy did in fact fall upon those already "lost" in economy. Yet, the rich seemed to prosper, if I remember correctly. I could be wrong. rwood recently posted a note in one of the forums about a man who hid his "depression-era" monies...and one has to wonder "why"? I know that lately a lot of folk I've talked to have wanted to go ahead and devalue their 401K's that the government talked us into delving our savings; "do so at your own risk" is the sound I'm hearing now. Wasn't this essentially building our own life-supporting social security system? We would be highly taxed were we to take it out for whatever reason; higher taxes, I believe, than what is normally allowed were we to cafeteriaed it out like we do our insurances now. We have our friends in England, Australia, all around the world who deal with issues such as we do. It would be highly interesting to see how they deal with their financial interests; and how they intend to not "beat" the system, but how indeed they deal with their own economics. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Grinch, I would say that your historians need to do a little research before coming up with such results. The fact that they didn't is not favorable to them..If I had to guess, I would guess they come up with that supposition based on WW II and his friendship and cooperation with Winston Churchill. FDR was president when the Americans came to a war-torn England's aid. I suppose i would call him my favorite president, too, in such a case. As far as the other aspects of his presidency... He was one of America's most controversial leaders. Conservatives claimed that he undermined states' rights and individual liberty. Leftists found him timid and conventional in attacking the Depression. Others thought him devious and inconsistent and uninformed about economics. Some of these claims were well founded. Though Roosevelt labored hard to end the Depression, he had limited success. It was not until 1939 and 1940, with the onset of heavy defense spending before World War II, that prosperity returned. Roosevelt also displayed limitations in his handling of foreign policy. In the 1930's he was slow to warn against the menace of fascism, and during the war he relied too heavily on his charm and personality in the conduct of diplomacy. http://www.grolier.com/wwii/wwii_roosevelt.html What would Denise, or I, or anyone have done differently? I can't say. The country was in the midst of the greatest depression we had known. It's easy to Monday morning quarterback but it's different to be there in real-time. You mention that FDR must have been evil, then. That statement is invalid. Had he sat at his desk and said, "Let's figure out a way to keep the depression going for another seven years so people suffer more", then he would have been evil. I don't believe that of him. I believe he tried to what he felt was in the best interest of the country. Being a Democrat, he felt the answer lie in raising taxes, which he did (almost triple). What effect did this have? To quote from Denise's link..... Excise taxes, personal income taxes, inheritance taxes, corporate income taxes, holding company taxes and so-called "excess profits" taxes all went up. New Deal taxes were major job destroyers during the 1930s, prolonging unemployment that averaged 17%. Higher business taxes meant that employers had less money for growth and jobs. Social Security excise taxes on payrolls made it more expensive for employers to hire people, which discouraged hiring. What about the good supposedly done by New Deal spending programs? These didn't increase the number of jobs in the economy, because the money spent on New Deal projects came from taxpayers who consequently had less money to spend on food, coats, cars, books and other things that would have stimulated the economy. Higher business taxes - employers with less money for growth and jobs - taxpayers with less money to spend on things that would have stimulated the economy.......does any of this ring a bell with anything on the horizon today, Grinch? Obama would do well to study the effects of the New Deal before implementing some of the same ideas. FDR was not evil...he was simply a Democrat, doing what Democrats do in moments of crisis - raise taxes. Obama is headed down the same road and with a good chance of achieving similar results. |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
How could any man leading our country right now be able to reduce the seemingly infinite amount of debt accrued/accruing without raising taxes? Our financial system isn't contained to the U.S. We have a global system, and there's a domino effect going on from Podunk Avenue to Wall Street to Pakistan, "across the globe and back again." And they all want in on the bailout. Who didn't expect that one? "Cash-strapped Pakistan." Do we want Russia to write them a check?? Needy Global Banks They employ tens of thousands of Americans. And Germany? quote: Snarky? or Smart? The rest of the Globe is pointing at us as the Americans. Take it or leave it. No matter what party hat one is wearing. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Mike, quote: FDR halted a depression that was on a downwards course that would have destroyed America, he put into place policies that not only averted the impending catastrophe but steadily grew the economy from 1933. Years later a couple of Monday morning economists, using the same calculators that were used to bring about the latest economic fiasco, complained that the recovery wasn’t quick enough. They don’t offer an alternative mind you, in that sense they’re like the amputee who blames the surgeon for the loss of his leg instead of thanking him for saving his life. BTW, FDR isn’t seen as the greatest president over here for his part in WWII, he actually gets points deducted by most British historians for not entering the war quickly enough. quote: In my opinion FDR was the greatest president America has ever had, if he’d have been Republican and achieved the same things that would still be my opinion. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
FDR halted a depression that was on a downwards course that would have destroyed America, Do you have a link for that, Mr. Grinch, or is that an opinion? America is not so easily destroyed. Years later a couple of Monday morning economists, using the same calculators that were used to bring about the latest economic fiasco, complained that the recovery wasn’t quick enough. In my opinion FDR was the greatest president America has ever had Fine by me, grinch. I'm not going to try to change your mind with facts, figures or anything else because it is apparent you will disregard any that would contradict the opinion you have. That's fine by me. Enjoy your day  |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Mike, It’s my opinion based on the available facts.  Real Gross National Product (GNP) (1) 1929 - 101.4 1931 - 84.3 1933 - 68.3 1937 - 103.9 1938 - 96.7 1940 - 113.0 Consumer Price Index 1929 - 122.5 1931 - 108.7 1933 - 92.4 1937 - 102.7 1938 - 99.4 1940 - 100.2 Index of Industrial Production 1929 - 109 1931 - 75 1933 - 69 1937 - 112 1938 - 89 1940 - 126 Money Supply M2 ($ billions) 1929 - 46.6 1931 - 42.7 1933 - 32.2 1937 - 45.7 1938 - 49.3 1940 - 55.2 Exports ($ billions) 1929 - 5.24 1931 - 2.42 1933 - 1.67 1937 - 3.35 1938 - 3.18 1940 - 4.02 Unemployment (% of civilian work force) 1929 - 3.1 1931 - 16.1 1933 - 25.2 1937 - 13.8 1938 - 16.5 1940 - 13.9 |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
The available facts that you feel support your claim, yes. I'll be happy to go through those charts when I have more time, although you could see in them exactly what I do, if you chose. Facts like most of his New Deal being shot down by the courts as being uncnstitutional/illegal have no place in your thinking, I assume, but then, whatever works, works i suppose. Hmmm...why does Bush's surveillance program come to mind? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Actually the actions of the courts are very relevant and have to be taken into account when looking at the recovery from the depression. I don’t mind discussing them if you like, what about the supreme court decision that scuppered FDR’s national recovery administration (NRA), the centrepiece of FDR’s policies. It became known as the Sick Chicken Case - for reasons that will become obvious. Here’s a quick overview: During the depression high unemployment led to businesses lowering the wages and the conditions of workers along with the standards surrounding the goods they supplied. Lower wages acted to further suppress the economy so the government passed the National Industrial Recovery Act. Under this act businesses in all areas were asked to write a code under which they were willing to work that laid out certain standards. The code was presented to government and if accepted was entered into law. One such code was formulated by the live poultry suppliers of New York and was passed to become the Live Poultry Code. Along with other things it contained an agreed minimum wage, an agreement on maximum working hours and a provision against selling unfit poultry. In July 1934 the Schechter Poultry Corporation were found guilty of 60 charges including breaching the code with regard to the minimum wage, maximum working hours and the sale of unfit poultry. They were given leave to argue their case in the supreme court where they argued that because they were conducting interstate business and not business between states the Federal Government had no jurisdiction and that the code was un-constitutional. The Supreme Court overturned the charges based on that fact and declared that the National Industrial Recovery Act was indeed unconstitutional. What do you think Mike? Were the Supreme Court right? [This message has been edited by Grinch (11-11-2008 11:41 AM).] |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Grinch, this entire FDR detour is of your making, not mine. I don't really have that much time or desire to continuing debating it. Whatever I come up with, you are going to negate or claim irrevalent so what's the purpose? If you google FDR and the New Deal you will come up with a plethora of web sites that will bear out what I have said. You instead prefer to reduce them down to a couple of Monday morning quarterbacks....fine with me. You prefer to call FDR the greatest president we have had. That's fine with me, too. After all, there were many people who considered Charles Manson God. Far be it from me to argue with British historians...or you. Your mind is made up and, if you are happy with it, then so am I |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Seems to me, Mike, it's not really about FDR. I don't have a lot of time, either, and I didn't read absolutely everything at the links you and Denise posted, but I read enough to know it was just more of the same old taxes-cost-jobs rhetoric we always hear from the Republican party. It could as easily be leveled against any Democrat in office, not just FDR. It could be leveled against a few Read-my-lips Republicans, too. Personally, I don't think FDR was the greatest president, but he'd certainly be in my top three. Sure, he made mistakes (the worst being Social Security), but I suspect most were consistent with what was known eighty years ago. He wasn't great because he was perfect, he was great because he was able to offer a nation hope when there wasn't really a lot of hope going around. People believed him, and ultimately history proved they were right to believe him. As an administrator, Roosevelt had many faults. As a leader, he had very few peers. The first goal of a leader must always be to convince people to follow. It's what we needed then. The recent election results would suggest it's what we need now. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I don't disagree, Ron. Grinch brought him up as the man who dragged us out of the depression to make a point. Denise corrected him by showing that he actually extended to depression...and then it all blossomed from there. I've never had a problem with FDR and have always considered him to be a very admirable President. You are right that he had the ability to inspire people and give them hope and he did it at a time that hope was a rare commodity. He did do some things by following the same procedures you have been very vocal in blasting Bush for, but who's counting? I DO agree with the experts who claim that WWII, more than anything else, ended the depression. |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Hi Balladeer. WWII ended a lot of things, most of which were human lives. Personally, I don't see WWIII as a reasonable alternative to bailing out scoundrels and rapscallions, at home or abroad. In the long run, it will probably hurt less. Ron: I understand your notion that Social Security isn't the best of ideas. I wonder what your alternative proposal might be. Best, Jimbeaux |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Ok, Jim, you have me scratching my head now. Who on God's green earth said anything about WWII being a reasonable alternative? I simply said it did it...period. Finis. Eso es todo. Nada mas. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
And how was the economy run during WWII? My point is not to recommend a socialist model for today's problems but to show that the same facts that everybody cites can also lead you in the opposite direction (Krugman said something similar last week). FDR began with the corporatist, Italian model (yeah, the F word) and then switched because that didn't work so well. History, as I've said before, is a dangerous game to play. It tends to bite you when you're not looking. But honestly we're not talking socialist economics, we're talking Keynsian economics. During FDR's presidency, there wasn't such a thing as Keynsian economics. It hadn't been written yet. Thanks to all who did a lot of the homework I was going to do, but didn't have the time. |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Mike -- You missed an "I". I said WWIII was not a reasonable alternative to a bailout. Best, Jimbeaux |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
John Maynard Keynes + FDR http://newdeal.feri.org/misc/keynes2.htm It seems that John Maynard Keynes was not only an economist but also a fortune teller: “Wall Street and the bankers will probably say, when the brief recovery comes, that it came of itself, and would have come more quickly had the government not interfered. They will use that argument as an excuse for going back to complete anarchy. But it is a false argument. The recovery in very large measure is a result of what the administration has done, and further government action is desirable to keep in existence the instrumentalities that have demonstrated their value.” http://newdeal.feri.org/misc/keynes1.htm |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Gotcha, Jim. I'll keep an "I" out for ya from now on |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I confess, Brad, that I don't know that much about Keynsian economics. Every time I look at it I get confused because I find it, well, confusing. Keynes sought to develop a theory that would explain determinants of saving, consumption, investment and production. In that theory, the interaction of aggregate demand and aggregate supply determines the level of output and employment in the economy. He also argued that to boost employment, real wages had to go down: nominal wages would have to fall more than prices. However, doing so would reduce consumer demand, so that the aggregate demand for goods would drop. This would in turn reduce business sales revenues and expected profits. Investment in new plants and equipment—perhaps already discouraged by previous excesses—would then become more risky, less likely. Instead of raising business expectations, wage cuts could make matters much worse. Further, if wages and prices were falling, people would start to expect them to fall. This could make the economy spiral downward as those who had money would simply wait as falling prices made it more valuable—rather than spending. As Irving Fisher argued in 1933, in his Debt-Deflation Theory of Great Depressions, deflation (falling prices) can make a depression deeper as falling prices and wages made pre-existing nominal debts more valuable in real terms. The impact of Keynesianism can be seen by the wave of economists who have based their analysis on a criticism of Keynesianism. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Mike, As far as the piece you posted goes you need to understand the economic theories that Keynes was arguing against to get even close to unravelling what he was saying. Under the old theories prevalent in the 20’s high unemployment was seen as being a result of high wages so they lowered wages, the thinking being that businesses would employ more people if it cost less. Unfortunately all that actually did was deepen the recession. Keynes explanation as to why that happened is laid out in the piece you’ve quoted. People with less money because of lower wages have less to spend so demand drops which reduces sales. Reduced sales mean reduced profit and reduced profit and a shrinking market means less investment. Keynes also promoted tax increases for higher end earners and a redistribution to lower earners. The theory is that the rich are rich because they don’t spend their money and the poor are poor because they don’t save theirs, and when there’s a depression, or the chance of a depression, what you need is people spending. There’s another school of thought that says that what you need to do in a depression is to lower taxes for businesses, it’s called the trickle down effect. The idea being that with more money available businesses can invest and employ more people. The flaw in that argument, as pointed out by Keynes, is that the businesses won’t expand because the market is stagnant or shrinking. It’s pointless taking on more staff and producing more goods if nobody buys them. The businesses simply cut production, hold onto their money, lay off staff and wait for an upturn in the market. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
That's very interesting, grinch. Thanks for the thumbnail sketch. A couple of questions... Do you agree that the rich are rich because they don't spend money? If there are more people employed, why would markets be stagnant or shrinking? If that were the case, how could there ever be an upturn? Why do so many economists criticize Keynesianism? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Btw, Grinch here's a quote from someone you may know I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle. -Winston Churchill |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
So, aside from the economic aspects, are there any concerns/comments about the other points of Obama's agenda that I listed previously, like his Civilian National Security Force, that he wants funded at the same level as the military, and his Youth Corps, for example? Do they strike anyone as a bit Hitleresque or Stalinesque? |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Stalinesque...what a word! It's actually melodious. But um, is there some place where I can learn more about this Denise? I'd like to learn more about it. (Um, I can find Stalin--I'm talking about President-elect Obama's proposal.) |
||
|
Susan Caldwell Member Rara Avis
since 2002-12-27
Posts 8348Florida |
I tried looking and big brother is denying me access..... I find that somewhat Ironic... "too bad ignorance isn't painful" |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
His agenda was listed on his transition website, but has been since taken down, but you should still be able to find it on his campaign website, unless that also has been changed. |
||
|
Susan Caldwell Member Rara Avis
since 2002-12-27
Posts 8348Florida |
big brother relinquished some control to me: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/04/barack_obama_the_community_org.html http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/07/obamas_civilian_national_secur.html there are other links within the article... "too bad ignorance isn't painful" |
||
|
Susan Caldwell Member Rara Avis
since 2002-12-27
Posts 8348Florida |
Sorry the source for the below is: http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf Integrate Service into Learning Expand Service-Learning in Our Nation’s Schools: Obama and Biden will set a goal that all middle and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year. They will develop national guidelines for service-learning and will give schools better tools both to develop programs and to document student experience. Green Job Corps: Obama and Biden will create an energy-focused youth jobs program to provide disadvantaged youth with service opportunities weatherizing buildings and getting practical experience in fast-growing career fields. Expand YouthBuild Program: Obama and Biden will expand the YouthBuild program, which gives disadvantaged young people the chance to complete their high school education, learn valuable skills and build affordable housing in their communities. They will grow the program so that 50,000 low-income young people a year a chance to learn construction job skills and complete high school. Require 100 Hours of Service in College: Obama and Biden will establish a new American Opportunity Tax Credit that worth $4,000 a year in exchange for 100 hours of public service a year. Promote College Serve-Study: Obama and Biden will ensure that at least 25 percent of College Work-Study funds are used to support public service opportunities instead of jobs in dining halls and libraries. |
||
|
Susan Caldwell Member Rara Avis
since 2002-12-27
Posts 8348Florida |
"Do they strike anyone as a bit Hitleresque or Stalinesque?" "Schirach asked Adolf Hitler to allow him to create an independent youth movement. Hitler agreed and Schirach now made several important changes to the way it was organized. In 1936 membership of the HJ was made compulsory for all boys aged 15 and 18. At the same time all other youth organizations were banned. In 1938 there were 8,000 full-time leaders of the HJ. There were also 720,000 part-time HJ leaders, often schoolteachers, who had been trained in National Socialist principles. For boys aged between 10 and 14 years Baldur von Schirach set up the Jungvolk. The boys had to learn semaphore, arms drill, and take part in two-day cross-country hikes. They also had to learn Nazi dogma and once they passed the necessary tests they were given a special dagger marked "Blood and Honour". The main objective of the organization was to provide Adolf Hitler with loyal supporters " Source: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERyouth.htm I am going to go with a no on that question Denise. "too bad ignorance isn't painful" |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
I'll be reading before I offer up any opinion. thanks! |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
The Obama/Biden program list Susan provided seems to be proactive in providing youth more options to become focused and productive in society, as opposed to wayward and unproductive. Hitler focused on annihilation. To let our unfortunate youth fall by the wayside without any call to prosper as citizens is more Hitlerish than programs designed to help them build a better life. Nothing is in place yet, but I welcome all positive foundations that will uplift and empower our youth for the future. |
||
|
Susan Caldwell Member Rara Avis
since 2002-12-27
Posts 8348Florida |
