News-Record.com

as opposed to the right wing path to socialism?

I mean I totally, like, agree with you.

Instead of nationalizing screwed-up banks like many leftists wanted him to (which was probably the most socialistic solution) and like I thought he would, he's come out with this funky plan that subsidizes investors and, more or less, will attempt to 'let the market fix the market.' Sounds pretty Socialist.

Then, of course, he's taken a tougher stance than Bush on the auto companies, essentially telling Chrysler that they've got thirty days before the government cuts the flow of cash. You know this means with Chapter 11 (which many conservatives have called for) or a merger, both options leading to bad things for union workers--a constituency you'd expect a nasty liberal like Obama to stand behind. Super Socialist, right?

"as opposed to the right wing path to socialism?"

Amen. Like many, Mr. Camp is not in such a fear of socialism as he is a sports-fan of the Republican Party, typically ignorant of the deeds hidden behind the rhetoric.

.. which is not to say Democrats are not also hiding deeds behind rhetoric .. but I've been chided for straying outside the specific content of the LTE, so I'll try to stay focused like America has been on our path to Free Markets.

Opps, I did it again.

Mr. Camp, the hard core Obamadroids are disappointed that He is taking such a long time to complete the socialization of America. (imo) When He told 'Joe the plumber' He wanted to "spread the wealth around", the 'Peggy the moochers' and the Henrietta Hughes of the country were expecting Him to empty the banks and divvy up the loot on Jan. 21st.

There seems to be a feeling of being snookered from many of those who voted for Him. Sure they put on a poker face in public, but the more informed and level headed among them has got to be feeling like the townspeople of the old west who gave their life savings to the rainmaker, only to find the next morning He left town under the cover of darkness and still no clouds in sight. I've talked to a few co-workers who were BIG Obama supporters back in Nov. that don't seem so cocky and confident now that the sheen has faded.

Impeach now.

Sorry, Mr. Camp, there will be no stopping this man. He has a majority in Congress and an almost complete monopoly of the MSM behind him. The MSM refuses to question anything he does, and the Congress can't wait to see their pet projects enacted. Just look at the so-called "stimulus bill", a laundry list of liberal spending that couldn't be passed in normal times.

We have lost more liberty and accumulated more debt in the past two months than in my entire lifetime. POTUS, who has never had so much as a paper route, is now running General Motors. No one in the administration has ever been anything other than a lawyer or politician, unless you count Rahm Emanuel's stint as a ballerina. But they're shoving it down our throats so fast we don't know what hit us. I do hope I'm wrong, but I believe that this man will destroy this country, as I know and love it, within two years. He's off to a good start.

there will be no stopping this man. He has a majority in Congress and an almost complete monopoly of the MSM behind him.

We have lost more liberty and accumulated more debt in the past two months than in my entire lifetime

Sounds like Bush to me...

Which liberties have we lost? How about the debt incurred during Bush's reign?

Carol, as typical liberal, let me remind you Bush is no longer president!

All you Obuma supporters, take a trip to Wally World today, watch the Obuma supporters get their food free, and pay cash for their beer and cigarettes, and go out and get in a fine set of wheels.
Watch the illegals use their WIC coupons.
Wonder if we could get John and his liberal pundit reporters to give us a honest story on this? Not a snowball chance in hell.
PS, in July the first time I will home on first of the month, I am going to challenge the NR, to a little game, we go to Wally World and I will pick out the one's that pay with food cards.
If they lose I give them a picture of a president, If I win they give me a picture of a president.
Now for the second day in a row, I am off to Myrtle Beach to play golf, wonder if my liberal wife can screw it up again? Damn good chance!

Good morning "unenlightened ones," I remind y'all that most Americans are still giving Obama high marks even in the midst of the bad recession! And the very latest Washington Post/ABC News poll says the President is at a 66% approval rating! (And he has rarely slipped below 60% in any poll since his inauguration!) So I have a question for all of you "socialism-haters," you "right-wing nut cases," what will Obama's rating be on April 30, after his 100 days in office? And do you really believe he will "socialize" the nation within the next 30 days? Seriously!

I thought the Obama admin. would enact more liberal policies such as the retraction of the stem cell research ban, more spending for the poor, helping his union friends, etc. That's to be expected.

I could see Congress that would jump on multi-trillion dollar power grabs during a recession, laden it with earmarks and various pork, but I didn't think he would sign it after promising transparency in govt. and curbing earmarks.

I never thought he would hire a tax cheater to run the IRS. Now he is attempting, after Daschle was nailed for cheating on his taxes, to hire another tax cheater to the DHHS post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/31/sebelius-admits-errors-pa_n_181535.html

Why can't these people keep up with their taxes?

I never thought the treasury secretary would state he is "open" to discussion regarding a world currency.

I never thought the president would be firing a CEO of a corporation or attempting to set salary levels for people who work in corporations.

I never thought the govt. would be providing the warranty for my new GM or Chrysler vehicle. That alone would drive me away (pun intended) from buying a GM or Chrysler.

This in a little more than 2 months, 46 more to go.

So far, Obama has a stranglehold on money and cars. Once he has medicine and energy under his control, which shouldn't take much time, we will truly have nothing left to cling to but our religion and our guns. Got to plant more food in the backyard before he takes over the grocery store!

May God bless and keep the czar---far away from us!!!

I, Too, Sing America

I, too, sing America. I am the darker brother.

They send me to eat in the kitchen

When company comes,

But I laugh,

And eat well,

And grow strong. Tomorrow,

I'll be at the table

When company comes.

Nobody'll dare

Say to me,

"Eat in the kitchen,"

Then. Besides,

They'll see how beautiful I am

And be ashamed—

- L.H.

Dan, I believe I see your problem: you "never think!"

zeus, if you would like to actually join the discussion and refute my post rather than offering what only you perceive to be cute one liners feel free to do so. Otherwise you are irrelevant for all to see.

Carol Dunn; for starters, the administration and Congress have made legal contracts null and void. I refer to the AIG bonuses, which Chris Dodd lied about for several days before being forced to admit that he had, in fact, written the Dodd Amendment. Whodathunkit? But when the ignorant public got mad at the execs, Congress decided that those contracts didn't mean anything. So apparently, if a legal contract gets Barney Frank's panties in a wad, we can just ignore it. That goes to the heart of what this country is all about.

