General discussion

All Comments

  • Author
    Replies
    • #2804529

      There’s nothing new about this, nor is it confined to liberals.

      by charliespencer ·

      In reply to The coming liberal thugocracy

      This is no different from ‘pro-life’ forces picketing out side abortion clinics, Klansmen bombing churches, the tactics of ‘anonymous vs. Scientology’, or the use of intimidation by the Spanish Inquisition or Sen. McCarthy during the ‘Red Scare’.

      The conclusion is incorrect in that the article looks at recent actions of ‘liberals’ in isolation from the historic context of similar intimidation actions across the ideological spectrum. It also assumes all Obama supporters are liberals, that all liberals support Obama, and that all liberals support the actions described. That’s as false as assuming all conservatives support McCain or that all conservatives supported the actions of the “Swift Boat Veterans”.

      • #2804528

        The “Red scare” was real, and confirmed by KGB files released in the 90s

        by locrian_lyric ·

        In reply to There’s nothing new about this, nor is it confined to liberals.

        NT

        • #2804526

          You and I have disagreed on this particular point before.

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to The “Red scare” was real, and confirmed by KGB files released in the 90s

          That being the government’s justification of civil rights violations as necessary to the defense of this country. Sorry, I don’t understand how we can justify violating some people’s right to protect those of others. Either they’re Constitutionally guaranteed rights applicable to all, or they aren’t.

          But if you’d like, leave out that example. My point still applies.

        • #2804412

          I was about to make the same point..

          by jmgarvin ·

          In reply to You and I have disagreed on this particular point before.

          Either we are a free nation or we are not…

        • #2804401

          I suppose it depends on the definition of [i]free[/i]

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to I was about to make the same point..

          Person-A is [i]free[/i] to vote himself the fruits of Person-B’s labor. However, Person-B is not [i]free[/i] to decide otherwise. Is that living free?

          Person-A is [i]free[/i] to buy himself a home; and Person-B is [i]free[/i] to vote in favor of imposing a tax on Person-A’s home; and as such, Person-A isn’t really a property owner, but rather a property renter in perpetuity, and he could have his home taken away if he won’t (or can’t) pay those property taxes. So much for property rights.

          Likewise, Person-A’s property could be seized in the name of eminent domain to make room for a shopping center. Of course, the developers are [i]free[/i] to pay-off ….. I mean contribute to the political coffers of those legislators deciding the measure. (And if the government ever starts mandating wind power, be prepared to witness the biggest private property seizures in American history to make room for the windmills and transmission lines.)

          Do I believe we live in a free country? Hell no we don’t, but we do a great job paying it lip-service.

          Without 100 percent private property rights, and money is also property (see note), and without 100 percent free speech (as long as it doesn’t libel, slander, or endanger another), the notion that we live in a free country is long past. And when one person can literally vote himself the fruits of another person’s labor, we certainly do not live in a free society.

          Note: I once got into a disagreement with another TR peer who maintained that money wasn’t property. And even though James Madison also agreed that money should be considered private property, it didn’t persuade him to change his position.

          How do you define [i]free[/i]? Do you think we currently live in a [i]free[/i] country? Do you think we should live in a [i]free[/i] country?

        • #2804394

          Without economic freedom, there is no freedom at all

          by locrian_lyric ·

          In reply to I suppose it depends on the definition of [i]free[/i]

          nt

        • #2797579

          Practical, actually-existing “freedom”

          by delbertpgh ·

          In reply to I suppose it depends on the definition of [i]free[/i]

          Everybody wants to be free, and much of human activity can be seen as a search for the money and power that will allow one to behave freely. So fine, but somewhere the rubber meets the road, and definitions of freedom suffer from the friction of real-world circumstance.

          Persons A and B make competing demands for the same goods, privileges, and property. Their ability to enjoy the free exercise of the rights of their attainments is guaranteed (which means enforced by the sheriff and courts) and defined (which means limited) by the society of which they are both members.

          For discussion’s sake, draw a hasty line between persons A and B, and label one side “Winner/Free”, and the other, “Loser/Unfree.” I’ll agree that in the modern world life doesn’t usually come down to such simple binary distinctions, but at times in history it came closer. Society being what it is, greater freedom tends to be associated with winning the social game, especially freedom conferred by wealth and property. Further, since the winner is usually not the biggest animal with the sharpest teeth, but more often a middle-aged man or his widow, the winners depend on society’s police powers to secure their gains over the losers, and enforce the winner’s contractual rights in agreements. Just as much as the losers in the bargain are servants to the social system, the winners are also dependent on society. They are no longer perfectly free. Because they desire security, comfort, and freedom to move within privileged places in society, they are slaves to the system that confers these blessings. If they were unwilling to give up anything for comfort’s sake, then they would be more free in one sense, but they would not be free of the need to battle foes in an ungoverned state of nature, and would not be free of an inevitable solitary death either sick in the cold, or beneath the sword of an antagonist.

          One kind of freedom is not having to harken to what you are told to do; another is to not be confronted by unpleasant circumstances, like starvation. Freedom is not an easy ideal to pursue. Its definition in a social context winds up burdened with technicalities.

          Freedom to be your own person and the right to enjoy your own property are central to human dignity, but these criteria can’t be asserted in defiance of obligations to society. The obligations will become more constraining over time, as we pack more and more people into our country, get richer and richer, and attemt to define and deal with problems of pollution.

        • #2797532

          So you disagree with James Madison?

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Practical, actually-existing “freedom”

          You assume things like, people will starve without government interference. I disagree – people will FREELY donate their time and resources to prevent it. For government to FORCE people to donate is contrary to maintaining a free society – as defined by Madison.

          [i][b]PROPERTY AND LIBERTY[/b]
          by James Madison

          This term in its particular application means “that domination which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.” In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to everyone else the like advantage.

          In the former sense, a man’s land, or merchandize, or money is called his property. In the latter sense, a man has property in his opinions and the free communication of them. He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them. He has property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person. He has equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them. In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.

          Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties or his possessions. Where there is an excess of liberty, the effect is the same, though from an opposite cause.

          Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own……..[/i]

          Protecting property rights – ALL property – is vital to the protection of liberty.

          [i]”I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”[/i]

          – James Madison

          You may choose to disagree with James Madison, but I don’t. You may try to find ways to justify your support for taking another’s property, but I’ll rest on the intent of the Constitution.

        • #2797493

          Economics is not a zero sum game.

          by locrian_lyric ·

          In reply to Practical, actually-existing “freedom”

          In wealthy nations, the problem among the poor is not starvation, but obesity.

          Economics 101, one does not have to loose for another to win. One’s loss does not assure another’s win nor does one’s win assure another’s loss.