I like the part about a tax credit for college students that do community service...(I think that's what it said) and here is why.. When I was in college (I was a "non-traditional" student with 3 young children) one professor said part of our grade was going to be on community service rendered. I had a problem with that as it wasn't in the syllabus and I didn't like not having a choice. Obama's plan gives the student a choice. It's how I raised my children. I taught them, to the best of my ability, right from wrong, ethical-unethical, and when they were in their teens I started letting them make decisions and taking responsibility for said decisions. I kinda take pride in that. We learn from our choices. "too bad ignorance isn't painful" |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I don't think the German people had any idea that Hitler's ultimate plans were annihilation, Regina, when he first started his youth corps. I think it was looked upon at the time as a good and patriotic thing for the young boys to be involved in, in the beginning. -------------------------------------------- Require 100 Hours of Service in College: Obama and Biden will establish a new American Opportunity Tax Credit that worth $4,000 a year in exchange for 100 hours of public service a year -------------------------------------------- I don't think that choice is involved Susan, unless "Require" simply means they lose the $4,000 tax credit if they fail to do all or most of the hours per year. I have a feeling though that it will have an impact on the credits they earn toward their degree as well. So I really don't think they will have a choice if they want to eventually earn their degree. His original outline also stated that the 50 hours per year for middle and high schoolers would be "required". I think they've softened that to where it now reads "opportunity for service", which still doesn't necessarily mean that it won't be required. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Denise? Why the assumption of malicious intent? I know we don't always agree (I think we "met" bumping heads in this here forum) but shouldn't we all be investing some emotion into the possibility that this might be a good thing? I do know personally that you are a generous, intelligent, and insightful sort of person, so I hope you know I'm not insulting you by asking for anyone to be given a "free pass" of benefit-of-the-doubt-legislation. This is indeed something we should pay attention to, I believe, reserving alarms for when they are necessary. Comparisons to Hitler and Stalin are more rightly consigned to the past--so far. (Like Susan, I am particularly interested in the exchange of financial aid for college in exchange for community service.) Don't we all want good and true leadership? I'm not suggesting for one second that we take our eyes off of the power of the presidency for even that one second. I am suggesting that we all keep fear-mongering semantics down to a low roar until we understand exactly what the proposition(s) is/are about. (I'm sure you agree with that, too, so I do hope you don't think me lecturing.) We've got a lot of work to do. And I am on your side if you're suggesting that we keep a close eye on middle of the night legislature, because I do agree. We slept through a lot of stuff prior to this time, so I've decided to read, try to stay informed, and always, always consider the source. I've got...hope, now. (and a copy of the Constitution) Great stuff, too, btw. I think we should keep it. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, quote: What is the formal difference between your statement, above, and an equivalent statement made about Christianity by a believing Muslim? About eating meat by a confirmed vegetarian? About mysticism by a materialist? Simply because a Marxist criticism of capitalism came after the evolution of capitalism doesn't mean that capitalism has been superseded and that marxism is correct in your mind does it? quote: My own ranking suggests more on the order of Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt. I admire Jefferson for many things and may put him fourth. If I'm wrong about my own ranking — I vacillate sometimes — I can't say I'm all that far off. I don't really believe that I have ever considered Charles Manson anything north of creepy; and if such a delusion were at all common, he probably would have gotten off, wouldn't he? I don't think admiring Roosevelt is in the same league. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Yes. quote: Your question is flawed, employment is a consequence of the liquidity of the market not the other way around. If the market is stagnant or shrinking unemployment in manufacturing and service industries will rise. quote: An upturn can be stimulated in several ways, one way would be a re-distribution of wealth via tax changes to increase consumer demand by giving the money to people who’ll spend it. Another would be for the government to manipulate the market by increasing public funded works, building bridges, repairing roads, constructing dams etc. Because the work is passed to private contractors this has the benefit of stimulating the construction sector and at the same time promotes employment and increases consumer spending - more people earning money means more people spending money. If you study FDR’s new deal you’ll see this plays a large part. quote: Because some of his theories are just plain stupid. Economics is an art not a science, people’s views change and new ideas replace old ideas, in economics as in poetry peoples view of the ideal changes over time, free verse is promoted over traditional verse among the “poetry experts”. In poetry however that doesn’t really matter, the poetry reader can ignore the experts and read whatever they like. When it comes to economics listening to the experts is a tad more dangerous. You can however apply the pudding test to judge economic theory. Keynes economic theories have been successfully applied and have proved themselves by steering many economies out of recession. So far the alternatives which replaced them haven’t faired so well. That’s not to say Keynesian theory is somehow superior, as I said some of his ideas are downright stupid but others seem to continue to work. quote: It’s a great quote Mike. It‘s a bad argument against raising income tax though, that’s not really your fault, the argument is so prevalent on the internet as a counter to increasing taxes it’s easy to take it at face value. It’s a bad argument for three reasons, the first is it’s an argument from authority, the presumption being that Churchill being a great Prime minister was also a great economist. That’s not really a problem though because Churchill had a good understanding of economics, thanks largely to Keynes. The second reason it’s a bad argument is that I live about 30 miles from where he made the speech that quote comes from and I happen to know what he was actually talking about. That leads nicely into the third reason. Churchill made that quote in a speech in Manchester at the Free Trade Hall in 1904. The speech was an argument about the stupidity of protectionist policies with regard to cotton, specifically American cotton. An issue very close to the hearts of people in Lancashire at the time where the major industry relied on imported cotton. The tax he was arguing against was an import tax, not an income tax. His argument was fairly simple - if you can formulate a reasonably argument for implementing import taxes those arguments are just as reasonably to the countries you are exporting to. It’s a sound argument against import tax and protectionism and in favour of free trade but unfortunately has nothing to do with income tax. You can validate that here if you have time. http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageID=1185&textonly=1 |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I would love to not have suspicions of malicious intent, Karen. Of course we all want good and true leadership and I wish I didn't have this horrible feeling of foreboding. It probably has a lot to do with the "required" aspect of it in all these new Corps that he says he is starting. And if the college plan is truly just a tax credit for voluntary service and isn't required as it says it is in the first word of the statement, then I would think it would be a good idea. I also am suspicious of the fact that the wording on his websites was constantly changing as soon as someone shed a spotlight on a particular item of concern. My suspicions are probably also fueled by the fact that Obama hasn't exactly been an open book. He has sealed every record concerning his birth, his education, both here and in Indonesia, his college thesis, his activities as a community organizer, his activities as a lawyer,etc. Too much mystery surrounding him: his past, his admiration for Saul Alinsky, his associations with anti-American radicals, his work with Bill Ayers in disbursing money to Chicago area schools to implement programs in line with Ayers radical views, and his attending a church for 20 years that espoused anti-American and anti-white rhetoric, and then saying he never heard such things while he attended, was not the least bit credible, to me. I'm also not comforted by the fact that his election has been praised by the likes of Hamas, Hugo Chavez, and The Communist Party USA. And of course we have to keep an eye on those in power. But I think folks should have questioned and investigated what these proposals were all about before he was elected to the most powerful position in the world. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Ok, Grinch, unless you can point me to a reference to prove your point, we will have to agree to disagree on the rich not spending money. I have no references for my side of that argument. I can only base my thoughts on personal references. I actually associate with a fairly large crowd of "rich" individuals and I can assure you they spend money. They are rich because they spend money to make money and not just squander it. If the market is stagnant or shrinking unemployment in manufacturing and service industries will rise. I thought that was the point I was trying to make. Unemployment rising would mean fewer people employed which would mean fewer people having money which means less chance of eliminating the stagnation. More people being employed would be more people working which would mean more people earning a salary and more people with purchasing power which means stimulating a stagnant economy. More people being employed would result from companies hiring them which has a better chance of occuring if their corporate taxes are not raised, rather than being raised. That is my view, although i will be the first to say I'm not either an economist nor am I even that knowledgable of economic practices.....and my head spins even thinking about it one way would be a re-distribution of wealth via tax changes to increase consumer demand by giving the money to people who’ll spend it. Is it such a radical idea to give the people who need it and will spend it the "opportunity" to earn it by giving them jobs to earn it (which relates to my above paragraph) instead of just "giving" it to them? I may be wrong but your posts read to me like you favor the Robin Hood approach of taking from the rich to give to the poor instead of giving the poor the opportunities to earn it, which will also make the rich richer, in which case everyone gains. It's not because Sherwood Forest was in England, is it? Another would be for the government to manipulate the market by increasing public funded works, building bridges, repairing roads, constructing dams etc. Because the work is passed to private contractors this has the benefit of stimulating the construction sector and at the same time promotes employment and increases consumer spending - more people earning money means more people spending money. Now you are talking. That's what I've been trying to say is the ideal way, in my opinion. That has nothing to with taking from the rich to give to the poor. I don't understand why this would not be THE way, instead of ANOTHER way. Yes, FDR did this very admirably. As I say, economics is not my forte. I just try to use the best man on the street thinking I can to come up with my conclusions. No one will ever name an economic practice after me but I guess I side with the "teach a man to fish" idea of economy stimulation and I won't agree with the 'raise the taxes' mindset to solve whatever problems come on the scene nor would I ever be accused of cutting open the goose to get at the golden eggs. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Mike, even if we agreed that raising taxes increases unemployment (and I don't think it does), it doesn't necessarily follow that we shouldn't raise taxes. Following your logic, we would have to conclude that paying ANY tax would result in fewer jobs. If our only goal is to stimulate employment, it would seem that business should be exempt from all taxes? And while we're at it, they should probably be exempt from minimum wage requirements, OSHA, and anything else that costs them money. Then they can afford to employ more people? It's a balancing act, Mike. Paying too much tax hurts the economy. Paying too little hurts society. The problem we have right now, I think, is the result of trying to have it both ways. People want to spend the money to avoid hurting society without simultaneously raising that money to pay the bills being incurred. How many households or businesses do you know that can run year after year after year with more expense than revenue? The time to think about not raising taxes was before we spent the money. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Well, Ron, of course our only goal is not stimulating the economy. Taxes are used for more things than that..like defense, infrastructure and the like. Even if you don't feel that raising taxes don't raise unemployment, do you at least feel that raising corporate taxes will raise the prices of the products these companies create, resulting in higher costs for all consumers? I agree that it's a balancing act but it doesn't seem to me that the government treats it that way. They seem to use corporations as the cash cow they can always squeeze a little tighter whenever they need more money. Why does the United States have one of the two highest corporate tax rates in the world? Does that seem like fair balance? The government takes a pint of blood whenever they get low and expect the patient to keep living and functioning, regardless of how much they continue taking. The problem is with the government, not the corporate world and even the average citizen. They squander money and then demand higher taxes to make up for it. They have a blank check and no one to call them on it. Our problems won't be solved until government gets it's act together and not go tax-hungry to make up for their shortcomings. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening without an actual revolt by the people....and I don't see that happening, either. There is no John Galt walking around out there. Thanks for the reply and making me think a litte. Sometime we can talk about the $79.00 an hour auto workers and really have a lively conversation |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Yes, I do agree. Indeed, I think that's the most likely effect. quote: Because corporations, while legal entities, don't vote. It's the cost of democracy. quote: To some extent, Mike, I agree. Government management is almost an oxymoron, grossly inefficient and inherently with too little accountability. However, squandering money is only a small part of the problem. The bigger part is spending money. Wars aren't cheap, even if run efficiently and without waste. Neither is socialism. Or rebuilding an infrastructure that's beginning to crumple from age. We're spending a lot more money than we're squandering. That money is inevitably going to come out of the pockets of the citizens, whether through direct taxes, increased prices on consumer goods, or an economy that leaves devastation in its wake. It always rolls downhill, after all. |
||
|
Susan Caldwell Member Rara Avis
since 2002-12-27
Posts 8348Florida |
"Require 100 Hours of Service in College: Obama and Biden will establish a new American Opportunity Tax Credit that worth $4,000 a year in exchange for 100 hours of public service a year." Denise, we read sometimes the way we want it to read...I read it as saying, in order to get a tax credit of $4000 a year the student would have to perform 100 hrs of service. Seems like a fair shake to me. A choice. I am hopeful, and I am ready to put my time where my mouth is. I will be volunteering for programs mentioned within his Blueprint for change. To many times and things have become a self-fulfilling prophecy for me and in my life. I refuse to even entertain the thought of failure this time. "too bad ignorance isn't painful" |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: That’s true Mike, but as I said it ignores completely the most important requirement - an active consumer market. quote: Unfortunately tax isn’t the guiding factor when it comes to employing staff Mike, companies only employ the minimum they require to meet the demand for their product - it‘s called maximising profits. They only take on more staff when they need to increase output to meet an increase in demand. It’s a cyclical system Increased sales produces an increased demand which requires increased output which requires more staff. If you want to use the Robin Hood analogy: You rob from the rich to give to the poor so they can buy from the rich. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Susan, according to Rham Emanuel, the Civilian National Security Force will require all people ages 18 to 25 to serve and that college age people can fulfill some of their obligation that way. It sounds like everyone will be required to serve regardless of whether they are in college or not. Now whether everyone gets a tax credit, I don't know if that's just for those in college or not, he didn't go into that aspect of it. Although he did specify that everyone would have to do 3 months of basic training in a barracks setting, and that people shouldn't mind too much, because it will be a "shared American experience". It doesn't sound like a whole lot of choice to me. I don't have the link handy right now for his interview, but you can probably google it to find it. It was a combination radio interview and then the end of it was a video clip of an interview. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdF5TQIv1fU |
||
|
Susan Caldwell Member Rara Avis
since 2002-12-27
Posts 8348Florida |
I can't access utube at work. and I have volunteer work tonight. so have to get back to this later... "too bad ignorance isn't painful" |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Denise "sounds like" is an acknowledgement that one is guessing. I love and respect you, my quick-witted and lovely friend, and I share your sense of doom. Mine is more retroactive than "impending", however. I don't want to look back to opine that The Bush Doctrine, and the whole of the dirty laundry list that came with that smells more of facism than a possible program that might not ever come to fruition. The doom is understandable. It's not paranoia. We are literally in a world of trouble, right now and time is crawling while we have a lame duck president and the house is on fire. I'm not suggesting all the political critics just shush up. But don't you think we could at least let the man get inaugerated and then judge the new administration by its fruit? We are in so much trouble that we now need to look beyond partisanship, because if we wish failure upon this administration, then we are truly doomed. Our economy has to be the central focus right now. It's just...well? Rational self-interest?  And hugs. I have anxiety too. (I'm considering trying beta-blockers.) But there is one legacy of the Bush administration for which I'll express gratitude--it sure woke everybody up. The eyes of the entire world are on Barack Obama. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
@ Jenn's offering!My neighbors and I had put together a civilian security force post-Katrina. It was rather informal, but it was successful.  |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: You’ve managed to insert a lot of sense into one sentence Karen. If I were looking for the single biggest accelerant and sustaining factor in economic recession and depression I’d put my money on something very similar to what you describe. It’s the antipodes of “the feel good factor”. You could call it “the feel bad factor”. It’s a self fulfilling prophecy that can be seen in action if you look at the run on small US banks that occurred between 1929 and 1933. If you want a more contemporary example you don’t need to look much further than any significant drop in share prices on Wall Street. Ron’s alluded to it a couple of times and FDR put it into a few, very famous, words: The only thing we have to fear is fear itself. Even Bush recognised it, he was derided, wrongly in my opinion, for the call to the nation to “go shopping” after the 9/11 attacks but the meaning was clear - at least to me. Economists were forecasting that the American markets would go into free fall and Bush recognised that the true market force wasn’t dictated by the mood on Wall Street, it was forged on Main Street in the belief of the consumer. He recognised that if he could convince them that everything was going to be OK then everything would probably be OK. Think happy thoughts. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Denise, quote: Perhaps we might break this down a bit. Some of this I'm simply unclear about. Other parts of this I'm puzzled about, but I'd like to understand your objections here. I say this because many of them seem sort of . . . basically . . . unobjectionable to me, and I guess I'd like to understand what's so terrible about them, and why you're so riled up about them. quote: You understand I am a Liberal democrat. I want to be clear about that up front. If Senator Obama had not been a reasonably open book, however, you would not actually have much of the information you do have. And much of the information that has been spread about about the Senator from right wing talk shows has been false or deliberately confusing. Such as the repeated use of the senator's middle name with heavy-handed emphasis, implying that the senator is muslim. And the claims that the senator attended a madras and was an Islamic extremist. In such an atmosphere of distortion, it is not surprising that even well meaning folks would have considerable confusion about the man. I am not surprised that you do. I think it would do both of us some good to ask where this confusion has come from, though. At this point, I believe that a substantial amount of the confusion, including the examples I cited above, came from the right, were initially unsubstantiated and in the end disproven. After the initial barrage, I wanted proof up front, since I felt the method had been displayed; and if serious consideration from me was desired, clear proofs should have been given. I don't believe they wanted to convince me, though; I think they wanted to convince you. I think you were and are too smart to be swayed by utter deceit. I think, thought, that your trust can be and has been undermined. I don't proposed to win it back. I'm not that convincing, nor do I believe Obama a flawless man. I simply believe him to be more than good enough for the task at hand. If you want people to try to convince you he's other than more than good enough, I am not one of them. My feeling is that he is basically Republican Lite and is just about at the center of things politically, perhaps a Rockefeller Republican, the way we used to do things, before the country began to believe that everything to the left of center was communist, and that Liberal was a bad word. Before Republicans began to turn on each other for not being right-wing enough. If you are confused, you aren't alone. You say about Obama; I say all of us and pretty much about the trustworthiness of the entire political enterprise in this country. You are, however, the world-expert on yourself, and perhaps I've got you wrong. quote: Honest, I don't think so, but I'd be interested in hearing objective proof. This means something from a source that doesn't have an affiliation to the Republican Party, a right wing talk show, or Fox news. I don't mind U.S. News & World Report, and I like The Economist, both of whom seem to me to have a right-leaning bias, The Economist more clearly so. The Christian Science Monitor is always good, as is anything that goes to considerable pains to lay out both sides of the story. As long as the news is objectively reported and without bias, I don't care if it is Right or Center. Since I am Left Wing myself, I'd rather you didn't quote any Left Wing publications, and I will try to avoid doing so as well. I don't think you would accept their reliability or objectivity, and I wouldn't want you put you through that. Simply look for sources that you believe are truly objective in other places. The Times of London, even though it's a Murdoch paper, seems to have been left pretty much editorially intact as near as I can tell. Anything from there is fine with me as well. I look forward to seeing what you can come up with from sources that you believe aren't politically biased toward the right, and what you consider constitutes and doesn't constitute bias and distortion from that direction. quote: I don't know how to respond to the notion of "too much mystery" other than to respect it. It's a personal call in so many ways. I was uncomfortable with Clinton in 1992 for the same reason. I much preferred Harken, though I suspect your preferences were other. In 2000, I much preferred Gore over the much more mysterious Bush, and I can only respect if not agree with your reservations here. I didn't know Obama was fond of Saul Alinsky, but then as an organizing guy, if he hadn't been fond of Alinsky he would have to have been a fool. Alinsky was extraordinarily well thought of in intellectual circles in the 50's,60's, and on. At Cornell in the School of Industrial and Labor Relations, his stuff was required reading, as it was at Harvard and every other school of business and of business and labor relations. I am an admirer of Saul Alinsky. Even if you're not somebody who shares his politics, you'd be foolish not to have studied his techniques and his writing. What you have against this particularly insightful thinker is beyond me. Even if it's a matter of politics, I'd point out to you that they study Mao and Sun Tsu at West Point, and anybody who's studied diplomacy in any depth at some point or another has had to look at the decision of the German High Command during World War One to send Lenin back to Russia in a Sealed Train. Some thinkers and some actions are simply so basic that being unfamiliar with them is criminal. Association with anti-american radicals is hardly such a terrible thing, historically. I have some family that are Republicans, yet I am able to live with myself handily. They even manage to return the favor most of the time. Charles Lindbergh, as I recall, was quite taken by the German's just before in the second world war, as was George Bush's Grandfather. Several U.S. presidents used Armand Hammer to communicate with Josef Stalin, who was about as anti-american as they came. Being a Radical in the 1960's didn't necessarily make you anti-American, though it might have in the eyes of the FBI and President Nixon, whose enemies list was, shall we say, capricious to say the least. The very notion of "anti-American radical" in this country, might I remind you, often says more about the people raising the alarm than about the people found alarming. I suggest as an example that famous old anti-american radical, Albert Einstein, whose security clearance was blocked by the FBI. They also tried to block his citizenship. They had a 1400 plus page dossier on him filled with unsupported lies. I just finished Isaacson's recent biography of the man, in which the dossier figures. Just out of curiosity, on the commissions in which Ayers and Obama served together, which were the radical ideas? How would you identify them as such, and how would you recognize them as bad? And which ones originated with whom? Are any of these Radical ideas outside the mainstream of modern educational thinking? Which ones might they be? Or is the phrase "radical ideas" by itself enough to stop your investigation, and check out the details to see if you yourself disagree with the ideas in question. I freely confess I have no idea. From the lack of specificity in your comment, though, I can't tell if you have any idea either. If I should be alarmed, I actually need to know what I should be alarmed about. "Radical ideas" is not a phrase I find frightening. I actually need to know which ones. Witch burnings will goad me into action, while a real reconsideration of quantum entanglement, which may be even more radical after its fashion, leaves me more curious than alarmed. Please bring somebody along to translate the math. Telling me that warrants are no longer needed to tap my phones and that all somebody needs to say is "national security" to listen in to my wife and I talk funny on the phone to each other and laugh about it at at their little monitoring stations, that tees me off. That Obama never heard anybody voicing anti-white or anti-establishment (the convention for spelling that sort of far-right wing viewpoint has been for forty years "AmeriKKKa" or "AmeriKKKan" with the capital KKK in the middle) strains my credibility as well as yours. If you weren't aware of the distinction between "America" and "AmeriKKKa," Denise, I can only tell you that the distinction is very real to lots of folks, myself among them; and that it is as utterly tiresome and as grindingly boring as you might imagine any particularly doctrinaire piece of political baggage might come to be after it's been whacked over the head and embroidered by generations of dead serious ideologues. Left wing ideologues in this case. Right wing ideologues have their own peculiarities. If you want to see what these left wing ideologues dislike, tune into any recent news stories about the KKK. Blacks who've been on the receiving end of this stuff are simply unhappy with it, and with that strain of the "American" culture it comes from. They are savagely angry about it. Many left wing folks, myself included, feel much the same way. I am an American, happy to be one in fact, but I want nothing to do with that particular piece of my culture. It's unfortunate that that particular piece of my culture has chosen to call itself "white culture." I don't regard it as particularly white or cultured except perhaps in the most formally anthropological of ways. I suspect you don't identify with the KKK either. And yet, there's this piece of confusion that's been promulgated. Obama's as American as you are, Denise. I suspect that you hate all those "AmeriKKKans" as much as that Reverend Wright of his. I don't think you confuse what they do with "white culture" for one moment. On the KKK end of things, though, they seriously believe they are fighting for what they think of as "white culture." No Jews, no Catholics, no blacks need apply. I believe all fall under the term "mud people." I've had KKK folk as the occasional client with problems with drugs and alcohol. "Mud People" is what they say. White, anglo-saxon Protestant — that's their white culture. If Obama never heard how upset people in Chicago were with that sort of thing, I don't think he was listening. Gotta agree with you there Denise. On the other hand, I'm not entirely sure how a man of color is going to go about explaining this sort of stuff to the American people without sounding like he's doing nothing but playing the race card in a campaign that really out to be bigger than that, don't you think? That's trying to be respectful of as many folks as it can be. Good enough and probably better than that isn't bad, considering the slogging he's had to do overall. It's like one of those graphs that you see every now and then. When you look at the original graph itself, it's got points all over the place, and the graph looks like it bounces from the top to the bottom extreme as it chugs along the x axis. It makes no sense at all until you put it through a bit of statistical averaging, and that gives you the actual smooth curve of the trend, so you can see which way the thing is going — steadily up or steadily down — once those wild fluctuations are taken into account. Overall, Obama seems to be headed up for me in a good-enough way, on the basis of what I've seen. I seen what you've had to say for quite a while, and I thought it was time to try to offer a bit of an alternative point of view. I hope respectfully enough to keep you satisfied that those were my intentions, though I do tend to fly off a bit every now and again. I hope I didn't do that for you here, and there are places where I think we do overlap as well as diverge. I hope everything is well with you, and I hope everything do not work out as terribly as you fear it might. Things haven't yet hit the true terror of what I expected eight years ago, though I confess they've come very very close, so I guess I can identify with the sense of forboding you talk about. I guess I Think of the line from D.W. Winnicott, who once said, "The breakdown that is feared is the one that has already happened." Or something close to that. Best wishes, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
This is the interview that I was referencing on Rham Emanuel and the National Civilian Security Force (and I think it was from 2006. Has this been in the works that long? ) : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0B7dOQwKm0 And I love you too, Karen. But the economy isn't my main focus. The preservation of our liberties as outlined in the Constitution is my main focus. In fact, I think it would be very easy to find them chipped away at (and to a greater degree than some claim Bush did) when everyone is focused on restoring the economy, even for the "sake of" the economy, or in other words, for the "greater good". And I don't wish the new administration failure, unless, of course, they want to re-engineer us into a socialist utopia. That isn't what our forefathers fought and died for. LOL Bob, you tie my hands when you don't want me to use conservative sources. There is nothing to be found, in depth, from liberal news sources. But here is a link to a speech that Ayers gave in Venezuela. I think you might consider this a liberal, and therefore, acceptable source. http://billayers.wordpress.com/2006/11/07/world-education-forum/ This is an excerpt from the below link outlining the Chicago Annenberg Challenge that Ayers and Obama were involved in: The CAC's agenda flowed from Mr. Ayers's educational philosophy, which called for infusing students and their parents with a radical political commitment, and which downplayed achievement tests in favor of activism. In the mid-1960s, Mr. Ayers taught at a radical alternative school, and served as a community organizer in Cleveland's ghetto.... CAC translated Mr. Ayers's radicalism into practice. Instead of funding schools directly, it required schools to affiliate with "external partners," which actually got the money. Proposals from groups focused on math/science achievement were turned down. Instead CAC disbursed money through various far-left community organizers, such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (or Acorn). Mr. Obama once conducted "leadership training" seminars with Acorn, and Acorn members also served as volunteers in Mr. Obama's early campaigns. External partners like the South Shore African Village Collaborative and the Dual Language Exchange focused more on political consciousness, Afrocentricity and bilingualism than traditional education. CAC's in-house evaluators comprehensively studied the effects of its grants on the test scores of Chicago public-school students. They found no evidence of educational improvement.... http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rich-noyes/2008/09/23/barack-obama-bill-ayers-stanley-kurtz-makes-connection I would hope these views fall outside mainstream modern educational thinking. But I could be wrong. As to Obama's records being sealed, well if they weren't they would have been publicized, at least by the conservative outlets, as Michelle Obama's thesis was before it was sealed and then unsealed again until after the election. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I look forward to seeing what you can come up with from sources that you believe aren't politically biased toward the right, and what you consider constitutes and doesn't constitute bias and distortion from that direction. Mark Twain said it best. "Those who do not read the newspaper are uninformed. Those you do are misinformed." Bob, you show a perfect example of how we can justify our thoughts and feelings, no matter what they may be. I would go so far as to say that, if Obama's past actually belonged to Bush, for example, you could find ways to take those same points and blast him out of the water. It's called bias thinking. A good exercise would be to pretend you are NOT an Obama supporter and present arguments that would support THAT opinion. I feel you could do as well as you did in your post here giving him passes and excusing the murkiness of his past. You should try it sometime. Having nothing to fear but fear itself is a nice slogan. So is ask not what your country can do for you..........how many Demorcats, or even Republicans follow that one? The direction of the economy is not in our hands. We will do whatever the administration dictates we do. I agree wholeheartedly in giving the man a chance to live up to his word but it is not irrational to feel the fear, especially when so many of the things he said he would do are out of the realm of possibility, even acknowledged by top economists. As I said before, we will hope for the best and fear the worst. You rob from the rich to give to they poor so they can buy from the rich. Ok, grinch, so it's ok to rob a grocery store as long as you use the money to go back and buy groceries from that store. Got it!  |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Sorry Mike I thought you were using the Analogy of Robin Hood to argue against raising taxes, I don’t mind talking about robbing grocery stores though if you want to change the subject. My view on crime, as it pertains to grocery stores in general , is that the move towards consumer convenience has created two problems. One is an increase in the cost of goods as grocery store owners are forced to open longer, raising staff and indirect costs that they have to pass on to customers. The second is that late night, or after dark opening increases the opportunity for attacks on grocery stores that are increasing being manned by just a single member of staff. It could be argued that the store owner benifits with increased profit for instance to offset the increased chance of being robbed. I don’t see any evidence however that opening longer benefit’s the store owners, a similar move towards convenience in the opening times of British pubs seems to confirm this. Takings in pubs that stay open longer don’t increase, people spend exactly the same amount but over a longer period. In fact once the indirect costs of lighting heat and staff are taken into account some pubs actually reported a downturn in profits and went back to the old opening hours. There’s another issue involved of course. Reducing the opportunity to rob a grocery store is all well and good but the chances are all you’re actually doing is shifting the crime to other areas. It’s a little like treating the symptoms rather than the cause, which brings us right back into the realms of economics in a social context and the thorny problem of convincing the poor to stop robbing the hood. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: That’s just plain wrong, on several counts. Politicians aren’t born into office Mike, you put them there and you have the ability to remove them if you so choose and politicians aren’t unaware of that fact - you can use that. Granted that’s normally a long term and indirect control that you have on the economy but you have another that’s a lot more direct, it’s how where and when you decide to part with your hard earned cash. What you do with regard to your money IS the economy. In 1929 fears prompted by reports of a future reduction in consumer spending caused the stock market to crash, rumours then abounded that because of this some banks were short of cash (sound familiar?). A few people, in a bid to avoid losing their savings and fearing that they would lose them, started to withdraw their savings. This caused a run on the banks that forced a few of the smaller banks, who, lacking available funds, were forced to close their doors fearing bankruptcy. This fuelled the rumour and soon banks across America were inundated with customers demanding their money. Banks, faced with the possibility of having to empty their vaults reacted in the only way they could, they stopped lending to new and existing customers and other banks. This impacted on businesses who relied on short turn loans and credit from the banks to pay their staff and order stock. Eventually both banks and businesses turned to an alternate method of saving money - they started laying off staff. The rise in unemployment increased government spending and reduced consumer spending - those in employment, fearing the worst, tightened their belts. The consequence was a total collapse of consumer spending. Fear of a reduction in consumer spending caused a reduction in consumer spending. Fear that banks would run out of money caused banks to run out of money. Fear of unemployment caused mass unemployment. Can you guess what the fear of a recession is going to lead to? If you’re American and you want to avoid a recession you need to follow Bush’s advice and go shopping. If you’re the American President you need to give the people the money to go shopping. There’s nothing to fear but fear itself. |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Hi all! Maybe I should have just said Neener Neener Neener in the first place. Had no idea that what began as a hope for reconciliation and support for the President-elect nationwide would result in the usual level of willful ignorance common to the American electorate nationwide. Bob -- You have every reason to ask for facts from unbiased or relatively credible sources from anybody. I do it all the time, too. You just don't have much reason to expect them to be forthcoming. Objectivity is, apparently, one of the most difficult states to attain. The nonsense of the far right and far left seems to be just that. Liberals are slightly to the left of CENTER. Conservatives are slightly to the right of CENTER. American nut-cases of either stripe may cause a self-agrandizing stir, but their opinions have little effect in imposing realpolitik on Democracy. Delusional thinking may be entertaining, but is nevertheless delusional. Democracy may be the most conservative of radical ideas, and this might be the root of its endurance so far. Ugh. Jimbeaux |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
You call discussion, with input from both sides, a display of willful ignorance, Jim? Should we all just keep quiet and not voice our concerns or misgivings if we don't agree with your worldview? If sources from liberal sites or the main stream media had been available, I would have offered them here. They aren't forthcoming because they don't exist. Doesn't that raise any red flags for you that the only in-depth information that can be found about Obama can be found everywhere except in the liberal and main stream media, the ones that you consider credible? Some in the MSM are now admitting that they were biased in their coverage and reporting in favor of Obama. How credible do you consider them in light of that admission? And where was all this desire for reconciliation and support for our elected leader for the past eight years? |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Hi Denise -- I think I was misunderstood. I was talking about nationwide willful ignorance about political issues which lead people to vote for personalities. RE: "And where was all this desire for reconciliation and support for our elected leader for the past eight years?" Well, I think GWB had it, then he lost it. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think the majority of people, however slim a majority in the second election, hoped he would do a good job for America. IMO, and in others, he didn't. I think that is why he hurt his Party's chances from the get-go in this election. I personally don't know anyone who felt, vindictively, "Boy I hope his policies fail and bring us to our current state of affairs. But that was then, this is now, and so we move on. Together. RE: "Should we all just keep quiet and not voice our concerns or misgivings if we don't agree with your worldview?" I have two responses to that: First, of course not. Second, My world view is irrelevant. As far as I can tell, it has zero effect on anything. There was a cumulative National majority-of-voters-view expressed in the Presidential election that it was time for a shift in focus. And extreme left wing and extreme right wing nonsense is still nonsense. I'm pretty mild mannered. Best, Jimbeaux |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
You've lost me, Jim. Can you give me a current example of this "nationwide willful ignorance about political issues which lead people to vote for personalities" that caused you to say that you should have named this topic "Neener Neener Neener"? "Second, My world view is irrelevant. As far as I can tell, it has zero effect on anything. There was a cumulative National majority-of-voters-view expressed in the Presidential election that it was time for a shift in focus." How does the voice of the majority make irrelevant your worldview? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Denise, quote: I think what I said and what you read must be two different things, Denise. I didn't ask you to give up right wing news sources or conservative news sources, only biased news sources. I suggested/i] two somewhat-to-quite-conservative but objective (reasonably objective, much though not all the time) news sources that you might check out. I find [i]The Christian Science Monitor[i] politically hard to categorize but almost always objective. You might want to check them out. If they anger you as much of the time as they anger me, they may be doing a decent job. I [i]think[i] they're conservative. They're definitely Christian Science. I said that I tended to avoid quoting liberal-left stuff here frequently, such as [i]The Nation[i]. Communist and frankly Socialist papers I try to avoid as well. I haven't quoted [i]Mother Jones,[i] which to me seems a decent and objective left wing magazine. I do this out of respect for the people that I'm trying to speak with, and with whom I believe I have basically a lot in common because I think that quoting from a full range of the literature tends to make folks less rather than more attentive. I don't believe I tie your hands by asking you to avoid biased sources any more than I tie my own hands. My objective here isn't to win or lose an argument, but to put a difficult discussion on ground that everybody finds solid, so we can clear away the poison — and I mean poison from both sides here — and talk to each other like the decent folks that I think we are. I don't know about myself, so much, but I'm pretty convinced that you are, and that Grinch is, and that Mike and Jennifer are decent folks. I was reading about a bunch of folks getting together around Life-Choice recently in a chapter from a book by Naomi Wolf. Everybody was able to go away feeling decent about the other folks once they got beyond the business of thinking they knew what the other people thought and felt. I remember during the Vietnam War going to talk to a group of VFW folks. By rights we should have ripped each others throats out, and by the end of the evening we were all really pretty decent friends. That's basically what the American experience is all about, I suspect. quote: I'll have a look at the link another time. Thank you for supplying it. I don't need "liberal sources" for them to make sense or for them to be useful. Objective, unbiased and well backed are what I'm looking for, whatever the political point of view. As I mentioned above, Rupert Murdoch, owner of Fox, who has a definite right-wing bias through much of if not most of his his publishing empire, has managed to retain a pretty solid objective point of view in his flagship "The Times of London." He knows how to do it, even if he doesn't seem do it for "The Wall Street Journal," whose journalism used to be famous for its objectivity. Quote from "The Wall Street Journal," if you like, but make sure that you don't get upset if you get some questions you wouldn't get about a quote from some other places. Even "The New York Times," which you might think has a Liberal bias would get some questions from me from time to time. You think it has a Liberal bias, I think it tends to jump on bandwagons, left or right, and it's coverage is good generally only over the long-haul when it tends to even out. (Remember all those articles hyping the war in Iraq, way back when? There were Liberals who were upset about that back at the time, including some idiots who were complaining about a conservative bias in "The New York Times," as there were during the various Clinton problems and even now when some folks are saying on the left that "The Times" was too pro-McCaine and that commentary about the Minnesota election re-count is seriously bizarre. About the last one, I happen to agree, by the way. It's a pretty much regular recount, mandated by law. But the point is that even Lefties get paranoid about [i]The New York Times. If a paper is being run with anything approaching a decent editorial policy, everybody's going to think it's out to get them at one point or another. They'll probably be right; it's the job of a newspaper. And of course, it the job of political parties to try to play the ref, just like the manager of a baseball team. Maybe next time, you can make the ref throw the call your way a bit. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I understood you Bob. There was no in-depth investigative reporting attempted into Obama's past/background by those you consider non-biased sources, that I could find. If I missed something, please point me to it. And even the sources that did attempt to conduct research into his past/background were thwarted by numerous sealed records. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