And we have the POTUS, who never even had so much as a paper route, doing the hiring and firing at GM, telling them what kind of cars they can build, and seeking the power to say how much anyone can earn, not just employees of bailout recepients.

Not to mention the future debt he's piling up at an alarming (to me, anyway) rate, which will burden us for generations. When you have to pay off great wads of debt, it rather limits your freedom to spend your own money. The government will do that for you.

Au contraire, Dan -- I believe POTUS will eventually have 94 months "to go!" And "one liners?" I suggest you start using a few in order to tone down your senseless verbosity! Comprende?

ABC news poll, Obama at 66%.

Here is the poll, it only covers a very short period, but the approval rating is going down and the disapproval rating is going up.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/obama/approval/

We'll see as time goes by.

Any of the enlightened wish to address Sawdust's three specific complaints?

Sawdust, you're 61 I believe, so "the future debt he's piling up at an ALARMING RATE " won't burden you for generations, will it? So just relax, have a cool one, and go fishing!

Zeus80,

Dude, were you the inspiration for The Wallflowers?

If you're going to compete with the bottom feeders, at least learn to dance...

Come on, Dan! Tell the whole truth for a change, the ref site you cited shows that the Washington Post rates Obama's approval rating at 66% -- his disapproval rating at 29% -- and No Opinion at 5%! If you only had a brain!

Dan and Gunch, I have a hunch! Y'all work for John Hammer and "The Rhinocerous Times!"

Sawdust, are you going to be Rush Limbaugh's running mate in 2012? If the sky doesn't fall before then?

That's exactly what my post said, approval at 66% right in the first line. What I added is that the approval rating is going down and the disapproval rating is going up. The graph clearly illustrates that. In fairness I also added that it's a very short time period and time will tell. It is common for presidents to have a high approval rating early in office.

"If you only had a brain!"

"Y'all work for John Hammer and "The Rhinocerous Times!"

Any longer time bloggers notice the familiarity of this language, especially the insults and use of exclamation points? The only thing lacking is the repetitive use of LOL!!!! Could it be?

Dan, peace! Let's stop this nit-picking! Except, tell us by how much (percentage wise) Obama's approval rating is going down, and his disapproval rating is going up -- the "whole truth," you clown!

zeus80,

You know, people of this blog will not take you seriously by those kinds of comments. You will need to change your strategy.

You should also know that people on this blog have their mind set in stone(speaking from all sides). Even if you have facts (what you think is true) will not change or make any difference on this blog, only those that follow blindly.

Brainwashed Again
There's no use in trying to help or reason with zeus80. The best way to respond to zeus80 is to not respond.

"the administration and Congress have made legal contracts null and void"

Legal contracts are renegotiated all the time, Sawdust. If an employee does not want to accept a renegotiated contract, they are free to leave the employment of their company. After all, the people with the purse strings hold the power, not the employee.

"...Congress decided that those contracts didn't mean anything".

See above. The government holds the money, our tax dollars, and I expect them to be good stewards of that money. For me, that means no million dollar bonuses to the people who caused the collapse of AIG to begin with. What sense does it make to reward poor performance? Especially when it is the taxpayers money!

"And we have the POTUS, who never even had so much as a paper route, doing the hiring and firing at GM, telling them..."

For years, bloggers have been whining about American cars, the poor performance and gas mileage. Now American car manufacturers have asked for billions in taxpayer money. They do not have to accept any money. But Obama has said he will help (with our money) IF they agree to certain specifications. What irresponsible, nut case investor would ask for less? What investor with an ounce of thinking power would just hand them money to keep on doing what they have always done? Personally, I think it shows a great deal of wisdom to require a compromise before handing them any money. Go Obama.

"Not to mention the future debt he's piling up at an alarming (to me, anyway) rate, which will burden us for generations."

My, my, my. What a short (or selective) memory you have, Sawdust. Bush already took care of that; he beat Obama to the punch. Besides, each generation has had to pay on the debts of the previous one. At least Obama is trying to find solutions, something Bush always neglected to do.

Dan,

I'd bet money zeus80 is not DD/TLC. If you took the time to read rather than react, you would be able to figure it out.

Dan,

Based on anecdotal evidence (discussions with friends and family, etc.), I think the explanation of Obama's approval rating is that many people have given him the benefit of the doubt so early in his presidency and want to give him a chance to try to solve the many huge problems America is currently facing. The 29% is a slight increase from the 25% (let's see neocon, sawdust, dan, mama, this dog, rush, hannity... how many is that?) that never gave him any chance whatsoever and is guaranteed to reject anything he suggests believe they believe him to be a socialist or worse.

I hope that brainwashed is wrong and that some people on here can be swayed by logic and reality, and are reasonable people at heart. For instance, just for the sake of argument, would each of the aforementioned naysayers kindly name one thing Obama ever did well or right? Will Yvonne, zeus, carol, jdr, and rahrah each name one thing Bush did right? I'll start: Bush increased spending to combat AIDS in Africa. See, that was fun. You try it.

Look at that, dan and neocon, I kept it under a zillion words! :)

Not to mention that Obama has a rather neoconservative approach to Afghanistan. Stupid pansy liberal.

"typically ignorant of the deeds hidden behind the rhetoric."

Check.

Thanks for the response eric. I hope you read my posts in that, twice, I noted the poll numbers represent a very short period of time, and that time will tell which direction they will go. But for now the approval rating is dropping, at least according to that poll.

I'm not sure how long you have been reading the blog but I refrained from much criticism of Obama after the election until he became president and started all this stuff. Furthermore I don't feel a vehement hatred towards the guy as many Bush critics did. He seems like a nice guy and has a beautiful family. Thirdly I had a long history of criticism towards Bush for the excessive spending and waste Yvonne duly notes, not to mention a do nothing congress and allowing hordes of illegals to flood the country.

rahrah brings up a good point regarding Obama's efforts in Afghanistan. Problem is many of these bad guys have safe haven in Pakistan, a country with nukes that is increasingly slipping into chaos.