          Even the poorest among Americans today enjoy a far higher standard of living than all but the very wealthy of 200 years ago. In fact, our definition of poverty would have meant wealth to my grandfather when he was my age.

        • #2800907

          Eminent domain, Madison, etc.

          by delbertpgh ·

          In reply to Practical, actually-existing “freedom”

          You assume a thing or two about my opinions which are not derived from what I actually wrote. I wasn’t writing about the problems of seizure by eminent domain or by taxation; the subject was more general than that, the problem of how you arrive at a definition of freedom which reflects the compromise between individual rights and the individual’s interest in sustaining a society. However, I’ll do that now.

          First, though, I’ll talk about Madison. He’s pulling a bit of a shell game here. He uses property interest as a metaphor for all things a man holds precious, including religion and individuality, and then says that protecting property is everything that government needs to do. Individual rights of religion and speech are not items of property; although they “belong” to me, they can’t be sold or given, like land, cash, or a hat. Government can’t protect my rights in the same way it protects my stuff. I don’t disagree with Madison that government should protect these things, but in accepting the terms of his argument you are backed up against a wall.

          Government has to tax, and government has to exercise eminent domain; otherwise security and progress would suffer. I don’t agree with using eminent domain to take land out of one person’s hands to transfer it to another’s, simply because person B can make big money it and create something socially useful; it would have to be damned useful indeed. Still, it’s not my way to draw absolute lines which I will not cross, not today nor ever.

          Things change. The Madisonian ideals may have taken us closer to a condition of greater human delight in Madison’s time than they can now. When Madison wrote, we had only five per cent of our current population, and a third of them were slaves, and he wrote in an effort to bind New England theocrat merchant and Southern slaveholder into a union, with a statement of value in property that protected both parties’ perceived greatest interests; in particular, it was a definition of value that tended to keep each party’s fingers off the other’s goods. Note that the Southerner was most worried about Northern idealists making his property in man illegal; he may thought his own interest in government was in preventing anybody from doing or saying anything that would threaten his way of life, which was dependent upon the ownership of other men.

          We’ve got a lot more going for us now than Madison could have dreamed of, in terms of wealth, specifically. We are two dozen times wealthier than Madison’s Americans. Our machines create comfort and prosperity all around us, but they require a systematic social environment to function, and in turn create opportunities to tyrannize us that Madison did not envision. “Original intent” is only an approximate guide to maintaining freedom, dignity, and justice in modern life; we have to wonder what the founding fathers’ original intent would have been had they known what we do now.

        • #2800870

          [i]Government has to tax. . . . .[/i]

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Practical, actually-existing “freedom”

          But it doesn’t have to tax income and productivity, and it doesn’t have to tax personal property, which is no more than rent in perpetuity. The sixteenth amendment should be repealed, and people should be secure (from the government) in their own homes.

          Moreover, the tax code is being used for more than simply generating operating revenue for the government; it’s being used as a tool for social engineering and wealth distribution – something that would have Madison spinning in his grave if he were alive today! (An intentional bit of humor, there.)

          You seem to believe that there was some sort of magic line we crossed that made it okay to ignore the ideals of the founders and the true intent of the founding documents. It all worked for 30 million people, but it can’t work for 300 million? Is that what you believe? The world has gotten figuratively smaller, so it won’t work anymore? Is that what you believe?

          Go back to 1912, the year the sixteenth amendment was being debated, and the time when issues of social conscience were being advanced. Is what we have today really the way you would have designed and predicted your desired outcome?

          Debating where we are versus where we should be is much different than exploring where we were and where we should have gone.

          If I could go back to a point in time and change it, I’d probably go back to 1912, because the following year is where we really got onto the wrong road. I’m curious, Delbert, how far back would you go, and is what we have now really what you would have defined as your desired outcome? (Read the platform of the American Socialist Party of 1932 before you answer.)

        • #2800837

          There’s a long history of zero-sum economics

          by delbertpgh ·

          In reply to Practical, actually-existing “freedom”

          All it takes is a leadership culture ignorant of or indifferent to economics; who see wealth as something to be robbed, and new wealth as a dangerous social disruption; and there you go, zero-sum in action. Most of human history has been lived in defiance of Econ 101. Look at medieval Europe; look at China. Both were successful societies, by their own lights, and neither one grew except in response to population increase.

          Modern economics says that if you let people do as they want, they will create wealth. Of course, you can’t let them do everything they want, or the next thing the wealthy would do would be to prevent anybody else from competing for their piece of the market, and in general preventing any other upstarts from getting rich. Capitalism can’t exist without a regulatory and legal environment that controls monopolistic and lawless tendencies, and guarantees contracts. It can’t flourish without a state that secures its borders and provides roads and runs the courts, and it works really poorly without a stable money and banking system. In many ways, capitalism is like a defenseless little fetus that has to be coddled and protected from its own witless tendencies, and which sh|ts gold bars by way of compensation.

        • #2800834

          You’ve got to tax something

          by delbertpgh ·

          In reply to Practical, actually-existing “freedom”

          You don’t want to see an income tax or a property tax. That leaves the Huckabee notion of a 20% national sales tax, which I guess would have to be supplemented by a 10% state sales tax. I can see how the avoidance of a 30% levee on transactions would lead to tax avoidance as the great new American indoor sport.

          What, you say, cut government down to bathtub size, so you don’t need more than a 6% levee? Get real. In modern Western societies government will take up 30 or 40 per cent of the economy. There’s no getting away from it. You couldn’t drastically shrink the state without the social network falling apart, and you couldn’t do it without starting a class civil war. And capitalism would fall apart; it needs a regulatory environment and a steady flow of trained labor and a prosperous set of markets; these things don’t just bring themselves into being because capitalism calls. It takes more than a damn village; a big modern economy needs a big modern state.

          If I had to go back to a point in time when there were magical opportunities for America, and government seemed well-positioned and capable of making the most of them, I’d go back to 1989, when taxes were moderate and communism was collapsing and the economy was booming, and the state still had the discipline to wage the cold war, except the cold war was gone. We were in shape to rebuild the world and our own economy: build Russia into a prosperous democratic-capitalist country, make the modern revolution available to countries across the Middle East and around the world, get ourselves off of imported oil, and restore our country’s ability to train native engineers (not just imports from China) and become an exporting economy again. Of course, we did none of that, but it was sure a moment of great potential.

          Incidentally, Max, I read the silly 1932 Socialist Party platform, and was surprised to see there was nothing in it other than an indictment of capitalism. It had only the vaguest of ideas, and presented no program other than suggesting production should be planned. Is this the piece you were referring to? Why would you suggest I read it?