The American Conservative http://www.amconmag.com/ |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
From my Yahoo mailbox ( )"At this defining moment in history, we believe that Americans of all parties want and need their leaders to come together and change the bad habits of Washington so that we can solve the common and urgent challenges of our time." A joint statement issued by President Elect Barack Obama and Senator John McCain. I couldn't have said it better myself. [This message has been edited by serenity blaze (11-17-2008 03:36 PM).] |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Yep, it's time to quit the bickering, stop spreading lies and innuendos and move on. I think Obama sets a fine example, pay no attention to the nonsense like that posted below put up by a preacher in Kansas, and start pulling together for the good of all in this country. "America we have a Muslim president. This is sin against the Lord." |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Hi Denise, some sources for you: Obama’s birth Certificate, Marriage Certificate, drivers license and more from the St. Petersburg Times: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/ Obama’s Dissertation, from wiki answers: Barack Obama received his law degree (J.D.) from Harvard. Dissertations are written by Ph.D. students. Therefore, since Obama did not earn a Ph.D., he did not write a disseration. He is well known for holding the prestigious positions of editor and president of the Harvard Law Review, however, and has authored two books: Dreams from my Father and The Audacity of Hope. Obama’s education, Congressional bio, US Congress. http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=O000167 I think, Reverend Wright held no "place" in the American consciousness before he capitalized on his association with Obama to press his OWN radical agenda, and got his 15 minutes of fame. Similarly, Sarah Palin held no "place" in our political consciousness outside of Alaska until she got her 15 minutes of fame. I think Bob K did good and extensive riffs on the issues of guilt by asscociation, or lack of guilt despite association. Chicago politics have traditionally been rough and tumble, which doesn't mean every Chicago politician is rough or a tumbler. I tried to find a Number for the size of the CPUSA -- Communist Party of the United States, and couldn't. The quote below is from the CPUSA website: "Though still very small, we are a tenacious Party with a long, proud history." Tenacious, sure, with a long proud history from their POV, but I think the important part is the self admission that it is still a very small group. You might remember that the McCarthy hearings, at the height of Red Menace fever, produced very few results, consistent with a very small group, and ended in disgrace when McCarthy disgusted even his own party with his absurd allegations that the government was filled with "Reds." As to agreement or disagreement with my world-view. First, I don't think anyone knows what my world view is. I don't feel compelled to explain it, but I have stated previously and consistently that I felt both McCain and Obama were honorable men and viable candidates for President. Neither share my world view, which is not relevant to American politics. What is relevant is the consensus of the electorate, which in this case voted for President elect Obama. Jenn's link to The American Conservative -- which represents a mainstream conservative point of view -- is worth a long look. Bob-- You still get my vote for the world's fastest typist. Best, Jimbeaux And apologies. I still haven't mastered the link-thingy. When I write these responses in Word then paste them to "the Box" links that show up fine as links in Word get double listed and consfused in the transition. Don't know how they will come out in this post, but they look like links at the moment. That was the edit. Best, Jimbeaux |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Well who would have thought that The American Conservative would have been considered an acceptable source when Fox News isn't. I'm floored. I guess you learn something new everyday. In all I've read about his birth certificate, the interest in his name was never mentioned as a concern. The concern was, is he actually a natural-born citizen? That can't be determined unless the long form vault birth certificate is seen, not just the registry of live birth that doesn't list a doctor's signature and hospital name. Suspicion arose when his Kenyan grandmother said she was in attendance at his birth in Kenya, even giving the name of the hospital, whereupon she was ordered by the Kenyan government not to discuss it again. He could have ended the controversy by simply having his vault certificate presented, instead of increasing suspicion by petitioning, along with the DNC, to have all the lawsuits requesting verification thrown out. And the hospitals in Kenya and Hawaii have since refused to verify any information about his being born there or not. Such an easy issue to settle, and yet instead there is nothing but stonewalling. I find it hard to believe that between two colleges and law school he never had to write a thesis. But the thesis is not the only issue. All of his school records have been sealed. So absolutely nothing can be determined about those years, independently of his own statements. As for Ayers, Rev. Wright, Father Pfleger, Rezko, his associations with Acorn and other radical elements, I believe that we are known by the company we keep. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Denise, Jim A. has offered you some details about the birth certificate and the facts around who does and does not write a thesis for graduate degrees. My Ed.M. from Harvard didn't require a thesis. The Law School there did not; nor, as Jim said, do law schools require them in general. Obama had an excellent enough reputation there to get elected to the Law Review, which is an honor in itself. To be elected the Editor of the Law Review at Harvard is extraordinary, not only because of the level of scholarship required but because the Law School at Harvard is and was then strongly and about evenly split between Liberal and Conservative readings of the law. Everybody felt that Obama was the best candidate, and after the election the complaints came mostly from the left, who felt that Obama was too conservative for them in many ways. The article below is a fairly straightforward review of Obama as Editor of The Review. It has plusses and minuses; I'm not trying to skew the discussion. Should you check, there seems to be a Frontline segment available which is more accessible, and which goes into more about how he and the conservatives at The Review got along — apparently well. I think because the source is PBS you might find the information dubious, though I think it seems solid. Your call. http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080623/pl_politico/11257 If I had some more specific notions about what you felt was being hidden, I might try a shot at digging up information myself. A lot of information has been surpressed by the current government, I've found. As it comes out — when it comes out — it turns out that the government has been lying to us. About torture, of course, that's the one that probably bothers me the most. We've had quite a bit of this with out current administration, and to see you worrying about what might happen in the future. . . . I guess it just boggles my mind. I know your fears are honest, and that these are things that actually concern you, and I really am sympathetic that you actually are suffering from them. That much seems plain. But the sort of stuff that's been going on over the last eight years has been, for me, just as terrible. But then, again, Denise, How does a person measure these things? Of course, of course. Let me know some of the specifics and I'll try to address some of them with you as best I can. I don't promise that I'll change your mind. Your mind is fine the way it is, I'm sure. But there may be other information kicking around that hasn't been publicised or whatever. I'll try to give it a shot. When I wander into some areas that seem as though I'm lacking information, you chime in. Let's try to listen to each other, and see what we can get straightened out. Or something like that. It looked like there were some other folks who were interested in the process. What do you folks have to say? Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Don't you think, Denise, that if there was even the slightest possibility that Obama was born in Kenya, or any place else outside the US, the Republicans would have their legions of lawyers on it? And the same goes for any other dead horse right wing bloggers keep dragging up, like his Selective Service registration. Rumors and conspiracy theories will only set one side against another. Time to come together, work out our differences and heal the wounds caused by present administration. Obama did write a thesis at Columbia. You can read about it here: http://deepbackground.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/07/24/1219454.aspx As for the company we keep, I think it's more important what we do. Jesus seemed to think so, too. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Denise, The Annenberg folks fact-checked the birth certificate. You may check out the material yourself by looking the material up on the web. The Annenbergs, by the way, were close friends of Ronald Reagan and if I remember correctly were involved with TV Guide, which is where I think their money came from. They seem to feel they have a vested interest in accurate reporting. Here is the Annenberg Fact Checking Article reference: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html The Snopes rumor busting folks have some stuff to say about this rumor as well, as follows: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp I have tried to keep my references objective as possible. My impression is that the Birth certificate is and has been available for a while now. A fair number of unsubstantiated and dubious sources keep attempting to fabricate material about the certificate and the facts. The more fabrications, apparently, the better. I know that you’ve quoted the old saw, "Where there’s smoke, there’s fire." I would remind you of the bitter lesson that we Californians have had to learn: Often, when there’s fire, there’s an arsonist. Cui Bono? I don't know if this particular influx of information is at all helpful for you. I would suggest that you try checking around yourself, and try throwing out anything unsubstantiated or speculative. I try to do it, though of course I always mess up, and I depend on folks like you to keep me at least trying to stay objective. Do you think I have my information straight on this one — as opposed to the opinions that I do have and try to be up front about? Do you think I have my facts straight? And if not, where should I look for the facts that I'm missing, and what's wrong with the facts that I'm looking at? When you say all of Obama's school records have been sealed, what does this mean. I suspect you would have difficulty in getting to my school records as well, since you have no reason to see them. We apparently know what classes and professors the Senator took, and we apparently know which schools he went to and positions he held. It sounds that you are saying there is stuff that you don't know that you have already made reference to, or have heard other people make reference to. People in fact actually do this all the time, but the effect is that they make themselves feel more confused or more upset than in fact they have objective grounds to justify being. Which things specifically do you need to access about Obama's school life that you haven't been able to gain access to? For myself, I wonder if you've been as upset about having or not having access to such information about previous Presidents, and which ones they might be? I confess that I tend to be very nervous about conservative Presidents. As for your comments about judging people by whom they associate with, I can understand what you're saying, but I suspect it's not a good policy overall. Given your serious religious committment, you should be hanging out with a worse class of people, shouldn't you? At least that's the way I always understood the gospels. You should be spending a lot of time with the poor and the disadvantaged and about zero time judging them. Now much of the time I spent hanging around the poor and disadvantaged was time I spent occasionally getting beaten up, mind you; that and getting seriously underpayed. And being given stupid orders; it's not all that it's cracked up to be all the time. But you, Denise, have unbeknownst to yourself, hung around with left wing radicals with shady pasts, and have even spoken to them as if they were real live human beings. Which, by the way, many of us are. According to you, this should make you somebody pretty wretched yourself, were you to apply the rules to you and yours that you would have me apply to the world. You may have even known other anti-AmeriKKKans — as I used the word the other day — in your history. Were I to hunt down all these second and third-hand associations and pretend that you were the same as the past of every person you'd ever spent substantial periods of time with, I fear I could blacken your reputation beyond any hope of redemption. To absolutely no point at all. You would still be the same basically decent woman that I write to on occasion. You would probably not be a revolting communist sympathizer, or a closet abortionist or any other wretched thing that I might delight in painting you with by association. Among other things it's generally considered a logical fallacy — guilt by association, I mean. It's no more reasonable than flipping the notion about and saying simply because somebody is named Washington, they have oodles of money and own a plantation in Virginia. No go. The chains of logic must be built syllogistically for the connection to be logically valid. It sounds like a strong connection, because it's built on feeling; and feeling is important too, just not this way. I think. Sincerely, Bob Kaven [This message has been edited by Bob K (11-18-2008 01:04 AM).] |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Phillip Berg, a right wing nut case, started the Kenyan Grandmother thing by claiming to have a taped converstation of Obama's grannie stating she was present at Barak's birth. He said he would produce the tape in a few days. The tape was never produced, but the absurd rumor was started, embelished, and so on, one bit of lunacy leading to another. This is the important part, IMO: THE TAPE WAS NEVER PRODUCED! The difference between "The American Conservative" and Fox News is the exact difference some have been talking about between credible, and non credible sources. It is similar to Bob K's comparision of "The Nation" to "Mother Jones." All four outlets have agendas. Two present their positions rationally, two don't. Conservatives aren't crazy people. Extreme right wing loonies are. Liberals aren't crazy people, extreme left-wing loonies are. Fox News is an "entertainment" channel. It's objective, as is the objective of ALL commercial tv stations, is to kill time between commercials with something that will keep people watching. Fox Cable News chooses to use less than well grounded sensationalism as it's hook. The MSM gives us cop shows and sit-coms. Local network affiliated news stations give us car chases, murders and the weather. "Television news," in the sense of journalistic integrity and import, is an oxymorn. This is the best I can do with the link thingy to Berg, but it comes up as one of the first references on google under "Obama's Kenyan Grandmother": www.wnd.com/index.php fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78931 Best, Jimbeaux |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
As for your comments about judging people by whom they associate with, I can understand what you're saying, but I suspect it's not a good policy overall. Interesting, Bob. There are a lot of Latins who would disagree with you, since one of their favorite slogans is, "Show me your friends and I'll tell you who you are." Given your serious religious committment, you should be hanging out with a worse class of people, shouldn't you? At least that's the way I always understood the gospels. You should be spending a lot of time with the poor and the disadvantaged and about zero time judging them. Another very interesting comment. I wasn't aware that being poor or disadvantaged slotted one into a "worse class of people". My wife in Venezuela was with the Peace Corps and we lived in the poorest section of Caracas. Poor and disadvantaged people were our friends and neighbors. I never thought of them as either a worse or lower class of people. They were people who did not have the money or opportunities to be a "better class of person" but I would have put their morals, integrity and honesty along with anyone you may consider better class.. With all due respect, you references and examples to Denise about "second and third-class" associations sounds more like a bit of damage control than anything else. Obama's associations were much more than second and third class, as you well know. Comparing someone Denise might have known and tried to help, who had a shady background with the likes of reverend Wright, the man who baptized Obama's children, the man Obama called his "spiritual mentor" and the man whose words Obama took to title his book, is a little far-fetched to me. The same goes for his other associations, which have all come under scrutiny. Conducting social functions with someone and comparing it to a social worker, trying to better the life of an unfortunate goes beyond unfair and there's really no call for it, no matter how eloquent one tries to make it. Obama won. The past associations at this point are moot. Let's hope they stay that way. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
On another point Denise made, Obama has been the least investigated presidential candidate in history, I believe. No one ever really put much effort into investigating his qualifications, background, associations or much of anything else. He just got a free pass. There was a conversation between Tom Brokaw and Charlie Rose after the election. When Rose asked Brokaw about Obama's thoughts or plans on the international side, Brokaw admitted that, in reality, he had no idea what Obama's thoughts were. He added that, actually, no one really knew that much about Obama at all. Naturally, he would never have dreamed of saying that before the election, but afterwards, that's what he acknowledged. On the reverend Wright side and Obama's claim that he never sat in on any sermon in which Wright used such tactics, that would have been very easy to check. It was certainly easy for the press to place Sarah Palin in church at a time her pastor made a controversial remark. They did it in record time. Why wouldn't they do it with Obama? The answer is very simple and you know it. In all fairness to Obama, Hillary got the same hands-off treatement by the press. Her qualifications were microscopic and left untouched. Her many shady past instances, including the White House travel office, her land dealings and countless others, were also not worthy of mention. Only now that she is being spoken of as a possible Secretary of State candidate, are people willing to take a look at her past, including her husband's wheeling and dealing with foreign governments and how much personal gain he got out of it...and what he did or promised to get it. Bill Clinton's foundation is one aspect of his finances and business relationships that are reportedly being examined as part of the vetting process for the secretary of state post. Since leaving the White House in 2001, he has amassed a multimillion-dollar fortune and built the foundation through his ties to corporations and foreign governments. USA Today The press wanted him in and he's in. We will now see if he is qualified or not, something that should have been checked out long before now. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Jim, Philip Berg is not a right wing nut case. He is a life-long Democrat and former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania, and most recently a Hillary Clinton supporter. His suit was filed prior to Obama being nominated by the Democratic Party. But he may be a nut. He's the one who filed the lawsuit against Bush & Cheyney accusing them of being complicit in 911. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOzFl-Gm_Kc There are currently eight lawsuits from different states at either the state or federal level, including one that includes two of the California electors as plaintiffs. We'll have to see how it all shakes out. And I disagree with your assesment of Fox News. No surprise there, I guess. Jen and Bob, when Obama has no record other than his time in the Illinois Senate and his 2 years in the U.S. Senate, with no significant legislation under his belt, and only his reputation as the most left wing liberal in the Senate, his associations become very important in an attempt to evaluate the essence of the man. Who is he really? What does he stand for really? With so many shady and radical characters in his circle, it gives one pause. But as Michael said it's a moot point now. But that doesn't produce any confidence in me about him. And the fact that all his records have been sealed only increases suspicion about him in people's minds. It would be so easy to produce his birth certificate to a judge and end all the controversy, but yet he refuses. To me, it says he is hiding something. What I don't know, but he is hiding something. Either that or he is simply the most arrogant politician imaginable. And if you can demonstrate to me that Obama was hanging out with all those characters for the purpose of expressing God's love to them and for their spiritual enlightenment and edification, then I'll consider your comparison to Jesus hanging out with publicans and sinners, Jen. I suspect, though, that their motivations were quite different. I mean we have to use our common sense. Would any parent buy the argument from their kid that they are going to continue hanging out with prostitutes and thieves because Jesus did? The underlying motivation for the associations is the defining factor of the associations. And I have no idea what the RNC might be doing behind the scenes. Maybe they are waiting to see how all these lawsuits are resolved. Maybe they are attempting to do their own investigation. Maybe they don't think it's an issue worth investigating. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Denise, You speak about "Obama's record as the most Left-wing Liberal in the Senate." This has been a Republican talking point for months. You say this as though Liberal were a dirty word. I am proud to be a Liberal. My wife and I have a disagreement about joining the ACLU, so we haven't joined. She doesn't like the ACLU position on parental rights. The ACLU believes that Parental rights ought to be pre-eminent, while my wife believes that the child's rights should be considered first. I believe that there's more to the ACLU than this single issue, with which I am at odds with them. I feel the point of the matter is that the organization is there to defend the constitution and the bill of rights, which was meant to be deeply offensive, so that it could protect those folks that needed it against the tyrannies of those majorities that would otherwise bury them. My problem with Obama is that he isn't Liberal enough, and that IU haven't heard any plans from him yet about what he's going to do with all those powers that the current administration has been hoarding for the executive branch. What about those wire-tap powers? What about the all-too easy access to our medical records and the potential curtailment of our ability to travel, the potential limits to habeas, and the Presidential right to designate anybody of his choosing somebody without rights, and without having easy access to counsel, as though they were a captured terrorist. What about the signing statements that the current President has taken to signing, trespassing on the rights of congress? Obama has said nothing so far that I am aware of — hopefully he has that I am not aware of at this point — about his willingness to address these issues. These to me are emergencies. That we have allowed them to snowball through two Republican administrations is unbelievable! The possibility that we might allow them to last through a Democratic administration, or two, and thus allow the imprimatur of both parties upon these insults to constitutional law and freedom tacitly to be confirmed is a calamity of proportion that I can only vaguely begin to understand. Certainly any silly inter-party bickering would seem like a tea party in comparison. There's something more important at stake here, Denise, than whether Obama is Liberal. If he's a Liberal, gee, so much the better; he'd be less likely to go along with this sort of thing, really; same as if he was an honest conservative. We need people who are committed to constitutional democracy, and the actual party shouldn't matter all that much as long as the basic commitment is there. That means to talking things out with the people around you as honestly as you can. That's the best I can do for right now. I'm interested in what anybody has to say. I appreciated Jim's comments as well as Mike's and Denise's. Thank you, J.M. Denise, Why not write to Obama and ask him why he hung out with those various folks in Chicago? You have yourself in a tough place about this sort of thing. That is, I cannot imagine any circumstance under which you would accept an answer different than the one which you have already accepted. This may be utterly wrong of me to think, but actually, under what realistic circumstances would you feel you could actually accept contradictory information? I did offer you a link to the birth certificate and to their reported examinations of it by the Annenberg foundation. You may have missed the link or may not know what to make of Foundation. Check them out. Pretty neutral, as I understand it. The family were friends with the Reagans, and they are interested in objectivity and fact-checking in journalism. They apparently have no axe to grind. They have also supported some middle of the road and Left-wing stuff, but in terms of scholarship and research, to the best of my understanding. Whatever. All my best, Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Bob, I can accept contradictory information if I find it plausible after considering it. But that doesn't necessarily mean I will change my mind if I find my currently held conviction to be just as plausible or more plausible. Party affiliation means nothing to me, but as a conservative I usually find more in common with Repulicans than Democrats, for the most part. Don't you find something just a little bit strange about Obama posting a certificate of live birth online, which is a different document than the long-form vault birth certificate, instead of just giving a copy of the document that he knows would end all the controversy to a judge, or other designated legal authority? Maybe the next time I renew my passport I'll just tell the clerk to check out my birth certificate online at my website, with the assurance that it has been verified as authentic by factcheck. How do you think that would go over? Would I get my passport? |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Are you suggesting that Obama's American passport was obtained illegally - that he didn't actually show proof of citizenship, provide the required certified birth certificate? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Denise, You also need actually to read the contradictory information before you can consider it, before you can consider its plausibility, even before you can make a decision as to whether to accept or reject it. I do not find it odd that Obama would allow the Annenberg people to look at the certificate. There were four issues Obama had to deal with, if you thing about it. One was an attempt to put the election on hold through a legal maneuver, and do some damage to the country and the political process as a whole. That was stopped by a writ from the Supreme court at the last minute saying that it was legal for the election to continue (and my interpretation of that is that the lawsuit was of secondary importance to the orderly transition of power to a new administration, whichever that might have been). Second was an attempt to discredit Obama in the eyes of the voters and hopefully turn the election toward McCain by offering another smear in an election already distinguished by them. Third was an attempt to weaken Obama should he get elected by attacking his legitimacy. And here, way down at the bottom of the list, is any sort of legal fallout that might be of any import in a lawsuit that would probably considered moot should Obama lose, and that most of the country things is looney to begin with. That would be number four. So no, I find it pretty unsurprising that Obama would be less concerned about the legal aspects of the situation than you think he ought to be. I consider his move a pretty solid one. Should the suit have grounds to go forward, maybe then a judge might have a look, maybe; otherwise to get involved in the legal end of it beforehand would have given the thing more fuel. That would have been stupid of Obama. I would have done the stupid thing and lost, myself, which is why I'd be a terrible politician. As a conservative, you ought to understand the notion of pay your bills and stay within your budget, put your money to work helping your own by investing in capital improvements such as infrastructure, and make sure that you keep up with maintenance, because if you don't, the bill will only be larger down the line, and in the end, we're the ones who have to pay it. Do it right the first time, and keep it up and it'll cost less in the long run. Don't skimp on doing the thing right, because it will come back and bite you later on; then you'll have nobody to blame but yourself. We should have broad agreement on these things because these are values that I think Liberals and Conservatives both agree on. These are basic Democratic values, as are tolerance and respect. quote: Actually, what you would do is follow the steps the Department of State has set up for renewal of Passports. As I recall, you don't necessarily have to get a new copy of your Birth Certificate for that, though perhaps you do. I don't think it matters all that much for the purposes of our discussion: What you would do is follow the prescribed steps, same as everybody else. And that is exactly what I expect Senator Obama to do, to follow the same steps as anybody else in his situation. I would feel insulted if people started asking me for my birth certificate at that point in the election cycle. Knowing Senator McCain's temper, I don't imagine he was too thrilled either. Nor was Herbert Hoover. If you go to the original Annenberg site, you can even see a copy of the birth announcement from the Honolulu paper in 1961. If the suit ever gets to court and it doesn't get thrown out for the waste of time it probably is, it will be The Supreme Court, and they will be judging the issue on points of Law, and probably won't be looking at evidence like birth certificates anyway, will they now? So no, you don't get your passport if you don't do the things you need to do to apply for the passport. Neither does Obama. Including his birth certificate. If he has a passport, you've already shown that he's shown proof of citizenship, haven't you? Unless. . . Perhaps you mean that you want him to prove himself innocent, like they do in Europe and in countries that do things the French way: A person is always assumed guilty until they prove themselves innocent. That's the Napoleonic Code, and we over here in American only hate one thing worse than our justice system, and that's every other justice system in the world. Perhaps for this one little thing, though, you're saying we should turn things around because. . . . Why? Sincerely yours, Bob Kaven |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Denise -- OK, my bad. Berg is a left wing nut case. The point is, the alleged documentation of Obama's Kenyan birth, the taped conversation Berg promised to supply, was never supplied. Now, if a fellow makes a highly inflammatory charge, then fails to follow up the the evidence he claims to have, what does one's garbage detector make of that? On people voting for "personalities," rather than platforms, one example is Al Franken, a mediocre comic and satirist, with no experience in public office, who still has a chance of becoming Minnesota's new Senator. This is politics of personality. I think Reagan, Kennedy, and Obama were elected in large part because they were charismatic characters. This doesn't mean that a charismatic character can't be a good leader, it just means, IMO, that people often vote for the person, not the platform. If Joe Biden was the Democratic nominee, in the end, he might have won, but IMO, the popular vote would have been a lot closer. McCain is certainly a charismatic character and media-genic, but I doubt that any Republican could have overcome the Bush-Cheney legacy. And if Mitt Romney had run, Obama's margin of victory would have been even greater. Personalities. I don't believe, but this is just me, that McCain would have given us four or eight more years of Bush/Cheney economics, foreign policy, or disregard for the constitution. In the Clinton-Obama run for the nomination, do you think the final result was based on an examination of platform, or an emotional response to personality? The beauty of the internet is that anyone can blog or post anything. That doesn't mean there is any reason to believe all or any of it. The problem with the internet is that just having an opinion in print gives it unjustified credibility. Deer, there's another possibility involving Obama being the least investigated of Presidential candidates. It's the possibility that there was not much negative material of substance to be found. His preacher turned out to be a hate monger. He smoked marijuana in college. He associated with Saul Alinsky and ACORN, a person and group not everyone approves of. That's about it for "dirt." The rest is sheer speculation and nonsense. He wasn't born in Kenya, he didn't attend a madras, he isn't a Muslim, his "missing senior thesis" was actually an independent study project in conjunction with a year long class for exceptional students at Columbia that wound up in the garbage just as mine did, and when you request a copy of your birth certificate from your home state, you get just that, a copy with a crimped State Seal. It will get you a driver's license, a passport, and the opportunity to become a Senator. No government agency has ever questioned his citizenship, because there isn't any question. If the Alley had a larger readership, and I were to post the notion that Obama, a follower in the tradition of Martin Luther King and Malcolm X, had a secret agenda to insure black supremacy in the US through the creation of a Hitler Youth program, someone would pick it up and run with it, because it plays to their paranoia, and see "It says so, right here!" In the words of the eminent philosopher, Susan Caldwell, "It's all OK." Bob K -- check your email. Sometimes PiP IM's wind up in "spam." Best, Jimbeaux |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
No, I'm not suggesting anything of the kind, Jen. What I am suggesting is that I wouldn't be able to tell someone to look up my birth certificate on my website and assure them that factcheck checked it out and says it's okay. I would be required to present it personally for inspection to whomever is requesting it. So it doesn't make sense to me that Obama should think what he did is sufficient, especially when he knows that what the suits are requesting isn't the short form that he put online anyway. He & the DNC were both served, as defendants in the cases, the first time last August, before the nomination, and they know exactly what is being requested. The suits are requesting the long form vault birth certificate that lists the name of the hospital, location of the hospital, and attending physician, information that doesn't appear on the short form. Bob, you presume to know what I read? Jim, I saw a clip of Berg a couple of weeks ago saying that he was going to release the tape in a few days after he gets "the affidavit", I think he said from someone verifying that it was Obama's grandmother's voice on the tape. So maybe it hasn't arrived yet, or maybe the person changed his/her mind about cooperating with Berg. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
I must admit I’m amazed to learn on the Interweb that both Obama and McCain might not be natural born citizens. Talk about a breach in homeland security, what sort of incompetent intelligence service is the current administration running? It beggars belief that the intelligence service can obtain enough evidence regarding the life story and political philosophy of a Kebab cook from Turkmenistan to incarcerate him in Gitmo indefinitely without trial yet at the same time spectacularly fail to spot two foreign nationals running for President! If this is true the terms American Security, and American Intelligence need to be seriously reassessed, how can you trust the idiots responsible for protecting your country if they can’t even run a simple background check of two potential Presidents? It boggles the mind. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
This made me laugh so much I almost fell off my chair: Upon investigation into the birth of Barack Hussein Obama in Honolulu, Hawaii, Obama’s birth is reported as occurring at two (2) separate hospitals, Kapiolani Hospital and Queens Hospital. Wikipedia English Version under the subject “Barack Obama” states Obama was born at Kapiolani Hospital. Wikipedia Italian Version under the subject “Queens Hospital” states Barack Obama was born in Queens Hospital. http://msgboard.snopes.com/politics/graphics/berg.pdf They’re citing Wikipedia as evidence! Where did these bozos get their qualifications, Never Never Land?  |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Deer, there's another possibility involving Obama being the least investigated of Presidential candidates. It's the possibility that there was not much negative material of substance to be found. I'm the one who sells swampland. It's humorous that someone is trying to sell it to me...no sale On people voting for "personalities," rather than platforms, one example is Al Franken, a mediocre comic and satirist, with no experience in public office, who still has a chance of becoming Minnesota's new Senator. This is politics of personality. I think Reagan, Kennedy, and Obama were elected in large part because they were charismatic characters. Yes, Jim, you are right. Personality was a big part of Obama's getting elected but the big thing was how the media conducted themselves in presenting their views to the public. If you have a little free time, check out this link and you will see what points the media hammered into the heads of voters whenever they could. It's very interesting.... http://howobamagotelected.com/ |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
What you seem to be suggesting now, Denise, is that since Obama does have an American passport, then he must have proven his citizenship by showing a certified copy of his birth certificate, not just referring authorities to the copy posted online. Authorities in Hawaii say they've seen his vault certificate and have attested without a doubt he was born in Hawaii, the State Department records reflect he's shown proof of citizenship in order to get his American passport, so isn't it time to let it go? I wasn't going to bring up McCain's birth certificate but since Grinch did, a little digression. Did he show his original birth certificate, the vault copy, or a certified copy the same as Obama did? And did he ever explain why his birth wasn't listed in the official Panama birth records? And, why did he refuse to reveal his military records? Was he trying to hide something or was he just being arrogant? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Proof of citizenship isn't the issue, Jen. You can have citizenship without being a "natural born" citizen, which is a requirement under the Constitution to be President. McCain did present his long form birth certificate and related documents to get a determination of his status since he was actually born in Panama. He was born of two U.S. citizens, in the Panama Canal Zone while his father was stationed there in the military. The Senate issued a Resolution that he is a natural born citizen under those circumstances. Maybe he isn't in the official Panama birth records because he was born on what was considered U.S. soil, the military base there. I haven't heard of his refusing to release his miltary records. But even if he didn't release them, it doesn't rise to the level of a Constitutional issue as a Presidential candidate's birthplace might. So I don't see arrogance there. Refusing to release information that can verify your claim of eligibility which would settle the issue, if you can, seems to be a thumbing of the nose at the Constitution and/or the people who are concerned whether the requirements have been met. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Are you suggesting Obama is a naturalized citizen? Have you proof of that? Wouldn't there be official records one could get copies of by filing a FOIA request? The Senate Resolution isn't binding, it's an opinion that doesn't carry the weight of law. Have you seen McCain's vault certificate? What's the name of the hospital where he was born? I vaguely remember reading some discussion about the fact that the hospital listed hadn't been built when he was born and that the actual location of his birth was outside US controlled territory. Births of military dependents were listed in the Panamanian registry of births. McCain's wasn't. How can one explain that? As to his military records, if he's got nothing to hide then why didn't he release them? Seems awfully suspicious to me. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Personality, Jim? Isn't that, to a large extent, just shorthand for ability to lead? I tend to flip-flop between parties because I really don't put a lot of credence in platforms. Most politicians are just going to say what they think everyone wants to hear any way, and no platform I've seen has ever aligned with my own. I don't mean to belittle platforms, because they do indeed cover important stuff. I'm personally more interested in finding the man who will do the right thing when the stuff hits the fan. I look for intelligence, integrity, and the ability to lead. You want to call that personality? On the rare occasion we find those qualities in both candidates, I call it damn lucky. quote: The latter, I would think, Denise. Or, at least, ignoring them. That's usually the best course with frivolous law suits. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: I think you’ll find that the resolution issued in April 2008 has no legal standing whatsoever and cannot be used as evidence of citizenship. http://www.snopes.com/politics/mccain/citizen.asp I personally believe both McCain and Obama are eligible to be President, presumably so does Bush and hopefully so too do the people responsible for your country’s security. I may be wrong but I was under the impression that the incumbent President has an overriding duty to protect your country and its citizens. If that’s the case would you not consider it a gross dereliction of that duty not to ensure that the next President wasn’t a terrorist supporting, Marxist, foreign national? Your government has either vetted both candidate’s origins and backgrounds and found nothing or they’ve dropped the ball big time and decided to forego even the most basic background checks. I work for a security company, when I was first employed the company had, by law, to run a background check to verify all the information I supplied - including my nationality. Can you imagine for one minute that a candidate for the Presidency isn’t subject to vetting at least as rigorous as the one I had to go through? I’d rather believe both candidates were checked out and came up clean because the alternative is that your security and intelligence services aren’t particularly secure or intelligent. Is that what you’re suggesting Denise? That your government is so inept that it wouldn’t check before allowing an ineligible President to take control of the nation? I just can’t see it, it defies all reasonable common sense. Of course I could be wrong. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
That your government is so inept You love it, don't you, Grinch? Your eagerness is very obvious. If I were to list all of the insults and name-calling with respect to our government, our country, our philosophies and our lifestyle they would reach half-way to Liverpool. I acknowledge the fact that you must be one of the most knowledgeable humans alive on life in the United States but it's interesting on how it is all negative and also so freely and frequently given, especially the insults. One would think you have a real problem, not only with Bush, but with the country. I hope that's not the case. If it is, just be honest enough to say so. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
tsk. Now this is just sad. c'mon Mike--all that the above post is worth is to serve as an example of "spin". That's all it takes is one phrase out of context... I'm totally disheartened by all of this now. I wonder if Jimbeaux knows he can request to have a thread locked at any time? On that note, I think I'll go back to reading in bed. goodnite folks.  |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: The irony is that Grinch's sarcasm in that post is classic Balladeer fare. Trying to make something sound silly through hyperbole backfires almost as often as it works. If a pun is the lowest form of comedy, surely sarcasm must qualify as the lowest form of communication? |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
I'll take the hit, even if I'm puzzled as to what I said in my own reply was construed as either a pun or sarcasm. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