Let's see how he does on the world stage this week. Right now anarchists are rioting in London, breaking windows and entering banks. I thought these people would love our new president.

I'll applaud anyone who can improve the economy and give them credit. We all want a strong economy and jobs for our people, at least I hope. I just don't think these bailouts and borrowing will solve it, it will probably make it worse. Bush started this insanity and Obama has expanded it significantly.

GM should have been allowed to go into bankruptcy before tens of billions in taxpayer dollars were spent to prolong the inevitable.

Good points, Dan. So can you name anything he's done well or right?

Forgot one other thing Obama did right: picked UNC to win the NCAA tourney.

"GM should have been allowed to go into bankruptcy before tens of billions in taxpayer dollars were spent to prolong the inevitable. "

Dan, I respect your opinion on that matter. The same would hold for Chrysler, and maybe Ford in a few months if things don't turn up. Without government intervention, we will continue to have an American auto industry, but it will be headquartered in Japan.

Fellow bloggers, would you consider that a lesser evil than propping up the American companies with tax dollars?

Brainwashed Again, a few days ago on this site I stated, "where ignorance is bliss, tis folly to be wise," so I'm aware of the ignorance that persists here. And I really don't expect anyone to take seriously what I have to say; I just think it needs to be said, here especially! Yes, I believe I understand their problems and which way they COME IN. I just want to help them OUT! Thanks for your suggestion anyway.

Dan,

I'm with you on UNC. I was thinking something to do with being president.

As for you reserving judgment on him early on, your post from Jan. 23: "That's the drawback of the Obama presidency if he indeed goes through with morphing this country towards socialism. Time will tell." is not exactly reserving judgment.

It's kinda like if I had said on Jan 23, 2000, "We'll have to wait and see whether Bush destroys America like he did Texas. I'm reserving judgment..."

I haven't read the blog in a while (was banned by my wife a few years back, you may recall), but you haven't changed your tune much. On the other hand, you do seem far more reasonable than a few of your fellow cons on here. Impressive that you acknowledge, for instance, that "Bush started this insanity and Obama has expanded it significantly."

One more thing from Jan. 23 that speaks to yesterday's debate on race:

Letter-writer: "Moreover, it is still painful that America has not paid Africans for building America, creating its economic power and its White House."

Dan: We have paid and still do. It's called welfare, WIC, free school lunches, and a myriad of other taxpayer funded programs. The govt. is simply the middleman.

These are not ways of repaying Africans. They are social programs for all Americans, most of which are used by white people. Is it me, or it actually conservatives who see everything in terms of race: WIC, crime, etc.?

"GM should have been allowed to go into bankruptcy before tens of billions in taxpayer dollars were spent to prolong the inevitable. "

It seems what Obama is trying to say is that this is only inevitable if we continue with business as usual. If GM and the other US automakers instead invest in America's future (i.e. "green" cars), perhaps with some job-inducing help from the government, the thinking goes, America's auto industry can be revived. Not sure if it will work, but pretty sure that doing nothing will seal the deal.

“Let's see how he does on the world stage this week. Right now anarchists are rioting in London, breaking windows and entering banks. I thought these people would love our new president.”

Dan, they love our president; they just hate America. Is it your contention that the social programs (WIC, Welfare, Food Stamps) that Eric mentioned were created solely for African Americans?

eric,

Bush acted in an exemplary manner immediately after 9/11. Bush has supported Africa's efforts to combat AIDS/HIV. Bush made being unable to speak effectively and pronounce words correctly OK. (I'm being serious as more emphasis is put on words than action in our country.)

I'm not sure where I stand on all the bailouts. But I think I am with those who question the judgment of handing money to large corporations whose management has driven the company into the ground. Since Bush started the bailouts and Obama has followed suit, I guess it is a moot point now. That is the reason I applaud Obama for cracking down on the management of these companies and trying to intervene on the taxpayers behalf.

Eric, are you comfortable with a politician who has no real world experience in business, management or industry, (unless you count His 'community organizing', which in reality is nothing more than coaching people on how to obtain free money from the government) taking over the domestic auto industry (even though they came a beggin') under the pretext of 'saving it'? Are you OK with the likes of Tim Gaithner (sp?) who is an admitted tax cheat, running the treasury? Do you have any problems with the sec. of state going to Mexico and stating that the US is to blame for the drug wars raging down there? Finally, do think it moral and ethical to have the two heads of the banking committees holding hearings on AIG when the head of the senate banking committee was the largest recipient of their campaign 'donations'?

Welcome to Obamanation.

Impeach now.

Btw, I applaud the little messiah's efforts to kill more of the perpetrators of man made disasters, if...if this is His motive and He can be believed. I have my doubts.

That should have been "speak ineffectively".

Scratch that last post. I promise I am not drinking, doing drugs or smoking anything funky. I simply second guess myself after I hit "post". So cut this older woman a little slack, OK?

One more note: By far, tis the liberals who look at people of color and deem them incapable of handling their own affairs. It's the liberals who have appointed themselves the caretakers of blacks...apparently because they view them as inferior and incapable.

thanks kornbluth, you've been gone awhile. Yes Chrysler should be included too. Ford on the other hand has not taken any bailout money. If they can hang on through this recession and GM/Chrysler either fail or become partially owned by the govt. then Ford will make a killing when things turn around. I wouldn't buy a car with the govt. backing it's warranty. Luckily my new car is a Ford.

"That's the drawback of the Obama presidency if he indeed goes through with morphing this country towards socialism. Time will tell." is not exactly reserving judgment."

Notice the words "if indeed" and "time will tell"? I didn't know at that time, still don't now but feel we are moving further in that direction.

"Moreover, it is still painful that America has not paid Africans for building America, creating its economic power and its White House."

Any African who was forced over here into slavery and helped build America, including the White House, is long dead. There isn't much we can do to help them.

'These are not ways of repaying Africans."

I've noticed a recent terminology change from African-American to simply African, not only on your part. What gives? Are we supposed to refer to black people as Africans now no matter where they come from or their nationality? I've been to Africa and most of the folks I met there referred to them as black Americans.

"They are social programs for all Americans, most of which are used by white people."