        • #2800806

          [i]government will take up 30 or 40 per cent of the economy[/i]

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Practical, actually-existing “freedom”

          Are you serious? ARE YOU FRIGGIN’ SERIOUS???????

          It SHOULD BE no more than 10 percent – 20 percent at the most (national emergencies notwithstanding).

          But WE ARE approaching what you want. Our GDP is 12.5 trillion. Our budget is 3 trillion. What is that, 25 percent?

          Are you REALLY SUGGESTING that we INCREASE government spending (and taxation) by 5-15 percent? Are you REALLY SUGGESTING THAT?

          Here?s a suggestion: Read and consider your messages before you hit the submit button.

          You have two options, Delbert:

          1. Retract what you said.

          2. Justify what you said.

          Either way, you lose. (This is where you ramble on and on with your nonsensical nonsense.)

        • #2800801

          Delbert ‘s true Colors

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Practical, actually-existing “freedom”

          Delbert’s true colors paints a future in which government controls 30-40 percent of your life. Is that what you really want?

        • #2800755

          Federal, state, county, local, and agencies take over 30%

          by delbertpgh ·

          In reply to Practical, actually-existing “freedom”

          It’s a big number. With Social Security projected to grow as my generation retires, the federal share will really increase. It’s about 21% now, I think.

        • #2800648

          Hey big spender…. (Max)

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Practical, actually-existing “freedom”

          [i]It SHOULD BE no more than 10 percent – 20 percent at the most (national emergencies notwithstanding).[/i]

          I think you’re too high…. by a factor of ten!

          [added:]

          Your city should get more tax money than your state, and your state should get more than your federal… exactly backwards from the way it is (not addressing the method of taxation here, just the relative amounts).

        • #2796772

          Whoa Max

          by cactus pete ·

          In reply to Practical, actually-existing “freedom”

          Hi again Max.

          You wrote…
          “It SHOULD BE no more than 10 percent – 20 percent at the most (national emergencies notwithstanding).

          But WE ARE approaching what you want. Our GDP is 12.5 trillion. Our budget is 3 trillion. What is that, 25 percent?”

          Delbert suggested a total taxation, including local rate with federal. Keep that in mind.

          And I’d point out that tax rates fall far short of covering the budget. So cut the budget or increase taxes. We can’t run up the debt like this forever. I’d say we passed the manageable debt limit already. (With the largest run-ups overseen by Republican “small government” presidents).

          We can’t have small taxation in the near future. We have to repay the debt.

          It is unfortunate that we must take responsibility for the spending of the past, but we must. And I suggest we begin handling it now, rather than let it ruin the future of this country (more so).

          Government will need many years of surpluses (modest ones, of course) to pay off the debt. It is only responsible.

          If you want a smaller government in the future, we need a sufficient tax rate now. Of course, we need more fiscal responsibility to accompany that. And all the while bank in enough for those emergencies of which you spoke. It isn’t east, and it looks bad in the short run. But the responsible thing to do now is to pay off the bills of the past and start saving for the future.

          And someone else mentioned a national sales tax. I don’t think that’s a bad idea, actually. But taxing sales of items is still taxing property. Hope you all keep that in mind.

        • #2796744

          Only with the current system (Cactus Pete).

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Practical, actually-existing “freedom”

          [i]I’d say we passed the manageable debt limit already[/i]

          Switching to a consumption based tax would create an economy that would eliminate our national debt within a decade.

          Unfortunately that sort of tax system is uncontrollable by liberal politicians, so without an armed revolution, we’ll likely never see it.

        • #2796737

          Tony’s decade

          by cactus pete ·

          In reply to Practical, actually-existing “freedom”

          10 years??

          What rate are you expecting, and which goods are you taxing? I’d love to see details that can give us an out in ten years.

          It took us longer than 10 to get here. It will take even longer to get out of the mess, no matter the options chosen.

          If you’re convincing enough, I’d be next in line for my gun permit.

        • #2784614

          Tax

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Practical, actually-existing “freedom”

          [i]What rate are you expecting,

          30% to start. Will probably have to be lowered.

          [i]and which goods are you taxing?[/i]

          all [b]new[/b] retail goods and services, with a prebate to every household equivalent to the tax paid on poverty level spending. Just like the fairtax (http://www.fairtax.org) except that instead of federal, state, and local tax; the state gets 90%, the fed gets 10%.

          Yes, this means the fed gets less money… but they will also have less to do. Anything (except the operation of federal facilities) within a state is wholly the responsibility of that state. The only thing the fed will do is protect our borders, perform some regulatory functions (uniform standards for traffic signs, for example) and mediate disputes between states. This will take less than half of their 10% and the rest can go to paying down the debt.

          The absence of corporate taxes (and the bureaucracy to comply with and collect them) will allow business to soar. They will be more competitive here AND on world markets. More employees will be needed (we might even be begging people to emigrate here) which will drive up wages. And before you think that it’s not fair that corporations get off the hook for taxes, realize: Where do they get the money to pay their taxes??? From you, the consumer, that’s who.

          Now 30% seems like a lot, but considering that it replaces all income and payroll taxes, it’s not so bad… and we might find that after the debt is paid off, it will have to be lowered. Perhaps 10 years is pushing it a little, but certainly not much more than that. The more we produce and sell the more taxes will be paid, and the more the government’s cut would be.

          Details? That would take some work… Fairtax is a good start, but in my opinion keeping the money closer to where it will actually be needed/used would make it even more beneficial (sending money to Washington, only to have them send it back, is just plain retarded). Instead of “trickle-down” economics, it’s “trickle up”. You decide how much of [b]your[/b] money the government gets by controlling [b]your[/b] (above poverty level) spending. In effect, you’ll vote with your wallet 🙂

          Oh, and with approval rating of congress at an all time low, we might not need the guns 🙂

      • #2800758

        Excuse me????

        by jackofalltech ·

        In reply to There’s nothing new about this, nor is it confined to liberals.

        You compare peaceful, legal, picketing to bombing??????

        How can you compare attempting to save lives with deliberately killing them?

        • #2800684

          Yes, I do make that comparison.

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to Excuse me????

          Both are designed to intimidate, just to different degrees.

          Not all anti-abortion protests have been peaceful. When a large, organized crowd forms around a facility performing a legal service, attempting to block legal patrons from entering, screaming at the patrons and staff, I consider that intimidation and not peaceful. When some of those protesters shoot and kill abortion facility doctors, I don’t see much difference from church bombings.

          Not all anti-abortion protests are like this; many are peaceful. Not all Obama supporters are making harassing phone calls to radio talk shows. My point is still that isolated examples of intimidation exist across the social and political spectrum.

    • #2804523

      Political Party Antics

      by bfilmfan ·

      In reply to The coming liberal thugocracy

      Neither party wants real free speech, else they would not have made sure the protestors to their conventions were off to the side and not easily visible to the home viewers of the media.