No I haven't seen his documents, Jen. He presented them to the Senate Committee, not to me. And it never got to the point where citizens filed suits to request that he present them to a judge or a designated authority because he did so voluntarily. McCain's birth status is no longer an issue in any event. He isn't the President-Elect. I'm not suggesting that Obama is or isn't a natural born citizen or a naturalized citizen. What I did say was that all his records were sealed, his school applications and grades, the particulars of his work with Bill Ayers on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge and ACORN, his work as a community organizer and his long form birth certificate. The man is a mystery. America knows more about Sarah Palin than we know about the President-Elect. His secretive nature breeds suspicion, deserved or not. I don't think it's frivilous, Ron, when doubts arose, probably in part due to his secretive nature, his childhood years spent in Indonesia, his father and step-father being non-U.S. citizens, and reports of comments supposedly made by his Kenyan family. And the solution to remove all doubt is so simple. Grinch, if what I read is correct, candidates only have to sign an affidavit declaring that they are natural born citizens. If that is correct, I think it is woefully insufficient. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Ron, I'll be the first to acknowledge that I serve up sarcasm as quickly as anyone else, but I saw none in his post. Nor did I see it in if this is true the terms American Security, and American Intelligence need to be seriously reassessed, how can you trust the idiots responsible for protecting your country if they can’t even run a simple background check of two potential Presidents? It boggles the mind. Nor have I seen it in many other posts aimed at standard insulting, which are spread out over many threads. They are all there to be seen and are very reoccuring. Use me as a target and I have no problem with it but the constant shots at my country get a little hard to swallow sometimes, especially from someone who is not even a part of it. Call me touchy and irrational, if you like. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Suits were filed to try and force McCain to produce proof of citizenship, Denise. I’m surprised you didn’t know that. Yes, I’m aware McCain was defeated, but as a Presidential candidate, shouldn’t he have been held to the same standard as required of Obama? This thing about Obama’s birth certificate was brought up months ago, before he won the election, yet there was little mention of the unanswered questions about McCain’s during the campaign. And, since the Senate Resolution didn’t carry the weight of law, wasn’t it merely a distraction, an attempt to imply the issue had been legally decided when in fact it wasn’t? Seems that way to me. If McCain can in effect, “seal” his military records, personnel file, debriefings, etc., why do you have a problem with Obama school records, etc., being sealed? Which of those records that you object to being sealed were sealed by Obama and which were sealed by law or the organizations he worked for? Which of those records could possibly have any bearing on whether or not he meets the Constitutional requirements for holding office? I don’t find Obama a mystery at all. I don’t think anyone who’s read his books, his speeches, the info on his campaign site would say that. I think it’s a matter of being as informed as you want to be. Reading his books would show that he really doesn’t have a "secretive nature". Have you read them, Denise? They're really quite well written and worth the time. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, Is there anything wrong with the actual reasoning of what Grinch said that bothers you, or is it the fact that it was said by a non-U.S. citizen? My sense is that it's not a governmental responsibility to run that sort of check on candidates anyway. That having to select from a few pre-selected U.S. Government approved Grade-A prime Candidates feels a bit anti-Democratic to me, and may keep out some of the more raw folks that we really should be allowing in. The Andrew Jacksons of this world. Grinch may not have caught that sort of wooly streak in the American Democracy, and he should be forgiven for that and have the distinction explained, to his head-scratch puzzlement. Were there actually something wildly out-of-line about either candidate, it would have been published and there would have been considerable loud screaming well before this point. The not-a citizen business comes up every now and again in Presidential politics, once with Herbert Hoover, as I mentioned in a prior post. The actual reasoning of what Grinch had to say though, Mike, was pretty much on base, and it was a valid comment in my opinion. It was, from the outside, a perfectly reasonable observation. From the inside, there are people who would make the same comment as well, perhaps those who feel we should have a more regulated security-state sort of organization. I don't happen to agree with them, but there are a lot of them around these days. I mentioned to you being stopped on the bus between Buffalo and Ithaca, both ways, by Border Patrol agents, demanding papers from everybody aboard. That is what security state thinking gets us, and more. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Twenty year association with a hate-mongering minister. Buying land from a convicted felon at a reduced price Associating with a man who bombed the Pentagon Working for an organization which forced banks to give unsecured housing loans I understand, Jennifer, that these points are all old-hat and really don't matter much now. However, to say Obama doesn't have a "secretive nature", in light of all these topics, is not that realistic. The simple fact is that the press decided not to do any actual investigative reporting into these topics at all. That's the simple truth.. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Actually, there's quite a lot of information available from news sources on those topics. Try a google, then hit "news". |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: We weren't talking about your post, Karen. We were talking about Grinch's. quote: I saw it, Mike. Clear as a bell. Or do you really think our government is incapable of running background checks? See, that's the trouble with sarcasm, though. Grinch's and yours and, yea, mine too most of the time. It usually feels a lot more clever than it really it is and is far too easily misconstrued. It's just so much more fun than saying what we really mean, though, isn't it? quote: Of course it's frivolous, Denise. And it's not the result of secrecy, but of hate and fear. Remember Florida in 2004? Now that was a real issue, one that potentially reflected the will of the American people. This time around we already know the will of the people. However, this issue, like that one, will be decided in the only place that counts -- the courts. That's the only place anyone is obligated to present their proof. And sadly it still won't "remove all doubt," because hate and fear are never so easily conquered. quote: So you did all your own legwork, Mike, and dug everything up without their help? I'm impressed with your investigative reporting abilities! (See what I mean about sarcasm? It would be much simpler, I suspect, to just point out that your continued harangues about the biased-against-you-and-everything-you-believe press make very little sense. If the press uniformly conspired to keep you in the dark, Mike, you'd never know it. I think your real complaint is that most of the press -- like most of America -- liked somebody that you didn't. That's irritating, I know, but it's bound to happen from time to time.) |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
No, I didn’t know that there were lawsuits against McCain concerning his birth status, Jen. By the time I began paying attention to politics in this election cycle, the issue had already apparently been resolved, which is the only thing that I had read about it. And he was held to the same standard as Obama if lawsuits were filed requesting documentation of him. I think everyone should be held to the same standard. It does beg the question though, why does Congress waste its time passing resolutions that are meaningless. What is the point? If they know it doesn’t have the weight of law, why did they even bother to weigh in on the issue? I don’t know why a committee composed of all Democrats, which I read was the case, would try to give the issue the appearance of being legally settled for a Republican candidate. It doesn’t matter if records are sealed by him, by law, or by an organization. He has the power to authorize the release of any and all information pertaining to him. That he hasn’t given the authorization leads one to believe that he doesn’t want it released, which is his right, of course, but leads to questions of why. And since the questions being raised speak to the Constitutional requirements of eligibility for the Office of President, I think that is more relevant than military or health records, or any other records that don’t shed light on that or any other Constitutional requirement for the Office. As to his school records and applications, they could answer the question of where he was born, and could also answer whether he received aid in any form as a foreign student when he moved back from Indonesia. No, I haven’t read his books. I have read enough excerpts to convince me that he and I are not in sync ideologically, so I have no interest in reading more of his opinions. And I hope he truly is more of a pragmatist than an ideologue, as he says he is, because frankly, his ideology scares the heck out of me. I’m sure there are some haters, Ron, but I also think that his secretive nature enhances any fear that people might have about him based on the little that they do know. A little transparency would go along way to put people at ease, tending to facilitate a better atmosphere for potential unity. There is news to be had, but you couldn’t find it in large degrees in the main stream media. Most of what we learned about Obama was learned initially from alternative news sources, not the main stream media, and only made it to the main stream media when they couldn’t credibly ignore an issue any longer, it seemed, like the Rev. Wright issue for instance. He was raised as an issue in 2007 by Sean Hannity of Fox News, more than a year before it hit the main stream outlets. The ombudsman (woman?) of the Washington Post stated that after doing a study of the number of positive/negative stories on all the candidates, they were obviously favoring Obama in their reporting. They didn’t do their job. It isn’t their job to favor one candidate over the other. It is their job to report the news objectively, and to be fair and balanced in selecting the stories they run, as they do have the power to sway public opinion. They shouldn't abuse that power to favor the candidate they like. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
If you don’t like sarcasm mixed with a little irony to highlight an absurdity Mike you’ll hate the north of England, it’s the bread and butter of banter over here. As far as criticising your country goes I’m an equal opportunity Grinch, if I see stupidity and absurdity I feel obliged to point it out, regardless of the country of origin. If you don’t like it when the stupidity originates in your country, or seems to denigrate a part of it unfairly please feel free to point out the flaws in my logic and I’ll happily explain and discuss them. If for some reason you can’t get past the fact that I’m not American, that my opinion is somehow invalid because of that, then please feel free to ignore me - I don’t mind either way. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
If the press uniformly conspired to keep you in the dark, Mike, you'd never know it. True enough but I was referring to the mainstream press. Fortunately they are not the only press or sources of information available....and, yes, Ron, I actually HAVE done a lot of searching on my own. Also, the mainstream press needs to say SOMETHING to cover their derriers. They print just enough not to give information but enough to claim that they had reported it in the future event that it becomes important. I made a mention back in 1999 that Clinton was doing things that we may never know about for several years but would be detrimental to the US. What did I base it on? His dealings with North Korea, China and other governments which the mainstream press did nothing to bring to light. Now, with the possibility of Hillary vying for the Secretary of State position, we may actually see a few of them come out. It's a longshot, I know, but possible. Yesterday he claimed that all FUTURE dealings between himself and foreign governments would be completely open to scrutiny. This statement was applauded by the democrats, claiming it showed Bill's willingness to cooperate. It's an amazing thing.... Grinch...consider it done. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
your continued harangues about the biased-against-you-and-everything-you-believe press make very little sense. Ok, Ron, but I don't have the market cornered on haranguement.... "London's Sunday Times called it "the culmination of one of the most spectacular victories of the war on terror." A terrorist force that once numbered more than 12,000, with strongholds in the west and central regions of Iraq, has over two years been reduced to a mere 1,200 fighters, backed against the wall in the northern city of Mosul. The destruction of al-Qaida in Iraq (AQI) is one of the most unlikely and unforeseen events in the long history of American warfare. We can thank President Bush's surge strategy, in which he bucked both Republican and Democratic leaders in Washington by increasing our forces there instead of surrendering. Al-Qaida's loss of the hearts and minds of ordinary Iraqis began in Anbar Province , which had been written off as a basket case, and spread out from there. Now, in Operation Lion's Roar the Iraqi army and the U.S. 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment is destroying the fraction of terrorists who are left. More than 1,000 AQI operatives have already been apprehended. Sunday Times reporter Marie Colvin, traveling with Iraqi forces in Mosul, found little AQI presence even in bullet-ridden residential areas that were once insurgency strongholds, and reported that the terrorists have lost control of its Mosul urban base, with what is left of the organization having fled south into the countryside. But where are the headlines and the front-page stories about all this good news? As the Media Research Center pointed out last week, "the CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News and CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 were silent Tuesday night about the benchmarks "that signaled political progress." The war in Iraq has been turned around180 degrees both militarily and politically because the president stuck to his guns. Yet apart from IBD, Fox News Channel and parts of the foreign press, the media don't seem to consider this historic event a big story." Copyright 2008 Investor's Business Daily. All Rights Reserved. Our mainstream press sculpts the news to present whatever they want to as important and whatever they don't want to as immaterial or non-existant. More people that I alone have that opinion. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: quote: Maybe no one told them what the benchmarks were, Mike? I mean, they seem a bit arbitrary to me. Were they set by some standards organization or did Media Research Center just make them up? Why was Tuesday night, specifically, the time to announce the achievement of those benchmarks? I wonder what Media Research Center was silent on Tuesday night? quote: It's honestly good to hear we're making progress. Really, I mean that. I would prefer to see the credit be directed to our soldiers, though. It's hard to be too impressed with President Bush's strategy, after all, when we remember there were virtually NO al-Qaida in Iraq before we invaded. Which just goes to show, perhaps, that benchmarks taken out of context can be a little misleading? |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
“Listening to Republicans nowadays is like booking time with a colicky baby. I haven't heard so much whining and crying since my daughter was 3 months old.” The GOP: Evolve or die http://blog.mlive.com/capitolchronicles/2008/11/the_gop_evolve_or_die.html |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I guess she overlooked the eight year long temper tantrum thrown by the left. But then again, I don't know how long it's been since her daughter was three months old. So maybe she hasn't seen much since then. And we've just seen what happens when the Repulicans try to run someone in the general election who is not a true conservative, someone less conservative than Bush, someone who was actually the media darling in the Republican primaries, so why do more of the same? Could it be that McCain lost because it is estimated that nearly 4.1 million Republican voters "simply stayed home"? Exit poll data from 2004 reveal that President Bush got 55 percent of the male vote and 48 percent of the female vote, while 2008 data show that McCain got 48 percent of the male vote and 43 percent of the female vote. McCain's percentage of the male vote dropped more than his percentage of the female vote, so it's hard to see how alienated women made the difference. Plus, Karl Rove tells us that there were 4.1 million fewer Republicans voting this year than in 2004, some of whom he believed turned independent or Democratic for this election, which might validate Kathleen's thesis, except that Rove says that most of those 4.1 million "simply stayed home." What's even more interesting is there was an almost identical drop-off (4.1 million) of those voters who attend religious services more than once a week (evangelicals, anyone?). http://townhall.com/Columnists/DavidLimbaugh/2008/11/21/evangel icals_-_a_drag_on_or_essential_to_the_gop?page=1 |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Scrooge & Marley, Inc. -- The True Conservative Agenda by Thom Hartmann http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0618-03.htm |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Bah humbug. It's not an all or nothing proposition. Hartmann has confused what he calls "conservative economics" with laissez-faire capitalism. His argument is just another example of scare tactics. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
I think you are being unduly kind to him Ron! That was quite hilarious Jenn, reminiscent of our Arthur Scargill in the feisty days of the 1970's and just about as (in)accurate. Still, it's about time this thread had a bit of good old extreme left propaganda to counteract the far right treats we've been subject to. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Turn about is fair play, moonbeam. I have the whole weekend off with lots of free time for googling. What's the name of that socialist online thingie? |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Found it! Socialistworker.org. Which, unlike WND, isn’t obsessed with Obama’s birth certificate. And this article fits right in the discussion about healthcare. Brian Jones tells the story of Kingsbridge striker Audrey Smith-Campbell, a health care provider who literally died fighting for health care. http://socialistworker.org/2008/08/19/life-and-death-struggle |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
This constant striving to make out that the "middle-class" and the "working-class" are somehow different people does the socialist cause no good at all imo. And such outward artificial manifestations of conflict and division as picket lines are particularly destructive. Which is a shame, because when poor people really have a point about some injustice, wealthier people tend to have less sympathy. But then I'm a child of the Thatcher years, and a rampant capitalist, so what do I know. |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Hi All -- What started out as a thread hoping for conciliation and support for the administration yet-to-be, has gotten, IMO, both bizarre and ugly. I won't ask that the thread be closed, "spew" is part of the Alley. I would hope, though, that we can knock it off and get real. This is real: 1. Obama is the President elect. 2. He's a US citizen. 3. As President-elect, he deserves our respect. The rest is nonsense. Time to quit responding to this thread. It's over. Let it go. Assuming-this-suggestion-will-have-no-effect-whatsoever, give it a rest, Best, Jimbeaux |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I'm sorry, Jim, I tried, I really tried, but I have to comment on: 2. He's a US citizen. Maybe he is. That's not the question, though. The question raised by the lawsuits is whether he is a natural born citizen. There is a difference, and being a natural born citizen is a requirement of the Constitution to hold the Office of President. Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. That's not something that can just be taken on 'faith'. Hawaii, at the time of his birth, allowed the registration of live birth for foreign born children of parents who previously and subsequently, within one year of the child's birth, made their residence in Hawaii. His original long form birth certificate, that lists the hospital name, location, and physician signature (that he has had sealed) has to be produced and verified to answer the question of where he was born. Being a U.S. citizen isn't sufficient. http://www.essence.com/news_entertainment/news/articles/alankeyesobama Add to that, he also had Kenyan citizenship, which he admits to, stating that it automatically lapsed at age 18, and most likely Indonesian citizenship, where he went to school as a child, which you couldn't do without being an Indonesian citizen. If he had an Indonesian passport that he renewed after the age of 18, that would be tantamount to renouncing his U.S. citizenship because Indonesia did not allow dual citizenship. In one of his books he states that he traveled to Indonesia and then to Pakistan in 1981 when he was 20. He most likely had to have renewed his Indonesian passport because Pakistan was under Martial Law at the time and those with U.S. passports were not allowed to enter Pakistan. This is a question that could be resolved by viewing his school application records (that he has had sealed)after he came to the U.S. Did he claim Kenyan or Indonesian citizenship on those applications? Did he receive aid as a forgeign student? Also, a Freedom of Information search was done for any U.S. passports applied for by Barack Obama, and Barry Soetoro (his other name when he lived in Indonesia with his mother and step-father), and the only record of his having a U.S. passport was when he received his diplomatic passport when he bacame a Senator. He could certainly be someone who has 'divided national loyalties', given his international background. There are many unanswered questions that many people who care about the rule of law and the Constitution do not consider nonsense. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=81550 |
||
|
Juju Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429In your dreams |
I wonder what poeple think of the amount of [almost all] of Obama's advisers are Clinton administration. Sounds a bit corrupt to me. -Juju |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: That might be a very good thing. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
His appointments have brought a bit of relief to some in conservative circles, Juju, because they have experience and are also a bit more centrist than Obama's record. Our Founders disagree, Moonbeam. That's what they were attempting to prevent when requiring natural born status as one of the qualifications to hold the Office of President. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Your founders are probably out of touch with the way the world has developed! And in any event I never have been able to see why someone born in Canada and moved over the border to the US aged 2 would be any less loyal to the US than someone born in the US and moved over the border to Canada aged 2. So they were probably wrong too. Plus like I say today's world isn't the same as your founders' much more parochial world. A bit of multiculturalism in a president would be no bad thing in my view. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