This is interesting:

One in three food stamp households is headed by an African American. More than a third of food stamp benefits — over $10 billion per year — are issued to African-Americans. (According to Census data, African Americans make up about 12 percent of the U.S. population.)

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=193

So your statement is true that more white people use these benefits, but white people make up a substantially larger percentage of the population. Black people make up 12% of the population yet 33% are using food stamps.

Just saw this bumper sticker this morning...with the 'rainbow' "O"bama:

"Obama...because everyone deserves what you have"...

Wow a lot to respond to. Let's start with this: Dan you point out that Black Americans make up a disproportionate number of food stamp recipients. I would point out that White Americans make up a disportionate number of millionaires and billionaires. While both of these proportions have changed over time, they have never come very close to reversing. Perhaps there is something going on there.

I am not suggesting reparations, but of course most African-Americans are descendants of slaves. More directly, they are descendants of slaves' children (perhaps sharecroppers?), Blacks who suffered under Jim Crow, Blacks who attended segregated schools and often lived in substandard housing, and then Blacks who won many more rights during the civil rights movement and since. We as White Americans do not necessarily owe today's African-Americans anything other than a bit of understanding of the past. I do not believe most African-Americans (e.g. Eric Holder, Obama, your Black friends) are asking for anything more than this. Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and others are totally obnoxious and are indeed racist themselves, but they are no more representative of Blacks as a whole than are the "crack whores", food stamp recipients, and criminals you and your side mention. Most Black folks in the country are not criminals, are not on WIC, are not angry and vocal over being called Black versus African-American, are not begging for reparations, etc..

I think it is perfectly reasonable for anyone to object to what Blacks suffered during slavery, Jim Crow, and segregation, and it is reasonable for anyone to ask that their group not be stereotyped as I have seen done on this and other threads. This is not race-baiting, it's common courtesy.

Also I was quoting the letter-writer who said "Africans" and I believe she was talking about first generation slaves.

Oh yeah, also my family received WIC for a short time after my son was born prematurely. While I was reluctant to accept this "handout", it amounted to a few free groceries a month. I figured I had paid a huge amount in federal and state taxes over the years and was pleased to get something back rather than seeing it all go to the very rich and the very poor. It would be nice if WE (meaning probably everyone who posts on here) got a little more back from our taxes, such as help with college tuition, daycare, health care, etc.. Oh no, that would be an Obamanation, right?

'Dan, they love our president; they just hate America.'

I see conundrum. Strange, I remember visiting Europe a few times during the Bush admin. and many told me they like America but hate Bush.

So now it's reversed? I haven't been there yet during the Obama admin., perhaps that's a good excuse to go.

**********************************************
Is it your contention that the social programs (WIC, Welfare, Food Stamps) that Eric mentioned were created solely for African Americans?

No sir, never said that. But as the link I provided states, black people make up 12% of the population yet are 33% of food stamp recipients. I'm not sure about welfare benefits and WIC, but the numbers are likely similar.

This is old data (1996):

There is racial variation in the proportion of families headed by a single parent: 22 percent for white, 57 percent for black, and 33 percent for Hispanic families.

and;

In 1995, 20 percent of all births to Asian and Pacific Islanders were to single women, compared to 25 percent for white women; 41 percent for women of Hispanic origin; 57 percent for Native American, Eskimo, and Aleut women; and 70 percent for African-American families.

http://family.jrank.org/pages/1574/Single-Parent-Families-Demographic-Trends.html

12% of the population yet 70% of single parent out of wedlock births. Single parent families are more likely to be lower income, partially because of the expense of children, and use more public services such as welfare, WIC, and food stamps.

"We as White Americans do not necessarily owe today's African-Americans anything other than a bit of understanding of the past."

I can agree with that. I'd also suggest that anyone here who has the time to mentor a black or any child from a troubled family once or more a week. It's a rewarding experience and may change the life of a child. I have also explained the evils of the history of slavery and subsequent segregation to my son. My daughter at six is a bit to young to comprehend but I'll explain it to her eventually.

"Most Black folks in the country are not criminals, are not on WIC, are not angry and vocal over being called Black versus African-American, are not begging for reparations, etc.."

Agreed again, my next door neighbors are a perfect example. The dad works, the mom stays at home and they both are very involved in raising their children. My wife and the mom are close friends, very nice family. As a result they have two very intelligent and polite children who are going to do very well in life.

Having two INVOLVED parents is very helpful to children regardless of race. Not always a guarantee for success, nor is it guaranteed that single parent families are doomed to failure. The last child I mentored through the 90's had a single mom, dad abandoned the family and was never seen again. His mom however was educated (schoolteacher) and very much a disciplinarian. He grew up to be a responsible adult.

Neocon, neocon, neocon,

> Eric, are you comfortable with a politician who has no real world experience in business, management or industry, (unless you count His 'community organizing', which in reality is nothing more than coaching people on how to obtain free money from the government) taking over the domestic auto industry (even though they came a beggin') under the pretext of 'saving it'?

Yes. I believe he fits the definition of "Washington outsider" nicely. Our last president, who was a miserable failure (based on opinion polls and likely future history books), had run several businesses... into the ground.

> Are you OK with the likes of Tim Gaithner (sp?) who is an admitted tax cheat, running the treasury?

I will judge him based on how well he does the virtually impossible job put in front of him. So far, he seems to have some very good ideas. Time will tell, but the DOW's up 150 at the moment.

> Do you have any problems with the sec. of state going to Mexico and stating that the US is to blame for the drug wars raging down there?

I think she was saying that our demand for illegal drugs was fueling the wars over who would supply it. You cons are usually pretty good at this capitalism stuff - where's the confusion?

> Finally, do think it moral and ethical to have the two heads of the banking committees holding hearings on AIG when the head of the senate banking committee was the largest recipient of their campaign 'donations'?

I wish there were no campaign contributions to speak of, with public financing replacing them. Given the current system, though, it'd be hard to find someone in Congress who didn't take money from the companies they're supposed to regulate. The Dems in Congress definitely need some policing, as they're chomping at the bit on any number of things, and I'm pleased to see (as should be any moderates here) that Obama is doing an excellent example of keeping them in check.

> Welcome to Obamanation.