      Frankly, I think Obama’s people have adopted Newt’s tactic of getting into people’s faces and asking them what it is they really do believe. And I don’t disagree with that one bit when any candidate does it. They just might not like the reaction when someone tells them that they don’t believe in their candidate.

      We live in a thugocracy where both the parties want to have more and more control of our lives.

      • #2804513

        Well said

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to Political Party Antics

        I can’t possibly disagree. And I doubt that you’ll disagree when I suggest the only way to turn it around is to insist on less government, not more government.

        • #2804506

          The Founding Fathers wanted a weak gvt for just this reason.

          by locrian_lyric ·

          In reply to Well said

          The Fed should be providing a military, and little else

        • #2804404

          Agreed…The Fed has too much power

          by jmgarvin ·

          In reply to The Founding Fathers wanted a weak gvt for just this reason.

          The Fed should not be in control of the states as much as they are. The way I see it the Fed should provide:
          1) Military
          2) Basic Infrastructure SUPPORT (eg roads, trains, air traffic control, etc)
          3) Supplement state needs AT THE REQUEST of the state

        • #2804398

          I agree with everything you said. . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Agreed…The Fed has too much power

          ….. in that particular message. If that’s the case, however, why do we seem to disagree on just about every issue?

          And if you’re genuine with your three points of government involvement, you’d also agree with me that we should…..

          …..abolish Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

          …..never implement national health care.

          …..abolish the Department of Education.

          …..

          I could go on and on.

        • #2804392

          The REASON behind the idea of weak national gvt

          by locrian_lyric ·

          In reply to I agree with everything you said. . . . .

          Was the idea that the states would be living laboratories of ideas and practices. With the individual freedoms fueling movement from good to bad ideas and practices, there was a virtual guarantee that bad ideas would die out and good ideas would be mimicked and replicated.

          The FFs also knew that one size fits none.

          What works for urban, flat NJ does not work for the midwestern states with the rocky mountains. Try mass transit in the SW corner of Colorado and see where that gets you!

          This is also why a national minimum wage law is a joke….

          In areas like NY city, New Jersey, Los Angeles, et cetera, the minimum wage is a joke. The state minimum is higher than the Fed in NJ, and you have to look long and hard to find ANYTHING that pays that low.

          In other areas where there is less money, the minimum wage just kills business.

        • #2804350

          I’ve asked along those lines before

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to The REASON behind the idea of weak national gvt

          [i]This is also why a national minimum wage law is a joke….[/i]

          http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=201870&messageID=2103742

        • #2804369

          Agree, Agree, meh-agree

          by jmgarvin ·

          In reply to I agree with everything you said. . . . .

          SS, Medicare, and Medicaid are mismanaged nightmares that are on par with national healthcare.

          The DoEd is meh. I think we need oversight in education, but the DoEd is doing a poor job of it. I don’t think private companies can do a better job (for a number of reasons), but I do know we need something different. I’m a HUGE fan of vouchers….

        • #2784477

          About the DoEd

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to Agree, Agree, meh-agree

          [i]…we need oversight in education, but the DoEd is doing a poor job of it.[/i]

          The DoEd should be an Education Commission with the sole function of setting national standards. This is the the one failing of our education system: the minimum standards should be the same nationwide. High school students in Petal, MS, Graham, WA, Los Angeles, New York City, or Minneapolis should all meet the same requirements for graduation. You don’t meet, you don’t graduate.

        • #2784465

          Nick- That sounds so fair that I doubt it’ll happen.

          by ontheropes ·

          In reply to Agree, Agree, meh-agree

          I agree with you though. Meet the minimum or you don’t graduate and tough stuff if you don’t. The sooner people realize that they’re mainly responsible for what happens to them, the better off they’ll be. Sure, there’s a lot of things out of their control but people CAN graduate if they really want to.

        • #2784461

          Nick

          by w2ktechman ·

          In reply to Agree, Agree, meh-agree

          Wouldnt this be one of those things that should be left to the States? I see your point about having national standards, however, I think that this is more of a State issue, not a Fed issue.

          But then again, the States do go looking for money for Education…

        • #2797319

          I don’t find a standards-only D of Ed disagreeable, but many do

          by delbertpgh ·

          In reply to Agree, Agree, meh-agree

          Particularly some Southern states which, I’m sorry to say, are more comfortable bringing them up stupid than are the others of the country. Think of Florida, Mississippi, etc. They’re not happy about carpetbaggers flinging around a bunch of fancy standards that don’t respect “the way we do thangs down heah.” Actually, though, if you tie federal education dollars to something like No Child Left Behind, you’ll find politicians from Maine to California screaming about the unfairness of it all. It happens now. Each state gets to set its own test standards for NCLB scoring, and it’s a scandal, the excuses that paper over their abysmal results.

          If you want to hear people really scream, try to put in standards like they have in France or Finland. Those guys teach high school like we teach med school. Their 6th grade is tougher than our 12th grade. A lot of students don’t make it through, either, at least not in France. At age 12 they have a test that separates kids into three streams: a math-tech college track, a humanities college track, and a trades track. The trades kids graduate at 16 and go on the labor market. The college crowd stays in school until 18 or 19, when they pass their baccalaureate test. The “Bac” is a grueling exam in each of your high school subjects; it is equivalent to an associates degree, except that you work three times as much as you do in community college. Then they go to university.

          I’ve gone over my wife’s old grade school textbooks and her class assignments. She was educated by nuns in France when her dad was posted there, back when France still garrisoned U.S. troops. (Catholic schools got state financing, by the way, the same as French public schools.) It’s 45 years old and still better and tougher than anything I’ve seen from an American school.

          The big philosophical difference between us and France is that they believe in educating the best to be the best, and educating the rest to get jobs. Americans believe everybody should be treated equally because we don’t trust elites, although that means dumbing down educational standards, and ignoring trades education almost entirely.

        • #2797075

          The Education Commission I would like to see

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to Agree, Agree, meh-agree

          would be associated (loosely) with the Department of Commerce. One of the mandates of the federal government is to regulate interstate commerce. A properly-educated workforce can only have positive effects on commerce.

        • #2804367

          No Argument From Me

          by bfilmfan ·

          In reply to Well said

          I am a strict constuctionist. The duties and powers of the Federal government are clearly laid out in the Constitution.

          If the Fed doesn’t have the duty, then it is the right of the people of a state to handle that activity.

          If the Founding Fathers lived now, we’d have another armed rebellion on our hands.

          Instead we live in a country where more people are interested in what is on TV, than what the royality is doing.