It doesn't matter what you think, Moonbeam. It's a requirement under our Constitution. The Constitution is the foundation of our form of government, and isn't something that one can pick and choose an item to obey. Until an Amendment regarding the natural born status requirement is adopted, the requirement stands. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: Of course it matters what I/we/society thinks Denise! That's why we have discussions like this, because it matters. That's the way the technological revolution is leading us - to the desirable goal of people like you and me being able to express an opinion instantly and effectively. Or maybe you don't believe in democracy? quote: It was a requirement by the law of the middle ages for women to be vassal to their husbands, but it didn't make it right for later ages. quote: Was I advocating disobeying it? I thought I merely questioned whether or not it was still relevant to today or even desirable. quote: You don't say. Works the same as most laws I suppose. None of what you said addresses the point that I made about the logic of where babies are born relative to their loyalty to the country. But then perhaps you think it's perfectly ok to have an illogical Constitution? Or perhaps it's not up to the lowly people of the US to raise concerns? It has to be some high up politician? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
It doesn't matter that you think the Constitution may be outdated and therefore irrlevant for today or illogical. There is a means in place to address various issues in the Constitution. It's called the Amendment process where a proposed Amendment has to be ratified by the lowly residents of the individual States. We can't just decide that we don't agree with something and disregard it at will, or throw out the charge that it might be outdated, as if that is a sufficient argument to those who raise concerns about its possible violation. If enough people think it is something that should be considered for change, then they can start the process. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Well said Denise. Naturally the law is the law and has to be adhered to until it's changed. All I was saying, in my quiet and subdued way , is that I feel that it is outdated and ought to be reconsidered. Perhaps this controversy over Obama will make other people think about the logic of it too.Umm, do you think it's a good law Denise? I would be really interested in hearing your views about the point I made about babies born just the wrong side of the border. Or anybody else's for that matter? Maybe I'm missing something here (apart from a functional brain I mean ). |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Moonbeam, The whole notion of Constitutions tends to get a bit irrational. I'm not as touchy as Denise about ours, though I'm very fond of the thing, and really quite protective. I thought that the attitude was peculiarly American on my part until I heard some English folk speak about the advantages of the largely unwritten English Constitution. The normally crusty BBC newsreaders got almost teary- eyed with nostalgia and sentiment as they interviewed person after person about the virtues of a Constitution that was beyond the reach of tinkering and corruption and of its wonderful ideal nature. They practically had me weeping as well. They weren't nearly as happy with our duller and more corruptible constitution. I think they were hoping that eventually we would see the light. My understanding is that the original material made its way into the U.S. Constitution as a way of keeping Alexander Hamilton out of the running for the Presidency — I think he was born in Jamaica. Lots of potentially great candidates have been excluded since, whatever the reason. Being proud or ashamed of the custom hasn't served to overcome inertia since; one would expect that as a country we simply don't find the distinction all that difficult to tolerate; and by this point it's become a custom. If anybody actually took Denise's point of view seriously, there would probably be a lot of fuss raised, and there might be a serious and active court battle. I'm sure Denise takes her point of view very seriously, as well she should, but I'd be surprised if she thought that she was at the head of a massive groundswell of public opinion that thought she was absolutely correct. Perhaps she does, of course, but I suspect not; she simply find very little to like about Senator Obama, and she wants others to know it and to understand she is serious in her disagreement with almost everything he stands for. If I'm misrepresenting you in any way, Denise, I'd appreciate a correction here. Moonbeam, if I'm missing anything about what you're saying here, I'd appreciate a correction from your side as well. I learn a lot from being corrected. Thoughts from anybody? Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Yes Bob, the English Establishment types really can get very techy if you threaten to tamper with their pillars - "it's simply not cricket, what!" On the point in question though, if you are right, the birth of that particular provision doesn't sound like a very honourable conception, and its subsequent life seems to have promoted irrational inequity. But that aside, I guess what I was trying to establish with Denise was whether she truly feels that this is a logical and fair element of the Constitution that should be upheld on a principled stand (and if so what that logic is), or whether she is simply advocating the possible (technical) breach of that part of the Constitution as a means to get rid of Obama because she objects to him in other areas. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Perhaps this controversy will, in the future, require all candidates to present their original birth certificates before being accepted as a candidate, instead of just signing a statement of affirmation that they are eligible, Moonbeam. I think the natural born requirement is something that could come up for debate as to the pros and cons of maintaining or amending the current requirement. I personally don't know where I would come down on the issue until I heard all the arguments. I do know that I would be oppossed to anyone defrauding their way into Office under the current laws, and I believe that any candidate's documents should be verified. I see nothing wrong with such a requirement. You can look back in the archives, Bob, if you want a sense of my view on adhering to the Constitution and its Amendements. There are several lawsuits currently pending. I don't see that a groundswell of public support necessarily determines whether one is correct or not. Obama has made at least one statement in the past that indicates his view that the Constitution is deficient is some matters. He was particulary speaking of the Civil Rights issue and how he was disappointed that the Supreme Court failed to provide for redistribution of wealth equity in regard to that issue. He seemed to believe that despite their understanding of the Constitution, they should have acted with compassion and provided it anyway. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: This is good, yes Denise? And thanks for explaining your position on the other points. |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Oh aargh. Denise, here's a follow up on court decisions relating to Obama's citizenship from your same source. If the link doesn't work, it says the Supreme Court declined to pursue one such case. A second pending case involves Berg, he of the non-existent tape. It just doesn't wash. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80072 On dual citizenship: Don't have Obama facts in hand, but it seems likely Obama might have had dual citizenship through his father. My wife has dual citizenship available since her father was an Irish citizen, and she was born in the US. I don't think she has divided loyalties, even though she roots for Notre Dame. Someone TV used an Occam's Razor example on TV the other night: "If you hear hoofbeats, don't expect zebras." To follow the Obama conspiracy theorists, one would have to assume, as stated by others, that Obama has fooled every known US Security Agency and the Congress and more than half of all the American's voting in the election. Now, it's possible, but it's not likely unless one gets caught up in grand conspiracy theories. People do get caught up in them, everything from Bigfoot, Alien landings at Area 51, to the "impossibility" of Oswald acting alone, and they "believe" with all their hearts that they are "right." Logic and facts don't seem to make much difference, and this I find sad. As suggested by others before, no matter how "secretive" and "uncooperative" Obama might be thought to be, he's been vetted and cleared by every responsible Federal agency or institution to date. Slightly more than half of the electorate believes Obama was the best choice for President. Slightly less than half the electorate doesn't. But here's a number I can't find: What percentage of the electorate believes Obama is a Muslim closet socialist non-citizen with divided loyalties and a mysterious past? I'm guessing it's tiny, close to the numbers of true believers in Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster. If people don't like Obama and his platform, that's fine. It's politics. There is always disagreement. THIS IS GOOD! Making up stuff is not good. It hurts people, both the deluded and the delusional. Best, Jimbeaux |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
You're welcome, Moonbeam. And no, I don't think it's good if he believes that it is appropriate to bypass the Constitution via the Supreme court, instead of going through the Amendment process to adress his concerns. I'm not making things up, Jim. And I'm not saying he is or isn't a natural born citizen. I just believe that he should be open and above board about his origins and history, that's all. I find it disturbing that he doesn't seem to be, and that he doesn't seem to think that the citizens have a right to know. As I said before, we all know more about Sarah Palin than we know about him. Something is wrong with that picture, in my opinion. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: That's essentially an oxymoron, Denise. You can't bypass the Constitution via the Supreme Court because they are the only ones with the authority to interpret what the Constitution means. That's in the Constitution, by the way. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Thanks Denise and Ron. Umm, I think I need to do a little more research on this. And there was I thinking that the British system was complex. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
"As suggested by others before, no matter how "secretive" and "uncooperative" Obama might be thought to be, he's been vetted and cleared by every responsible Federal agency or institution to date." Is that also something that should be taken on faith, Jim? I'd love to see the results of all that vetting, if it actually happened. You're right, Ron. I didn't express myself correctly. What I meant to say was that he gave me the impression that he thought they should have departed from the constraints found in the Constitution, and that he would have supported such a departure when he said: "It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, as least as it's been interpreted...". That view doesn't fill me with confidence that he respects the Constitution as it was written and amended. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: But perhaps that's the whole point Denise, perhaps he DOES have reservations about parts of your Constitution. Isn't it natural and healthy to question something you feel is illogical until either someone explain the flaws in your thinking or else changes are made? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Err.. You have, unless you’ve been on Mars, the result was that Obama was allowed to contest, and win, the election for the Office of President of the USA. The enormity of the conspiracy required to put an ineligible candidate in the White House is so mind boggling as to be virtually impossible. Every person who knew he was ineligible, or was responsible for confirming his eligibility, would have to be complicit in the conspiracy. That includes the current President, the Democratic party, the Republican opposition, the CIA, the FBI and every investigative reporter who’s covered the election not to mention every doctor, nurse, family member and friend that was around at his birth who‘d have to keep the details secret. Of course that’s not impossible, everyone listed above and a majority of voters might know he’s technically ineligible and believe that that technicality doesn’t matter, which brings us nicely to the Constitution. quote: I’ve highlighted the important part of your statement, it shows that the Constitution has changed, that at some point someone questioned the suitability of it and convinced enough people to agree to an amendment. Were the people who questioned the Constitution showing a lack of respect for the Constitution? Where those who supported and pushed for an amendment showing a lack of respect, or were they simply voicing their support and agreement that a change was required? If the Constitution says that a candidate is ineligible because of X, Y or Z and everyone ignores it because they don’t think it matters and elects that candidate anyway are they showing a lack of respect for the Constitution or are they simply voicing their support and agreement that a change is required? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
They would be showing a a lack of respect and an utter disregard for it, Grinch. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
If there’s no respect for it, if everyone disregards it, then what use is it and why would you not want to change it? When it gets to that point it becomes like the law that says you can’t eat ice-cream in Willow County on a Tuesday - It doesn’t represent reality or the will of the people, it simply acts to contradict it. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
You're assuming that everyone disregards it, Grinch. There are those who do respect it, and the process for making changes. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
On dual citizenship: My two children are dual citizens (Korea and the US). They have to be. Neither Korea nor the US will grant visas to their own citizens. If my children want to enter the US, they have to have a US passport; if they want to reenter Korea, they have to have a Korean passport. At first I thought it was kind of cool, James Bondish in a way, but it doesn't work like that. They have to have both passports at all times. Next week, a friend of mine--who is an American from Minnesota--is going to Japan. His brother is marrying a Japanese national. I used to work with a Canadian who is married to one of those strange British guys. I now work with a Filipina who is married to a Korean national. Oh yeah, my friend, the xenophobic one from the Nobel prize letter in Philosophy 101 can speak both French and Spanish, is married to a Korean national. So am I. He spent part of his childhood in Senegal. At least to me, this provision in the constitution is an anachronism. Many conservatives thought so too when Ah-nold was a rising star. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Denise, For your conspiracy theory to make any sense at all the people involved must have disregarded the Constitution: That includes the current President, the Democratic party, the Republican opposition, the CIA, the FBI and every investigative reporter who’s covered the election not to mention every doctor, nurse, family member and friend that was around at his birth who‘d have to keep the details secret. If you’re right and Obama is ineligible how much respect have the above people shown by ignoring the Constitution? |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: Pots, kettles, black! But you really meant "cool" like the James Bond you just had to invoke to define "coolness" . Heh! |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I don't have a problem, Brad, with people wanting to change the requirement, and amending the Constitution, if that is what is voted on. My problem is with possible attempted violation of the requirement, while it still is a requirement. Grinch, none of those people that you listed are charged with ensuring that a candidate is eligible to run, other than the Party leadership and the FEC, to my knowledge. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Some of them are Denise, albeit indirectly, they’re charged with upholding the Constitution and protecting the people but that’s not my point. Your conspiracy theory would require all of the people I mentioned to wilfully ignore the Constitution and allow an ineligible candidate to claim the office of President unchallenged. If your theory is right and the incumbent President and the opposing Republican candidate don’t stand up and contest Obama’s citizenship status the only conclusion I can think of is that they’re explicitly choosing to disregard that part of the constitution. That’s if your theory is right of course, if there’s no problem with Obama’s citizenship status none of this is relevant, in that case the people I mentioned aren’t disregarding the Constitution, they’re disregarding a false claim because it’s just plain wrong. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
If they have investigated him, and if they do know that there is a problem, and if they have chosen not to pursue it as an issue, then yes, they would be choosing to ignore that requirement. And I guess since John McCain is arguably not natural born, he and the RNC wouldn't have had a leg stand on in challenging the opponent on the same issue, especially since the Congressional resolution of his status doesn't have the force of law. But it's not "my theory", Grinch. I have stated a few times that I am not making a claim that he is or isn't a natural born citizen. I am saying that I don't know if he is and that there is no way to be sure until he presents his documents to a judge. And I don't know why he would have a problem doing so, that's all. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Would that be the end of it Denise? Isn’t it more likely that some tin-foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist will just suggest the documentation is forged or that the judge is part of the conspiracy? If presenting his documentation isn’t going to end the spurious rumours why should he bother, I wouldn’t. Under present law Obama doesn’t have any obligation whatsoever to present documentation to anybody other than those responsible for ensuring that he’s eligible to stand for office, unless it forms part of a legal claim against him in a court of law. Anyone who needs to see the documentation has already seen the documentation and they are either satisfied of his eligibility or are part of a massive conspiracy to undermine the Constitution. You don’t need to see his birth certificate to know that one of those conclusions has to be true, all you need to do is decide which one you believe to be the truth. If it is a Conspiracy it’s a real humdinger, the archive of both the Honolulu Advertiser and the Star Bulletin, both local papers in Honolulu, have an entry announcing his birth in a local hospital. That means you can either add the staff at both papers to your conspirator list or believe the rather inane idea that someone knew Obama was going to make President and placed the ads 40+ years ago to answer any future questions. Or maybe time travelling aliens did it. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I'd be satisfied with his presenting his documents to a judge, and I would think that the judge would choose a document expert to give his assessment of it as part of the determination of its authenticity, prior to issuing his opinion, since a judge wouldn't necessarily be an expert in detecting forgery. I think that should end all the controversy. I think this controversy should make it law that a candidate should present their documents to some independent verifier, like I guess we all just assumed was done by the FEC, and not just a signature on an affidavit attesting that one is qualified as being accepted as sufficient. From everything I've read there was an announcement of his birth, but there was no hospital listed, as their usually were with birth announcements. His half-sister, Maya, in different statements, three years apart, gave the names of two different hospitals. So it seems she isn't even sure which hospital he was born in. Maybe someone should point her to the newspaper archives so that she will be able to figure it out. By the way, she was born in Indonesia, and she has a Certificate of Live Birth from Hawaii, similar to the one purported to be Obama's on his web site. His paternal grandmother and a half-sister and half-brother said he was born in Mombaso, Kenya, I guess before they realized that would disqualify him if that were the case. The Kenyan Ambassador gave an affirmative answer when asked if Kenya would put a plaque on the place of his birth in Kenya. (he's stating now, of course, that his response was taken out of context, and that he was actually speaking of Obama, Sr). He said that plans were already underway for that (so I guess now they have to scrap those plans!) Kenya even had a national holiday shortly after the election. Sounds like they are very proud of their "native son"! You can hear the radio interview from the Mike in the Morning radio program at the link below. I came upon the program a couple of days before this article reporting the Ambassador's denunciation of the interview. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=82060 |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Denise, I don’t think it’s likely that Obama is going to present his birth certificate to a judge just because you’d like him to, and why should he? Everyone who needs to be convinced of his eligibility is convinced of his eligibility or is involved in a 40+ year monumentally complex conspiracy that would confound the cast of mission impossible. Take a punt at it Denise, come down off the fence, if you were laying money on whether he was a natural born citizen or not which way would you go? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I don't think he will present it either. I think the courts will either throw out all the lawsuits and/or rule in his favor somehow, even if it were determined that he was not a natural born citizen. And I don't think a 40+ year conspiracy is a necessary component. Just those in positions of power who no longer value or agree with the requirments stated in the Constitution is necessary for someone non-qualified to take office. If I were putting money on it, and it was something that could be verified, I'd go with not a natural born citizen. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: That just adds the whole of your legal system to the list of Americans who show no respect for the Constitution. Do you really have so little faith in the integrity of your countrymen? It seems really odd to me, as a non-American, to realise that I seem to have more confidence in your system of government and legal system than you do. If you believe that the system is so corrupt why do you live there? I’m not being flippant, if I believed my government and legal system was that corrupt I’d be on the first plane outta here! |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I lost all confidence in the 'system' when Terri Schaivo was allowed to be starved and dehydrated to death, by court order. That action left a deep scar in my soul. I don't think there is any country or any form of human government that is perfect or completely free of corruption, so where would I go? I don't think there is anywhere better than where I am. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Denise, They made a call on the constitutionality of the thing Denise. Yours, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Would you care to elaborate on how they did that Bob? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