> Impeach now.

On what possible basis? While Bush, Ashcroft, Gonzalez, and Cheney did some pretty awful, unlawful, and extralegal stuff, I think it would have been tough to impeach Bush. I never favored it, though I did favor removing Clinton from office (albeit so Al Gore would be able to seek re-election shortly thereafter, and because I thought Slick Willie was a tool). Fortunately for moderates, Obama, too, has rejected calls for investigations and inquiries into Bush and co.'s misdeeds, prefering to move forward rather than looking back.

> Btw, I applaud the little messiah's efforts to kill more of the perpetrators of man made disasters, if...if this is His motive and He can be believed. I have my doubts.

Not sure if this qualifies as telling something he's done right or well. Who believes him to be the messiah, just out of curiosity? There are lots of people who think he will help bring our country out of its current crises, but this is owing (at least in my case) to his ability to articulate a vision, carefully consider decisions and act rationally, listen to good advice, and move people who love their country to act in its interest, not to religious beliefs. I believe most of the 66% Dan cited are Christians, so they would believe Jesus Christ to be the messiah, and Obama to be the president of the U.S..

>One more note: By far, tis the liberals who look at people of color and deem them incapable of handling their own affairs. It's the liberals who have appointed themselves the caretakers of blacks...apparently because they view them as inferior and incapable.

"People of color"? Wow, you're a lot more PC than some of your buddies on here. Many Blacks are liberal, so your statement makes little sense. I.e. African-Americans deem themselves incapable and appointed themselves caretakers of African-Americans? So you're saying that I, a liberal, am more likely to think of Blacks as incapable and inferior than "crack whore", "bad culture" and "rap CD" sawdust, "WIC recipient" Dan, or "criminal" JPRT?

Dan,

The tone has changed for the better considerably from yesterday, when you and another on your side were discussing how Fargo would fare better than New Orleans as if this had anything to do with race. Income and a stable family are definitely helpful in shaping a young person. Mentors are as well - I applaud you. Again, none of this has to do with race. Nor does being a crack whore, a criminal, a WIC recipient, etc.. While it is true that these groups may be disproportionately Black, this is owing to historical income disparities, not "bad culture" or inferiority.

Neocon, do you think the reason Fargo fared better than New Orleans is because New Orleans is predominantly Black, as you suggested yesterday? Or perhaps you guys as a group were just making racially-charged jokes knowing that they were baseless. Either way, look at Dan's last post. That's the truth about race, not the (sorry, but gotta call a spade a spade) race-baiting that you guys were doing yesterday. Don't agree? Let me ask you this, Dan: Would you show your nice next-door neighbors the stuff you guys were posting yesterday?

#50, wow

Your being comfortable with the state seizing control over a corporation, your 'wait and see' how it goes with a tax evading criminal in charge of the treasury, your 'they all do it' in reference to the banking committee chairman's 'donations', and your inevitable (and very predictable) retro Bush bashing leads me to believe you would also be comfortable in Venezuela, Cuba, and perhaps even California.

I would ask you about health care, but why bother?

I rest my case.

isn't it great??!! and so many still believe there will be 2010 elections! hahaha!!!

"Neocon, do you think the reason Fargo fared better than New Orleans is because New Orleans is predominantly Black, as you suggested yesterday?"

That wasn't me, but I'll be glad to respond:

I think Fargo will fare (or fared) better than NO not because of the peoples' skin color, but because they have not been conditioned all their lives to believe the state is responsible for their well being. The people of Fargo will fare better because the victim and entitlement mentality has not been instilled in them since birth.

"The tone has changed for the better considerably from yesterday, when you and another on your side were discussing how Fargo would fare better than New Orleans as if this had anything to do with race."

My post from yesterday mentioned nothing about race, read my posts before making incorrect conclusions:

"C'mon sawdust, don't you predict the residents of Fargo, ND will be living in govt. supplied trailers for years to come?"

There is a reason why people in NO lived in govt. provided trailers for 3 years and the people in Fargo will not. Anyone, regardless of race or location, who becomes perpetually dependent upon the govt. for their life's needs will naturally rely on the govt. in the event of a disaster as they do everything else. Not to say govt. can't help with it's resources and I'm sure FEMA is helping in Fargo, but it should be temporary.

Many of NO residents were and still are dependent upon govt. I don't know much about Fargo, never been there, but I would imagine less of the population per capita relies on govt. for their sustenance.

What happened after Katrina is a textbook example of why I don't want to depend upon govt. for my daily needs.

eric (enlightened one), based on "you should...know that people on this blog have their mind set in stone (speaking from all sides)..." (Brainwashed @ 11:08 AM), why do you take the time and energy to respond to radical posts in such detail? (However your comments are a joy for me to read.) But I believe very, very brief statements and "one-liners" may be the most effective way to communicate with the "unenlightened ones!" Care to comment, briefly, of course?

A good link with excellent advise provided by Roger in another thread and very à propos in this one:

http://www.linuxextremist.com/2006/07/10/dont-feed-the-trolls/

I'm sincerely interested in the definition of a "Washington outsider."

Obama has been a politician for 12+ years now, and in D.C. since '04.

Is he an experienced career politician, or a Washington outsider?

Dan,

Of course the comments about Fargo were about race – the entire thread was about race! Let’s be intellectually honest here. Do you agree that people can be very subtly racist in their choice of words? We both know that Fargo is as white as they come, and New Orleans, as we saw from the vast majority of those Katrina killed there, is predominantly Black. Your back-and-forth with sawdust of course omitted anything about income. I suspect none of the New Orleans Saints (predominantly Black) died or is living in a FEMA trailer.

Neocon says that the people of New Orleans (I assume he means those who survived the disaster and the pathetic government response led by a Bush cronie) are “conditioned all their lives to believe the state is responsible for their well being. The people of Fargo will fare better because the victim and entitlement mentality has not been instilled in them since birth.” You say anyone “perpetually dependent upon the govt. for their life's needs will naturally rely on the govt. in the event of a disaster as they do everything else”. Seriously, this doesn’t have anything to do with race? While the predominantly Black population of downtown NO was no doubt extremely poor, and many did not have cars or were elderly and thus could not leave the city, how can you guys infer what values have been instilled in them their whole lives or the fact that they rely on the government for all of their life’s needs? Is it possible that it is difficult to find work in New Orleans, that a White elite has ruled the city since shortly after its founding, that there are inferior schools there, …? No, the people are mostly Black (though we won’t say it), so they must not only be dependent on the government for all their needs but intent on passing on these values to the next generation. Seems like we’re making a lot of very unfounded assumptions.