    • #2804454

      Liberals under the bed again, Max? Gonna getcha?

      by delbertpgh ·

      In reply to The coming liberal thugocracy

      Michael Barone’s opinion piece could have appeared in Fantasy and Science Fiction. It would be laughable the way “conservatives” can write up this rabble-rousing nonsense, and be taken deadly seriously by other conservative-minded folk, if it weren’t for the clown circus presidency that conservative populism inflicted upon us, which we have suffered through these last seven years. It’s a good thing the U.S.A. is such strong and deep country; lesser states would have been wiped off the globe by such a prolonged case of bloody-minded nitwittery in their highest leadership. Ah, well. Life moves on, and I guess that’s what scares Mr. Barone. He’s got to whip up the faithful with another dose of the boogey-man frights.

      Honestly, Max, even though I am nine feet tall and could crush the free speech out of you with my left hand, it’s not the kind of thing I’d do. You can trust me on this. Mr. Obama will bring you a brighter, lighter world, in which you will not need fear as your constant companion. (In fact, I’m more conservative than liberal in my fundamental convictions about human nature. Perhaps some day we can discuss these things.)

      Anyway, Barone’s piece is very weakly tethered to verifiable fact or probable outcomes. What he does have is a bunch of coincidental material of doubtful relevance to anything, which he presents as proof positive of whatever he wants to write about. All of his conclusions are a whippy froth based on ill-will and high emotion. What he talks about isn’t happening, or is happening because of other obvious reasons, and is not of the scale he complains about.

      Anyhow, to address the primary actual points of evidence he raises: 1) there’s a good reason NBC pulled its skit and substituted a doctored version… the subtitle that named “Herbert and Marion Sandler: People who Should Be Killed” had no business being up in the first place. Suggesting somebody should be dead might just lead to it happening. 2) A bunch of people called in and swamped the lines of a talk show giving a platform to somebody presenting more Ayers evidence… what was this guy saying, anyway? Was it suggesting Obama was a terrorist sympathiser? Dumb move; it’ll get people pissed off about you. It was an open phone call-in, and people called in, as I understand it, exercising their first amendment rights, as I understand those rights. Were only alarmed red-meat Obama haters allowed to call? Did somebody stop them from calling? Did somebody storm the studio? Was it an organized activity, even? No, no, no, no.

      Suggest Mr. Barone and his readership all breathe into paper bags, or take a Haldol, until the sense of emergency passes.

    • #2804438

      I swear, talking about politics is depressing.

      by ontheropes ·

      In reply to The coming liberal thugocracy

      Last year while waiting at the DMV I started talking to a man and we were sharing our views on the then current state of the country when a voice out of the seated crowd said, “that’s dangerous talk boy.” I guess even talking about the sorry state of affairs, as I see it, is cause to tick some people off. For a few minutes there I felt as if I was living in the old Soviet Union or Nazi Germany. Hopefully that kind of reaction is not going to be part of the ‘change we need’ everyone is talking about.

    • #2804405

      The coming conservative thugocracy

      by jmgarvin ·

      In reply to The coming liberal thugocracy

      If nothing in the piece is incorrect…..

      http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1849422,00.html

      …..how can the conclusion be incorrect?

    • #2804370

      This is the scariest thing I’ve heard ‘The Messiah’ say…

      by captbilly1eye ·

      In reply to The coming liberal thugocracy

      When asked recently about his socialist leanings when it comes to the economy, B.O. said:
      [i]”It’s not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance for success too,” Obama responded. “My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody … I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”[/i]

      (Here it is in context: http://tinyurl.com/45ql58)

      Why is it so many people are unable or unwilling to see through this plan for ‘wealth re-distribution?’ No matter how you slice it… it’s still socialist.

      But dare anyone call it for what it is, they will be branded racist for criticizing the ridiculous rants of the ‘Chosen One.’

      The apparent buy-in to this tact is a culmination of the double standard used by anti-racists for over three decades in American society. The fuel for the acceptance of this circumstance has been White Guilt rooted in a fear of being ridiculed, persecuted or merely dismissed as a bigot.

      I think Barry’s [b]best[/b] endorsement came recently from the king of that movement, Lewis Farrakhan:
      http://tinyurl.com/3kuwqm
      .

      • #2804349

        V for vendetta

        by zlitocook ·

        In reply to This is the scariest thing I’ve heard ‘The Messiah’ say…

        The last ten years are reminding me more and more of this movie. People are becoming more distant from their control on their lives. And the government controlling and watching every thing. They can search and seize any device or copy any thing they want with out saying what they will do with the info.
        Now we have thought police watching to see if you had said some thing bad about the person they love. I live in Missouri and have seen this going on, but it does not seem to work for the person running opposite him.
        The UK and US have so many cameras, radar and checks in place that it is more like a bad scifi movie then real life. Now the whole world is being saved by their governments buying in to all the banks. This is not good, now the government can control all finances of just a single person to a country.
        I don?t post much any more because I think most people just accept this and if I post different I will have fifty posts telling why this is good for or country.
        I guess I am an old fart and like the days when you could say what you want and people would listen and just walk away and not belittle every thing you say.
        I do not welcome the new over lords! I still think for myself and switch channels when the million dollar man or any other clown takes over my TV. I will write in my vote, I do not accept the the canadates the government has said that I have to vote for.
        Just my thoughts, now I will step back and do as I wish. Thanks

        • #2784452

          Posts like yours are a reminder.

          by ontheropes ·

          In reply to V for vendetta

          They remind me just how blase’ these ‘discussions’ have become, the same old, same old. Damn near predictable.

          We need all types of people posting. It’s a pity that more don’t post and are allowed to speak their minds without getting shouted down. Damn shame.

        • #2797035

          I have been here

          by zlitocook ·

          In reply to Posts like yours are a reminder.

          For awhile and have posted many things. This is a great learning resource but the members can be very hard on you.
          Especially if you have a different view then most of them. I do not see things as most techs do I look at all the facts. I read on line magazines articles from other countries and a lot of US tech magazines. And I voiced my opinion on new programs and how the site was run.
          Even if it means I have to change my view on a subject that I think is right and nobody else will.
          Now I just look and post when I think I might change or help some one.

        • #2796180

          Don’t do that to yourself

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to I have been here

          [i]Even if it means I have to change my view on a subject that I think is right and nobody else will.[/i]

          On matters of opinion, there is no need to change your view–it’s your opinion and you are entitled to it.

          On matters of fact, when your view doesn’t fit the facts, it’s time to change. No matter what the political hacks say, changing your view in the face of opposing facts isn’t being “wishy-washy” or “following the polls”, it’s the only sensible thing to do to prevent future mistakes.