They upheld the Florida court's repeated decisions that Ms S. had a right to determine her own fate. They went with the evidence that this decision had already be demonstrated sufficiently in court on several previous occasions. In the case of the last refusal to take up the case, the argument had been once again the same old stuff on the part of the Ms. S.'s family, and the Husband had argued that the comatose wife's family was trying to try the case in the legislature. Once again, the U.S, Supreme court upheld The Husband. Pretty much that stuff, Denise. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article436044.ece |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Bob, I followed Ms. Schaivo's case for three years prior to her death. She was not comatose, and there was absolutely no evidence that these were her wishes. And there were affidavits by 20 or so neurologists attesting that she was not comatose, none of which the court would even look at, much less allow into evidence. The lower court repeatedly refused to allow into evidence anything produced by the parents or her attorneys and rendered decisions based soley on her husband's submissions to the court. The Federal Court didn't 'side with' the husband. They simply decided that the family had no right to bring the request to them despite the last minute legislation requesting that they look into the allegations of the parents that the lower court was not acting in good faith, making decisions in a biased manner in not allowing all the evidence to be admitted. The system failed her. It did not protect her Constitutionally guaranteed right to life. You can investigate her story through her foundation. It used to be called Terrisfight.org I don't know if the name is the same now or not. Maybe then you can get a view from the 'other side', the side that wasn't in the MSM, and then make a decision on the issue when you have all the facts. But I can't talk about it anymore. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Actually, brain dead isn't comatose, so I suppose your correct there. I was particularly taken about the way that Bill Frist was able to diagnose the woman from looking at a video with poor definition. He showed all the neurological acumen of a cardiologist in doing so. neurologists usually have to look at medical records to make such determinations, but not the psychically gifted Senator Frist. When these same Justices refuse to take up the case of somebody on death row, you don't seem to have much difficulty with their decisions, and with the bases for them taking up or not taking up the case, while some of these folks don't seem to have the wherewithal to know right from wrong because of cases of fairly serious mental defect — not "mental illness," but serious confusion about what's real and what isn't real, and not having enough brain power to make basic decisions. Texas seems to do this fairly regularly, as does Florida (Florida, to be honest, simply gives me that impression.). The Supremes regularly refuse to hear these cases as well. To some extent, this is a problem with not having everybody of necessity file a living will to indicate their wishes in these situations, to eliminate the ambiguity. This would avoid a lot of serious pain on everybody's part, yours and mine included. Though we might still disagree about somebody having the right to make these decisions instead of leaving them up to — what? God might perhaps be the word the two of us might agree on, but which might not pass muster everywhere else. It might not with me, all the time, and with everybody, truth be told. But for the purposes of the discussion, it's probably close enough. How do you actually make these decisions in a way that's fair, honest and Decent, Denise? Sometimes I'm sure I've got an answer for that question, often it seems to walk out the door invisibly, like Elijah, who's supposed to visit us on occasion. Should you believe in that. What do you think? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
She wasn't brain dead either, Bob, and you have no idea how incensed I am that you have so flippantly thrown that out there. And the only "life support" she needed was a feeding tube. The point is, she didn't have an advanced directive, and there was no evidence that she would have agreed to one, and she was not considered to be near death. And Bill Frist is not the numerous neurologists who submitted affidavits on her behalf...that were ignored by the court, so throwing him into the mix here is just a smokescreen. And convicted criminals have more rights (habeus corpus) than Terri did, or people who find themselves in her situation, thus the legislation on her behalf in an attempt to have the Federal courts review the lower courts decisions. I also think it is a smokescreen to lump her in with people who are at the end of their lives, in pain, and hooked up to artificial means of support, such as breathing machines, heart/lung machines, etc., and keeping them hooked up is only prolonging their agony. Even in those situations it should be the decision of the patient whether to continue life sustaining measures. And absent their informed consent either through an advanced directive, or if they are currently conscious and agree to refusing further treatment, and then only next of kin, if the patient is not conscious and able to make an informed decision, if it is confirmed by a doctor and review board that the patient is near death, and treatment is futile and only prolonging the patient's misery. Terri was not near death. And what her husband and the courts did to her was not "decent", to say the least. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Denise, I have an advanced directive and have signed a power of attorney for my wife in case I end up in such a situation, Denise. As does my wife. I have been asking others in my family to sign them as well, to give guidance in these situations for the very reasons that make you hit the roof. I'd go so far as to suggest to you that you file such an advance directive with somebody whom you trust with power of attorney to carry out your wishes in a situation of that sort yourself. If you believe I'd if silly enough to suggest something this serious to make you feel incensed in a blog, I would suggest, respectfully, that you believe I am somebody who wishes you ill when I enjoy chatting with a kind and occasionally widely differing neighbor upon issues that matter to us both. I am more interested in the neighbor part of the discussion than anything else. Did these neurologists gain access to the patient to give her a neurological examination, Denise? Did they somehow gain access to her records without permission of the next of Kin? Were they objective Neurologists, or were they professional witnesses with specific points of view to sell to the courts, or as witnesses which contributed to their incomes? Did they have specific religious or ethical points of view that they had a history of defending, regardless of situation or data. The mere fact that somebody would have twenty pieces of data saying that they were professional opinions of Neurologists — as you are well aware, Denise — is meaningless, and I'm surprised that you would bring it up in a discussion such as this one. You must have some understanding that I would be aware of how useless the fact of the existence of these documents would be. They have not been subject to appropriate scrutiny by opposing legal counsel, nor had their worth evaluated. They are simply there. Have no wish to upset you further about this difficult case, Denise, and am perfectly happy to discontinue discussions about it because I don't wish to inflict pain. But I am not interesting in having my thinking or comments misrepresented by anybody either. Bill Frist is not one of the Neurologists whose affidavits were included. That did not prevent him for acting like one nor from injecting fake medical authority into the quarrel, nor from attempting to make law to affect a single case in a Constitutionally dubious way (outside occasional special bills of appointment and immigration, they're supposed to be illegal, aren't they?). He did not have information to make a diagnosis from a video, yet this didn't stop him, casting doubt on his medical ethics and his political ethics in a single elegant time-saving gesture of gratuitous political foolishness. At the same time as bringing his political and medical ethics, for many of us he also brought into question the quality of the other medical testimony in the case. It seemed questionable beforehand, of course, but Bill Frist helped it acquire that little extra element of doubt that it simply didn't need. Bringing up Bill Frist, for that reason, is not a smokescreen, or at least not my smokescreen. The Republican party and the religious right earned him the old fashioned way — they apparently bought him for political capital, and this was his way of paying back a political debt. I personally didn't think it was appropriate. I don't know what you thought. I agree that in clear end-of life issues advance directives are essential. My point was and is that the only thing predictable about the end of life is that it will come. The sooner an end of Life directive is in place, the better. Terry S. should haver had one. Not having one may have cost her her life. Everyone should have one. Yes, her heart and lungs were functioning. Near as I can determine, though, not her higher cortical functions. To me, this is brain dead. She was not going to recover. If you say to me a miracle might have happened, all I can say to you is that if you believe that, then you believe it still can and nothing has changed. You are being disingenuous. Death is horrible and often tragic. It certainly was in this case, no matter which point of view you take. Respectfully, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Court ordered starvation and dehydration tends to upset me, Bob. She would most likey not have "recovered" from her brain damage, Bob, due in part to her husband denying her the therapy over the years with the money he received on her behalf from a malpractice lawsuit for that very purpose. It was never alleged by anybody that she would ever fully recover. I don't believe that warrants a death sentence by court order at the direction of the husband and his euthenasia lawyer, paid for with the funds that were awarded for her care and therapy. The facts are available if anyone cares to investigate them. I can't continue to discuss it though because it is too emotionally draining for me. I enjoy chatting with you and others too, Bob. But I don't appreciate being told that I am being disingenuous, and assumptions being made as to what I read and don't read, and what issues I "don't seem to have much diffulty with". That tends to annoy me. |
||
|
Juju Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429In your dreams |
I guess When a woman Can no longer perform All her 'duties' she is brain dead Her lips cracked and throat sore She could not cry Shes dead... I hope She didn't know her purpose here ended On the whim of the man who was tired of her There is something wrong with a system that gives the rights of her life to a man who had allegations of abuse against her. -Juju |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: Dear Denise, Oddly enough, it upsets me as well. You haven't mentioned that possibility, so forgive me for thinking that it might not have occurred to you. It actually does. I am also upset by the effects of the stress on the husband and his attempts to put a life together, afterward. And by the unhealed and apparently unbridgeable rift between him and her family, who should have been natural allies in this whole hideous mess. You may not have thought that Ms. S. was about to regain consciousness, but from the statements issued by the family, the brother especially, it seemed clear that they did. I felt sad that they were to my mind preyed upon by those that encouraged such thinking for political advantage. I was greatly disturbed by this. I won't try to over-blow how upset I was by saying I cried about it. I didn't. I certainly had long conversations with my parents about the situation. quote: I have never heard of a "euthenasia lawyer." I believe that the lawyer in question felt he was fighting for both Mr. and Mrs. Schaivo's rights in this case. I believe that Mr. Schaivo felt the same way. I also believe that Ms. S's parents believed sincerely in what they were doing. I am less certain about all the partisans on either side of the quarrel, many of whom seemed to me to be in the fight for political traction rather than out of elemental sense of justice, or of rightness and wrongness. I seldom agree with you in detail, Denise, but your sincerity is always evident and worth respecting. quote: Sorry about the annoyance, Denise. I have no wish for the discussion to be brought to a halt by trying to go further into specifics. I would be more sorry about the annoyance, were you actually to make assertions about the truth or non-truth of the statements you say annoy you, though. Simply being annoying doesn't make me wrong, does it? Simply annoying. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Juju, quote: If this is a poem, I cannot comment on it here as a poem. It it is a political comment on Terri Schaivo, I can and will, purely as a comment on Terri Schaivo. Brain dead is brain dead, Juju. Can't perform one's duties has lots of different meanings in different places and at different times. For example, if you don't have enough teeth left to soften the sealskin boots for the yourself and the other folks in the igloo, that might be a pretty serious situation for yourself and everybody else. What that means in local legal terms, I'm not sure. It may be that the woman in such a situation might on her own decide to take a walk on the ice and not come back. Survival margins are narrow, and the decision is generally made by the person with the good of the family/tribal unit in mind. Or at least it used to be so. If you mean, everybody isn't having a great emotional life together, sometimes that grounds for divorce in some states. Sometimes not. It doesn't mean she's brain dead. Her parents might have thought her brain-dead to marry the guy in the first place, or her friends might have thought so, but that doesn't seem to be what you're talking about here, is it? In fact, I don't know anyplace where being too depressed to function is grounds for withholding food and water. Usually, folks in this condition are taken to hospital and given anti-depressant medication or shock treatment. It's regarded as a readily treatable situation. It has nothing to do with being brain dead, which actually involves lack of electric activity in important parts of the brain. Sometimes the areas are more limited than others. Cortical brain death means that the parts of the brain that make you a person are gone. There's no person available. The tissue tends to wither away in time. With a lot of folks, though, there are a lot of reflexes left. The head will move, the eyes will move too, sometimes. There may be babinski reflexes left, though if the injury is severe, what seems to be left over is something called a reverse babinski. When the doctor runs the base of the hammer along the length of the sole of your foot, and your foot curls down? When there's a lot of profound damage, the foot curls up. There are all sorts of reflexes that change on neurological examination. About tears, though, I don't know. I don't know how the Schaivos were when she went into the coma. I did work at a school for the retarded for a while, and I can tell you that there weren't many visitors, especially for the folks who simply laid in bed all day. Some folks came out to visit relatives on the yearly special "Visitors Day" set aside as a sort of festivity for those who did come. Not many even then. I tell you, the nurses who took care of those people were very special. Do you mean that he had allegations of abuse against her? Or she had against him? And what are the details, Juju? Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Juju Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429In your dreams |
So your saying she is brain dead and not brain damaged. I guess by your logic there are some mentally handicap poeple who should be starved to death too right? Oh and go look up the cause for her injury -Juju |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Juju, How do you get that, Juju? She had no higher cortical functions. I worked with folks with IQ's in the high 40's who were certainly frustrating to deal with at times, but many of whom were better people overall that folks with twice their intelligence. There were also some fairly wretched folks among them as well, but on the whole, as people, I found them nicer and kinder than I was. I knew people with I.Q.'s a lot lower than that who were fine. I considered them friends at the time, and if I were to run into any of them today, I'd think of them as friends today. Handicapped and comatose are two different things. The logic you are working on here is your own. These are not the connections I have ever made, nor would I make them. No higher cortical functions, Juju, unlike people with low or even very low IQ. People without discernible consciousness, Juju, as opposed to people who can engage in some sort of mutual process of conscious communication. Being hated, for me, is sufficient conscious communication. I designed and implemented a therapy program for a woman once whose sole communication with the world was attempting to kill people she came into contact with. I not only had to sell the program to her, I had to sell the program to the other staff people, who wanted nothing to do with her. I used to go in to feed people who would try to hurt me when I got close enough to feed them. I worked with people who would occasionally get jaws and noses and arms broken trying to feed people who didn't communicate all that well, but were still conscious. That was fine, Juju. Most of these people clearly wanted to live. Some of them wanted to die, but we were able to quarrel about that in a fairly straightforward way, even those who were "handicapped." Some of them wanted me to help them die, Juju, and I always refused, because I had feelings about that myself. Simply because they wanted to die, didn't mean that I had to help them. There was a person there inside in all those cases, though, and that made the difference to me. Should you wish to starve any mentally handicapped people to death, I'd be upset with you, and I'd do what I could to stop you. If there was a person with no higher cortical activity, though, and they'd been that way for many years, I would agree that the court had the right to make a determination. If the case was clear that this is what that person would have wanted, I would go along with it, though I would find the process very difficult, and I don't know that I would be able to be a part of the actual team that carried out those orders. I'd probably be too attached to my fantasies about who that person might be, were they not in a permanent vegetative state. But I'd also be clear that that's what they were — fantasies. As I recall, the cause for her injury was heart attack as a consequence of obsessive dieting, wasn't it? Perhaps you'd like to try to hang that on the husband? Perhaps you'd be interested in checking out the co-relation of anorexia and incest, and do some thinking about the various possible reasons why the family was trying so hard to go against what the court evidently believed to be Terri's wishes in this matter. Might guilt have been part of this? I certainly don't know, but as a theory it makes as much sense as some of the drivel I've heard spouted about the husband. Incest is apparently much much more common than folks generally believe. And it plays a fairly large part in lots of secondary psychopathologies. Sincerely yours, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Juju Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429In your dreams |
(: The last time I checked accusing someone of having an incest family to knock their credibility was a fallacy -Juju |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
I can’t seem to see the husband as a heartless money grabbing fiend as some would depict him, it doesn’t compute when you read this: “On March 11, 2005, media tycoon Robert Herring (who believes that stem cell research could have cured Schiavo's condition) offered $1 million to Michael Schiavo if he agreed to cede his guardianship to his wife's parents. The offer was rejected; George Felos, attorney for Michael Schiavo, described it as offensive, adding that Michael had rejected other monetary offers, including one of $10 million.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo |
||
|
Juju Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429In your dreams |
I don't think money was the problem -Juju |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Juju, quote: quote: Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Juju, Apparently the previous eight paragraphs of my reply were material you did not wish to reply to. I will not speculate as to why that might be. I suggest that the material in the previous eight paragraphs of my post might be worth your consideration. I would certainly appreciate a considered response to them. I would suggest that in terms of my previous point, you might consider some of the pioneering work of Judith Herman, who has done considerable research and psychotherapy with incest survivors. If I remember correctly, she was also one of the people who was instrumental in getting the Elizabeth Stone House started in the Boston area, and a pioneer in Feminist Psychotherapy. She would probably be quite sympathetic to your feelings of anger about how the demands for women to conform to standards of beauty by the society are damaging to women themselves and the culture, too. For all I know, she might even agree with you about the case as a whole. She's an extraordinarily bright woman and a widely respected thinker. If you aren't familiar with her work, as a woman who has strong feelings about the way women are treated, you might find yourself interested in what she has to say. You can still stay steamed at me, after all. About incest, women really have gotten a terrible deal in more ways than I can talk about here, including its being massively underreported, and often having it disbelieved when it is reported. Whether or not it's a factor here — lets say it's not, because I don't want to get off the issue of the decision about who decides about living and dying — it's a massive factor in the psychological undercurrents of the country. Not just this country, all of them, near as I can tell, though I'm stretching the research to say that, since the cross-cultural research is stuff I'm not familiar with. Oh well, I'm way off the topic here. I'm sorry everybody, but it's a topic that I find upsetting and actually underdiscussed. No wonder. Sincerely yours, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Juju Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429In your dreams |
I didn't have sex with any family members, in fact I think the accusation is sorta weird. O_o I typically don't respond to insults, unless you were not talking about me, than you should be a whole lot more clear about the situation and who you are talking about. O_o Juju -Juju -"So you found a girl Who thinks really deep thougts What's so amazing about really deep thoughts " Silent all these Years, Tori Amos [This message has been edited by Ron (12-06-2008 08:46 AM).] |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Juju, Not you, Juju. I'm not trying to insult anybody. Talking about The eating disorder stuff side-tracked me. I thought it was a possibility, though distant, in the Schaivo case. I don't confuse you with Terri Schaivo. Also, Juju, if Terri Schaivo or anybody else had been an incest survivor, it's not an insult. It's an indication of courage and strength and a matter for some pride. There are, I'm sure, many things for you to be proud of, even if this isn't one of them. No insult was intended. Nor was I suggesting incest in your family. Many families that have reported it to me have surprised me when they did so, and some I have known well. The suggestions about the literature were because of your strong reactions to some of the material we were talking about, and because Judith Herman is a respected researcher in the field. If you're interested in more information about abuse of women or child abuse, I'm interested in that as well, though my grasp on the literature is dusty. This is me trying to be a resource, not trying to make fun of you or insult you. I will be out of town for about the next ten days, but I'll be available after that. Best wishes, Bob Kaven |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