Perhaps the reason they’re still in the trailers (which, incidentally are poisoning them) is because they didn’t never got any of what the government told them it was going to provide. What are they supposed to do, go into a city that is in parts still basically condemned and build their own houses? How about a little empathy? Seriously, neocon, these people are not “victims”? I pay taxes largely so my government can help people who are in need, whether in Fargo or in NO. While they are not necessarily “entitled” to help, it seems mighty cruel to deprive them of it. And then to criticize those who survived the disaster for having lousy values. I hope you’re a little most sympathetic to Fargo’s people. Let’s just say I suspect you will be.

rbennet

He's both a experienced politician and a Washington outsider. Do you guys really think the Democrats wanted Obama to win the nomination originally? Hillary was their gal from the start, but then Obama just got huge. He's definitely a cool politician, but he's not much of a Washington Democrat. Am I the only person who's noticed that he's bucking his party on a whole lot of stuff, and that he does things differently than other people in Washington?

Get past partisanship and honestly evaluate the man and his performance. Is he thoughtful and reflective before reaching decisions? Does he genuinely care about regular Americans? Is he genuinely concerned about soldiers and their families? Is he truly dedicated to trying to solve the current economic crisis, including issues with housing, banking, and the auto industry? Have some of his proposals been good ones, such as an $8000 refundable tax credit for first-time homebuyers? Still haven't seen where any of you cons on here have found one positive. Yvonne and I both quickly rattled off positives we saw as "Bush-bashers". Is it that hard to be intellectually honest rather than partisan?

"You say anyone “perpetually dependent upon the govt. for their life's needs will naturally rely on the govt. in the event of a disaster as they do everything else”. Seriously, this doesn’t have anything to do with race?"

Please keep in mind I lived in France and saw the exact same thing, people who relied on govt. for most of their wants and needs. Majority white btw.

When they didn't get their govt. supplied wants and needs to their satisfaction they went on strike, usually just for a day or two to muck things up and make a statement. I can't count how many times I've been stranded in Europe for a day or two because the train workers were on strike.

My favorite was when the ambulance drivers would go on strike, gotta plan your heart attacks very carefully.

To answer your question, no. Race has nothing to do with it. I've personally witnessed the same phenomena with a predominantly white population that depends upon govt. to take care of them.

zeus,

I know you've gotten frustrated on here, but i really think that reason and logic are the way to go, not one-liners. It's easy to discount someone who tells you to shut up or calls you a name, harder to ignore someone who actually makes an argument you partially agree with. I agree that a lot of the cons on here (as well as some of your so-called "enlightened people")can be offensive and obnoxious, but others are reasonable people at heart who truly love America and feel it's gone astray.

The fact is that everyone on here, and I mean everyone, wants to see the government protect America and help those who are truly in need. We agree that our federal taxes are too high and/or are widely wasted, and that people in Washington and others in government are seldom responsive to what regular Americans feel. In fact, I would venture that each of thinks that all Americans, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, income, etc. should be treated fairly and equally by the government and given due process before the law. Probably that it is important to have clean air and water and basic safety standards in food, working conditions, and products. Probably that there are too many abortions in this country and that late-term abortions are morally abhorrent. Probably that a stable two-parent home with strong family values is the optimal place for a child to be raised. Probably that all Americans deserve a free high-quality education through twelfth grade.

If I'm wrong and anyone disagrees with any of the above, please correct me.

We actually agree on nearly all core American values, not all of which have always been universally held. While we disagree on some very serious points, if we remember that we are all Americans who want what is best for this country, we can have a much more constructive dialogue on here and maybe learn something, too. We no doubt also share that we are set in our ways, but we're obviously interested in sharing ideas and hearing differing opinions, or we wouldn't be here.

Sorry, that wasn't very short.

Dan,

France and New Orleans are not comparable in any meaningful way. France is largely socialist, with people paying high taxes and, reasonably, expecting government services in return. Many of the people in New Orleans who died in Katrina or are still in FEMA trailers pay no taxes because they are extremely low-income. They are far less likely to demand things from the government, though they're probably equally likely to get it. The middle class in France gets far more from the government that ours does, but the poor in both countries can expect that the government will not allow them or their children to go hungry. I am more than willing to pay taxes to prevent child hunger in the world's richest country, and, for that matter, to ensure that all children have access to health care and a quality education. This is not socialist or leftist or anything else other than common decency - even if their parents do have lousy values (and I'm arguing that in general they don't), the kids shouldn't suffer. Isn't this why you mentor?

The discussion yesterday was about race, and included all sorts of coded language. You and several other people were saying things that you would never say in front of a "person of color", and I hope this causes you reflection. I am not calling you a racist, but I do think that you should let your inner values show, even when you're chatting with obnoxious people who probably are racist (ghost comes to mind).

nice 8:51 post eric.

"France and New Orleans are not comparable in any meaningful way."

Oh yes they are. Like here, the producers pay the for the rest in France. And just like here there are non-producers who expect the same services, race not withstanding. There have been violent riots in France regarding this.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9891709/

This story has been told before, I had a friend over there who is a snow ski instructor. He works during ski season but the rest of the year he is unable to practice his profession, thus 'unemployed'. No problem, he collects unemployment the rest of the year and hangs out at the beach courtesy of govt. (read- taxpayer) unemployment benefits.

Trust me, you don't want to have a heart attack on the wrong day over there.

I used to lean liberal until I lived over there. Try it please.

************************************************

You and several other people were saying things that you would never say in front of a "person of color"..."

You are likely correct, due to political correctness it is difficult to speak the truth, lest one be considered a racist using 'coded language'. You have to be black like Bill Cosby to do so.

neocon,

Is it me, or did I address, point by point, each of your questions and you addressed none of mine?