        • #2796169

          I’ve been around long enough to know that even “facts”

          by ontheropes ·

          In reply to I have been here

          can be questioned and must be questioned in some cases. For instance: There are many more people that believe the “facts” about certain tragedies this country has faced than there are who believe otherwise. Sorting the facts to arrive at the truth is an individual thing and something entirely different than just ‘believing’ what’s in the mainstream media. Not everyone is going to arrive at the same conclusion.

          I am free to think for myself and my conclusions about many things don’t fit in with the conventional viewpoint. Try as I might, I just don’t care about that. I have MY beliefs and, possibly like you, I just don’t have a pressing need to shove my conclusions down somebody elses throat. I’ve adapted. I used to be different. Now it’s just important to me that I understand. Everyone else doesn’t have to for it to be alright. No one else has to have my understanding. As my friend old Charlie used to say, “f*ck ’em and feed ’em beans.” Sometimes that applies.

        • #2784449

          Maybe, just maybe

          by w2ktechman ·

          In reply to V for vendetta

          you should post regardless of if anyone wants to belittle you. You dont need to get in a fight, post your opinion, and see what happens.

      • #2806022

        Socialist?

        by charliespencer ·

        In reply to This is the scariest thing I’ve heard ‘The Messiah’ say…

        “Why is it so many people are unable or unwilling to see through this plan for ‘wealth re-distribution?’ No matter how you slice it… it’s still socialist.”

        Why is it socialist when Obama talks about it, but not when the Bush administration actually puts it in action on Wall Street? Or is it, and you’re just not pointing that out?

        • #2806004

          Yes… I agree somewhat with that.

          by captbilly1eye ·

          In reply to Socialist?

          I was against the bail-out.

          If it was not an election year, things would have been much different. …and if the government (primarily backed by Dems) had not stuck their hands into Fanny & Freddie and forced relaxed lending practices, the need would not have occurred in the first place.

          But, never have we had a presidential candidate so close to winning an election that was so blatent about his socialist agenda.

        • #2805993

          Yes,

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Socialist?

          Bush was an idiot for proposing that. It’s not fixing the problem, it’s putting it off… a temporary fix…. not unlike stopping a leak in a dam with a piece of chewing gum…

        • #2805989

          Majority of citizens opposed that as well

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Socialist?

          Are you playing devils advocate, or saying it is a good thing?

        • #2797582

          I’m not saying it’s a good thing

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to Majority of citizens opposed that as well

          I’m just pointing out that if it’s socialism when Obama talks about it, it’s also socialism when Bush puts it into practice. This isn’t just a ‘liberal’ policy, and no different from crop subsidies or tax breaks for industries.

        • #2797574

          How do you come to the conclusion

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to I’m not saying it’s a good thing

          that a tax break (reducing how much a company pays in) is socialism?

          Now, if it is a subsidy, that is a different story, but a tax break simply means one of two things. They were paying to much to begin with, or they were allowed to keep more of their own money that THEY earned in exchange for something. (such as where to locate a plant or office).

          That is definitely NOT socialism.

          And the current “bailout” was a disgrace for government, not political parties. It showed just how indebted to big money all of the politicians are, including our two main presidential candidates.

          By the way, what ever happened where Obama lied saying he would take no special interests money, yet has received a fortune from Fanny?

        • #2797495

          Okay, poor choice; I was on my way to lunch

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to How do you come to the conclusion

          and had people waiting.

          My point is still that it isn’t just ‘liberals’ who give away money in the government’s name. To ignore the same offenses committed by the current (or almost any previous) administration is to ignore that both pot and kettle are black. The only difference I can see is who they redistribute the money to. Most of the spending earmarks that elected federal representatives brag about to the home folks qualify as redistributed wealth.

          I assume you’re not asking me the Obama / Fanny question. I don’t support him, I just object to he and liberals being tarred while conservatives who commit the same activities go unfeathered.

        • #2797475

          Gotcha

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Okay, poor choice; I was on my way to lunch

          You had me wondering there for a minute….

          And I would throw them all in the same boiling pot….

          We need Bill Cosby to run! B-)

          I would vote for him….. ;\

        • #2797463

          I would submit…

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Okay, poor choice; I was on my way to lunch

          [i]My point is still that it isn’t just ‘liberals’ who give away money in the government’s name. [/i]

          that those who “give away money in the government’s name” ARE liberals, no matter how much they deny it.

        • #2800831

          Tony, partial disagreement

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to Okay, poor choice; I was on my way to lunch

          I’m not sure what they are. There certainly don’t seem to be many conservatives left in the Goldwater sense of the word, or even in Reaganesque terms.

          I’m not sure when the word ‘liberal’ became joined at the hip with ‘financially irresponsible’. I suspect it goes back to that fine South Carolinian political pitbull Lee Atwater. I submit it’s possible to be a social liberal without being required to support ‘tax and spend’. I’m quite liberal socially but back the idea “The Lord helps those who help themselves” (assuming there is such an entity). I don’t have a problem with proposals to ‘level the playing field’, but that can be done without Uncle Sam financially supporting a bunch of give-away programs.

        • #2800663

          Probably about the time

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Okay, poor choice; I was on my way to lunch

          [i] I’m not sure when the word ‘liberal’ became joined at the hip with ‘financially irresponsible’.[/i]

          the political definition of the word strayed from the dictionary definition 🙂

          [i]I submit it’s possible to be a social liberal without being required to support ‘tax and spend’. I’m quite liberal socially but back the idea “The Lord helps those who help themselves” (assuming there is such an entity).[/i]

          I agree, and am that way myself. I probably spend and do more to help other people than I would under even the most oppressive tax plan offered to date. The difference is: I [b]choose[/b] to. The fact that some others do not also choose to is not something I should be punished for.

          [i]I don’t have a problem with proposals to ‘level the playing field’, but that can be done without Uncle Sam financially supporting a bunch of give-away programs. [/i]

          I believe that would be best accomplished by getting out of the way. We have certain rights. As long as we are not violating someone else’s rights, we should be left alone to do as we please (not “might violate”… otherwise, you would have to outlaw mayonnaise jars because someone “might” bash someone else over the head with one).

        • #2800629

          On Liberalism….

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to Okay, poor choice; I was on my way to lunch

          Back before America (North and South) existed liberalism was a term for those who sought to be freed from the last vestiges of the feudal system. They were the business class who sought to make money through commerce as opposed to those who inherited land and title. Liberalism back then meant freedom, and those who pushed for free markets and capitalism were liberals.

          Torys were those who supported the landed aristocacy.

          Red Torys (a term I’ve used to describe myself, and others have applied to me) were Torys who sought to balance out the interests of the two competing classes. We believe that change should be managed and change for change sake is sometimes regressive.

          Its the porkbarrelling/earmarks that truly shocks and amazes this outsider. As far as I can tell both sides of the aisle are deep into the trough, and it seems they can’t help bribing the electorate with their own money. We have a certain amount of it in Canada (the public works minister is usually from Quebec, no matter which party is in power), but nothing on the scale in the US.

          I consider myself a fiscal conservative – lower taxes, and reduce some of the excesses of spending, pay down the debt, but in non fiscal areas, I am seen as socially “progressive”. But part of that is my belief in individual rights. I don’t believe I have the right to tell Martha and Mary they can’t get married as only one example, I don’t believe that in a pluralistic society that the government should have a religious perspective, as that will impact freedom of religion, despite anyone’s best intentions.

          I know there are American conservatives who feel the way I do, but I feel I would be almost as uncomfortable in the Republican party as I would in the Democratic party . And while it was 27 years ago, I have actualy been to a Republican convention.

          I was hoping that the current financial crisis would bring people to reconsider the role of the government in the economy. But sadly, I think its had the opposite effect. People look to the government to solve problems it can’t solve. The bailout may have been needed to bring confidence back to the markets, but sets a very very dangerous precedent, and an expectation that future governments, of any party, may have difficulty meeting.

          James

          James

        • #2797551

          It’s worse than liberalism, it’s socialism

          by locrian_lyric ·

          In reply to I’m not saying it’s a good thing

          no matter who proposes it.

        • #2797483

          That’s my point.

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to It’s worse than liberalism, it’s socialism

          The opinion piece Max originally linked to implies this sort of activity is confined to Obama and his Kool-Aid slurpers. It happens on both sides of the aisle, just with different names and recipients.

        • #2795365

          majority of Citizens?

          by dixiedi ·

          In reply to Majority of citizens opposed that as well

          How do you know it was the majority that opposed the bail out? Was a puplic vote taken that I was not aware of? Did we go to the polls on a day I was not aware of?

          Polls taken over the phone or onlline all have a plus or minus attached to the results. Web polls very likely have a huge +/- but there is no way to know for sure what it is becuase the internet is annonymous!

          I didn’t like the bail out but agreed something had to be done quicly if for no other reason than to stop the fear. Fear generates ignorant actions, the drops in the market day after day proves that. Even stocks that will certainly recover were being sold. How stupid is that? And those are likely the folks who opposed the bail out.

        • #2784454

          As I see it

          by zlitocook ·

          In reply to Socialist?

          And I have been around awhile we keep switching around and it seems to be our fault!
          We elect these puppets to office and they follow the money and their people.
          We need a change but not the two people that are running.
          But because of the things I have purchased and looked at in the last year I am probably on that list now! So I don?t care who or what agency is watching me now.

      • #2805990

        “It’s not that I want to punish your success”

        by jdclyde ·

        In reply to This is the scariest thing I’ve heard ‘The Messiah’ say…

        One of the Many reasons I would never vote for this person.

        How about Biden saying it is patriotic to pay taxes?

        Obama is looking to buy the welfare votes by playing robin hood, of leaching off people who work and paying off the people who don’t. Very generous, with OPM.

        Remember the “bi-partisan” economic stimulus? They gave everyone back some of THEIR OWN MONEY as a way to stimulate an economy, showing that cutting taxes is a good thing for any economy.

        If people have THEIR money, they can buy things. If they can buy things, other people are selling things. THAT is what keeps people working, not welfare programs and handouts.

        A fine is a tax for doing bad
        A tax is a fine for doing good

      • #2800878

        The thing that gets me.

        by tonythetiger ·

        In reply to This is the scariest thing I’ve heard ‘The Messiah’ say…

        and I don’t really know how to describe it …

        [i]”I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance for success too”[/i]

        First, the use of the label “behind”. That portrays a negative state… that being “behind” is somehow inferior and should be a cause of unhappiness (since everybody is “behind” the one who is most ahead, does that mean that there is only one person in the whole country who is happy?)

        Second is the implication that the only way to be successful is to not be behind.

        Insidious beliefs, those…

        Buy more ammo!

    • #2797590

      A few thoughts to ponder….

      by jamesrl ·

      In reply to The coming liberal thugocracy

      “What we need in the United States is not division; what we need in the United States is not hatred; what we need in the United States is not violence or lawlessness; but love and wisdom, and compassion toward one another, and a feeling of justice toward those who still suffer within our country, whether they be white or they be black.”

      RFK after MLK’s assasination.

      ” When you teach a man to hate and fear his brother, when you teach that he is a lesser man because of his color or his beliefs or the policies he pursues, when you teach that those who differ from you threaten your freedom or your job or your family, then you also learn to confront others not as fellow citizens but as enemies, to be met not with cooperation but with conquest; to be subjugated and mastered.

      We learn, at the last, to look at our brothers as aliens, men with whom we share a city, but not a community; men bound to us in common dwelling, but not in common effort. We learn to share only a common fear, only a common desire to retreat from each other, only a common impulse to meet disagreement with force. For all this, there are no final answers. ”

      RFK

      I’m not bringing these up to talk about race. It would seem though, that politics in the US, and to an extent in Canada, is now becoming polarized to the extent of having the same levels of passion, and the same lack of civil discourse as race used to engender.

      And from this outsider’s perespective NEITHER party has been clean on this issue. Both claimed to want to do politics differently and reach out across the aisle for bipartisan initiatives, yet both sides have crossed the line into hate and loathing.

      James

      • #2797567

        I disagree

        by jdclyde ·

        In reply to A few thoughts to ponder….

        Obama has not gone against the Democrat party line.

        I can’t think of a single Democrat he has confronted in his goals to end corruption, can you?

        A side note, regardless of if Obama wins or loses, I think race relations will be much worse. Either outcome is going to be blamed on racism. There is the racism (very clear) that many people are voting for him because he is black, and nothing else.

        We have had to tolerate the retarded of the nation rant on how Republicans “stole” the last two elections, and it will be the third time in a row.

        I see a riot when Obama loses.

        • #2797558

          What I am trying to point out…

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to I disagree

          …is that both campaigns, committed initially to doing politics better, staying away from the politics of hate and division have failed to live up to that promise, and what we are seeing now is a politics of hate – from one side to the other.

          James

        • #2797547

          It is like gladiators…..

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to What I am trying to point out…

          The people demand blood…….

          The people GET blood……

          So much for a new tone, huh?

          I am more surprised with McCain about it though. I expected nothing else from Obama and his supporters.

        • #2797505

          The slippery slope

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to It is like gladiators…..

          I don’t care to even do a cronology of who said what when. But I think it is to an extent a self feeding thing, one attack leads to another, scaling up as it snowballs.

          Both of them had the opportunity to say, “No more.” Neither of them did.