How can you rest your case when you haven't made one?

> Your being comfortable with the state seizing control over a corporation, your 'wait and see' how it goes with a tax evading criminal in charge of the treasury,

The state is not "seizing control over corporations". It is offering to try to keep troubled companies afloat to benefit the U.S. economy, and it very reasonably expects certain guarantees and measures in return.

Who do you prefer for Treas. Sec.? Bush had Hank Paulson, who did not try to seize control but rather offered up taxpayer money which with no strings attached and no accountability!

> ...your 'they all do it' in reference to the banking committee chairman's 'donations',

Do you disagree that they all do it? I acknowledged that I don't like it. I even said I wish they'd stop, and I'll add that I voted for people who will hopefully help make it stop. I don't know what else I can do, man.

> and your inevitable (and very predictable) retro Bush bashing leads me to believe you would also be comfortable in Venezuela, Cuba, and perhaps even California.

Here was what I said about Bush:

">> Impeach now.

>On what possible basis? While Bush, Ashcroft, Gonzalez, and Cheney did some pretty awful, unlawful, and extralegal stuff, I think it would have been tough to impeach Bush. I never favored it, though I did favor removing Clinton from office (albeit so Al Gore would be able to seek re-election shortly thereafter, and because I thought Slick Willie was a tool). Fortunately for moderates, Obama, too, has rejected calls for investigations and inquiries into Bush and co.'s misdeeds, prefering to move forward rather than looking back. "

How is that Bush-bashing? Again, notice your failure to answer my question, so I'll ask it again. Impeach Obama on what possible basis?

I do rather enjoy California - beautiful weather! Never been to Venezuela or Cuba, but I'd love to see them play each other in baseball. I really prefer living right here. This country is awesome!

>I would ask you about health care, but why bother?

I, like most Americans, would like to see everyone in the country have access to health care. There are a lot of potential ways to accomplish this. How did you feel about John McCain's plan to get away from employer-provided health care? I didn't like it, since that's where I get my health insurance from. When my sister's kids were uninsured since she and her husband worked for small businesses, I couldn't afford to pay for their insurance, but would have been happy (and still would be, even though they're insured now) to pay slightly higher taxes in order to help them get it.

Dan,

I was able to tell the truth without using coded language. In fact, I pretty much never use coded language, or racially charged language.

You've never answered my challenge: would you share your posts from yesterday with your Black neighbors? I don't think of you as especially PC, so I don't think that's the issue. IT's okay to occasionally admit that you made a mistake...

Sorry Mr. Eric, I stand by my case, anyone who is thinks their life wants and needs should be answered indefinitely by govt. will end up just that way, dependent upon govt. Race doesn't matter. My black (lower case) neighbors don't depend upon govt., perhaps they would agree.

I said nothing regarding race in NO yesterday. Again: "C'mon sawdust, don't you predict the residents of Fargo, ND will be living in govt. supplied trailers for years to come?"

Check back with me in 3 years and see if residents of Fargo, ND are living in govt. paid trailers ok?

Please take Mrs. Eric _____ and kids if any to live in a socialist country, you will learn a thing or two.

Why do you and neo keep wishing me off to a foreign country? I love living here. You guys are big fans of free enterprise. How would you like it if I kept telling you to move to Liechtenstein?

You yourself acknowledged that you were using coded language, without actually saying the word race. Of course the residents of Fargo won't be using FEMA trailers for the next three years. For two reasons: (1) the disaster there is nowhere near as destructive or fatal as the category 5 hurricane that struck NO, and (2) FEMA in now run by people with experience in emergency management, rather than a cronie. This fact has nothing to do with race, nor to do with the coded language of "those who depend on the government", "entitlement and victim complexes", etc.. The people of Fargo were also better off to start with - far more likely to have insurance, automobiles, etc., for instance, and their median income is nearly twice that of New Orleans.

The only reason I keep suggesting your comment was about race is because of the context you keep leaving out:

Sawdust said:
"rahrah; One of Holder's earliest addresses to the nation, as AG, called us "cowards" when it coms to race, and called for a "dialogue on race". I don't know about you, but I'm 61, and we've been talking about race all my life. People like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton make a living, a very good living, doing nothing but talking about race and stirring the puddin'.

I tend to agree with Monica, the charge of racism is just a handy excuse for bad behavior, which results from bad culture. It will be interesting to see how the residents of Fargo, ND, handle the aftermath of their flooding, as opposed to, say, New Orleans. My guess is that the good folk of Fargo will conduct themselves like human beings, what's your guess? And what is your explanation for it?

Posted on March 31, 2009 6:43 AM"

To which you responded, "C'mon sawdust, don't you predict the residents of Fargo, ND will be living in govt. supplied trailers for years to come?"

Not to mention that the entire thread was about Eric Holder's comments on race.

Is the problem political correctness, or that a lot of White people have a whole lot to say that is racist / racially charged, and that we are a bunch of cowards who won't say it?

Re-reading your post, I'm fairly sure that anyone can agree with the statement that "anyone who is thinks their life wants and needs should be answered indefinitely by govt. will end up just that way, dependent upon govt", since it's fairly circular. Two problems: (1) I remain unconvinced that this statement applies to the vast majority of New Orleans's people, and (2) this is not what you, sawdust, and the others were discussing yesterday.

"How would you like it if I kept telling you to move to Liechtenstein?"

Been there twice, really neat place. I liked the castle upon the hill.

However on the second visit while visiting Vaduz my wife and I had to pee really bad and we couldn't find a public restroom. I finally pulled into a hospital and we peed there.

BTW, Katrina was a Cat 3 when it hit Louisiana.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Katrina

Good night eric, enjoyed the debate.

eric, thanks for responding to my inquiry, and I hasten to say that I agree with a fair amount of what you had to say. But unfortuately you seem to be only "semi-enlightened," speak too softly, and carry a small stick. You're simply too idealistic! We part when you say that "everyone (on here) wants to see the government help those who are truly in need." (Have you been listening carefully to what some of these folks say?) And you say, "each of (?) thinks that all Americans, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, income, etc. should be treated fairly and equally by the government and given due process before the law." ("everyone here, I mean everyone" feels this way? Not so, eric! You may think so, but it's not so!) You just keep talking "long" to these fools, and I'll continue to talk "short" to them, for a short while longer. (But I do enjoy reading your "long posts!) You "semi-enlightened idealistic person you! (And by the way, I'm really not frustrated.) Regards.