          James

        • #2797478

          McCain tried the other day

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to The slippery slope

          but it didn’t get him far.

        • #2797471

          “That guy”

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to McCain tried the other day

          …seems like a lack of civility to me.
          Obama consistently said “Senator McCain” at least.

          James

        • #2800903

          Politics of civility

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to The slippery slope

          Never has been, isn’t now, and it never will be. To think it will change is naive. Moreover, to think it’s worse than it’s been in the past is just not accurate. The [i]negative[/i] attacks on the opponent pales in comparison to the early days.

          In McCain’s case, he’s actually being mild compared to how he could (accurately) be painting Obama. Personally speaking, I think McCain ought to totally unleash on the guy. He’s a fraud, and he needs to be exposed as one. Can you spell ACORN and voter fraud? Obama is knee-deep in it.

        • #2800890

          Civil versus muddy

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to Politics of civility

          I’m not under the illusion that politics ever has been totally clean, but in the older days, the leader left the task of charecter assasination to the VP or other channels and tried to remain apart from it.

          I have no problem with Obama going deep on Troopergate or Keating or McCain diving in on ACORN etc. I do have issues with the repeated Hussein references, slanders on Michelle Obama or the Palin daughters, or even McCain’s first wife. And there are several prominent Republicans who have had as much contact with Ayers as Obama has.

          I have watched US election ads since the 60s, and other than “Daisy” they were not as bad as they are today.

          I don’t think I am naive, I’ve spent time in the trenches, and I’ve seen an erosion of any civility we’ve had. There used to be gentlemen’s agreements – Eisenhower and Kennedy both had famous mistresses than all the press knew about but no one reported on until after their death. Because it was more important to focus on the individuals actions and policies than their personal piccadillos.

          The more time we spend wading in the mud, the less time we spend talking about the real issues. And that is the real shame.

          James

        • #2800881

          The Politics of Personal Destruction is alive and well

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Politics of civility

          Especially in today’s information age, there are more pundits than you can possibly count. To think they can be tamed and held back …… well, it’s just not gonna’ happen.

          You are apparently [i]complaining[/i] about them, and not McCain or Obama. Take the media pundits out of the picture – the ones who are in, what might be called, the political-entertainment industry, and take-out the political party activists, and we probably have what you want.

          John McCain, personally, is being SO civil towards Obama, it’s almost sickening! He’s TOO nice. If you disagree, or if you have evidence to the contrary, please share it with us.

          In my opinion, Obama is personally much more [i]negative[/i] towards McCain than the other way around.

        • #2800827

          Well actually….

          by bfilmfan ·

          In reply to It is like gladiators…..

          Despite what Hollywood has led many to believe, most gladiator events were as staged as a modern wrestling event. Very seldom was anyone even seriously injuried.

          This is very different from the executions or kill the wild critter events which could be very brutal.

          Frankly, both parties are all about putting on a pompous show for the election and then getting back to the real business at hand, which is enriching themselves and whomever they count as their cronies.

        • #2800799

          I frankly expected better of Obama.

          by boxfiddler ·

          In reply to It is like gladiators…..

          And am not surprised to see it in McCain. McCain is as entrenched as any other, and sounds more like a broken record every day.

          They may both be spouting general party line garbage, but Obama is better at making that garbage appear relevant, and implying some level of respect for the voters. My bet is that he wins, sorry to say. But I don’t like McCain one whit either.

        • #2797507

          Both ways

          by pringles86 ·

          In reply to I disagree

          “There is the racism (very clear) that many people are voting for him because he is black, and nothing else.”

          It will be both ways though, there will be people voting against him just because he is black. I do agree that there will be more voting for him just because he is black though… Either way, that is pretty sad.

          “I see a riot when Obama loses.”

          I agree, but I think it should be “if Obama loses”…

        • #2797479

          When vs If

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Both ways

          It is refreshing to see the news stories talking about the racism in the Democratic party for a change, instead of the old drum beat that evil Republicans hate all non-white and want old people to eat dog food.

          When you look at the percentage of black voters voting for Obama, that is clear racism. What would be said if 98% of non-blacks all voted for McCain? It would be racist, as at least 40% of that number would otherwise have gone Democrat.

          Then, there is still the Hilary factor. Her cult following is a tricky vote to get. Many like the idea of a woman running, but can’t get over the idea that if you are not a democrat, you are not a real woman/black.

          And of course, there is still the sting for how horribly Hilary was treated by the Media during the primaries. She found out what it was like to be a Republican, B-) as did her “racist/first black President” husband.

          People are starting to see through Obama/Biden. If Biden makes many more stupid comments like it is patriotic to pay higher taxes, or his anti-coal talk he did a few weeks ago…… Time is NOT on Obamas side.

        • #2797482

          Sure, one.

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to I disagree

          “I can’t think of a single Democrat he has confronted in his goals to end corruption, can you?”

          Sure. Hillary 😀

        • #2797477

          Not in a vote

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Sure, one.

          but he sure shattered her dreams, didn’t he?

        • #2795360

          Sad but True

          by dixiedi ·

          In reply to I disagree

          I fear the worst no matter the outcome of the election.
          There will civil unrest if Obama wins and even moer if he looses.
          It will all be based on race because that is the subject that can get the most people heated into a frinzy the quickest.

          Whichever man stands to make a speech and give congratulations to the other will be the moment it all starts. I don’t want to see it happen but the swill being swung during the campaingns will come to a head and push over the sides.

          I almost don’t want to see Halloween get here. I just love Halloween.

      • #2797501

        Who’s voting race and who’s voting issues?

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to A few thoughts to ponder….

        .
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5p3OB6roAg

        I’m speechless!

        “No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.”
        — Henry (H.L.) Mencken

    • #2796732

      How relevant is it?

      by oz_media ·

      In reply to The coming liberal thugocracy

      Firstly, the story is an old one and is still a shocker too. The land of defending freedom and civil rights is not as free and civil afterall?

      Then I have to question the author, who seems to really enjoy sensation. Looking at his other works, I just may pick up a copy of ‘The New Americans: How the Melting Pot Can Work Again.’

      I am sure he has a lot of validity in what he says but unfortunately his rant seems a bit sensational and elaborate.

      But I have to admit, they are no better than Canada’s Liberals, which thank fully didn’t win last night even though Conservatives still didn’t get a majority government.

    • #2796160

      SMH…….

      by grimsta2003 ·

      In reply to The coming liberal thugocracy

      What’s with the thugocracy remark? Out of all of the crazy schemes and antics that thousands of politics running for the highest office in the land over the last 300 years have tried and NOW it’s a thugocracy. I wonder why? Shame on the highly syndicated journalist.

Viewing 8 reply threads