"The state is not "seizing control over corporations". It is offering to try to keep troubled companies afloat to benefit the U.S. economy"

This is the view of a statist. One that sees no wrong with government intervention into private enterprise. Capitalism requires a 'hands off' (or a very, very limited role) by government to flourish.

Impeach now because under the guise of 'offering help' the little messiah has used the power of the state to seize control over an American corporation, and if the rumblings are to be believed, and I see no reason not to believe them, this is just the start.

http://www.examiner.com/x-5709-Chicago-Nonpartisan-Examiner~y2009m3d24-Treasury-Secretary-Geithner-wants-more-power-over-financial-firms

POTUS has forced an American CEO out of his position, and nowhere in the Constitution did the founders provide for such an abuse of power. They would have revolted against such tyranny.

Tell me about Bush and Cheney again. How many American corporations did they take over and how many times did they go to congress seeking expanded power to do just that? But please spare me the 'abuses of power' used by Bush to slaughter 900,000,000,000 gazzillion innocent Iraqis in an attempt to justify the little messiah's take over of GM.

Btw, Hank Paulson should be required to share the same prison cell with Geithner.
*******************************************************

If I may: taking a bit of advice from you friend and admirer, zeus may not be a bad thing. Your long posts, where you seem to make the same points over and over, gets a bit monotonous. One loses interest after the second or third one in a row. No insult intended, just suggesting that going on and on with something that could be said in 1/3 of the space/time is preferable to the reader. I don't know about everyone else, but a good deal of my time here is during work hours, and time to respond is limited.

zeus80,

You are right on with regards to eric's idealism. Just assuming or wishing does not make those statements true. Anyone who has been involved in this blog for any length of time knows neocon (only read the portions of his posts that someone else repeats), hugh, TDBB, Sawdust, brian444, Beachwalker, ghost, Grunch, Jprt, Tonymo and usually Dan are the first ones out of the gate to offer negative opinions of Obama, the poor, welfare, race, abortion and liberals.

I do agree with him regarding Dan's effort to be more balanced. The reason Dan fails in that effort sometimes is, he has not changed what's in his heart, only what is in his head. The brain can be sooo self-deluding.

That being said, I defend everyone's right to say what they want as long as it meets the criteria of the N&R.

"you guys"

Nice, eric. Except I don't like either (D)s or (R)s. Two sides of the same coin.

And asking for clarity on an illogical post is partisan? Yikes. FWIW, my initial thought was that "outsider-ness" is like intelligence. If you have to tell people how smart you are, you're not.

You probably haven't read my past posts, but I can sum them all up fairly easily.

Stop meddling.

Example? You say the Bush/AIDS money was a positive. Great.

But I don't think it was. No more positive than one year of massively funding new social programs through a stimulus bill that states have no idea how they'll pay for when the next budget comes around. Funding and then leaving programs to twist in the wind isn't a positive even when we're not in a recession. No Child Left Behind, anyone? And giving away money that isn't yours isn't charitable. It's selfish. Especially when it's done by someone who has shown he doesn't have a tendency towards charitable giving in his personal life until it looks like it might influence an upward political move (outsider, eh?).

Others on your list-
doesn't seem to be (just hesitant, meaning no real compass), nope, hard to say, nope (or yes but he has no idea what he's doing, only that he has to "do something"), nope (low interest rates and low home costs are their own incentives, not bribe money). I'm trying to think... wasn't enticing people into situations ($8k reward this year) that they couldn't afford one of the big problems with the housing bubble mess we're in right now? When we begin to notice that people are buying houses because of this $8k incentive and not because of long-term planning and saving, won't we see similar failure rates as last time? Temporary fixes and goodwill gestures with someone elses money doesn't solve the basic problem that people overextend and don't plan or save.

We should make things harder, not easier. 20% down payments and the like. The market keeps trying to, but we won't let it.

And what has he done to help? Print more money to devalue our currency so that the folks working for minimum wage are making even less now? Put our grandchildren in even more massive debt to China before they're born to further social programs that have been added to the baseline of our annual budget and now must be continually funded from now on under the rushed guise of a "crisis"? Move to create "green collar" jobs that will have to be eternally subsidized and propped up with mandated false-demand that only conitinues to exist because of legislation (see all-items recycling)?

Should we only care about his "concern" and "dedication" and not what he's actually doing?

And notice that nowhere did I make fun of how he says Masatoosits (Massachusetts), OAReeon (Orion), or Pockeyston (Pakistan, but still Afghanistan and somehow never Fronce for France), especially now that you've posted how you're so impressed at how "remarkably articulate" he is and someone else has commended his proper pronunciation. That would be the partisan nonsense of the last few years that people have suddenly become concerned with. But please don't call honest evaluations and valid questions and concerns partisanship.

Back to my question and the definition you referenced. They are mutually exclusive. He can't be both. And there's no good answer to the question- the only reason he can be seen as an outsider is because he's inexperienced, and the only reason he can claim any experience is because he's a career politician.

He's either a D.C. insider or inexperienced. They're different poles of a magnet. They can't exist in the same place. Which is it?

neocon,

from wikipedia:

"Statism (or Etatism) is a term that may refer to any of the following:

Government having a major role in the direction of the economy, both through state-owned enterprises and indirectly through the central planning of overall economy.[1]
The "concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government."[2]
The Fascist concept of statism which holds that "basic concept that sovereignty is vested not in the people but in the national state, and that all individuals and associations exist only to enhance the power, the prestige, and the well-being of the state. The fascist concept of statism repudiates individualsm and exalts the nation as an organic body headed by the Supreme Leader and nurtured by unity, force, and discipline."[3] "

In other words, the government working with private enterprise to try to stabilize the economy is nothing even approaching statism. Are you a Mark Levin fan by chance? FYI the government has played a major role in the economy of the US for about a hundred years. We have a minimum wage, 40 hour work week, FMLA, laws against child labor, OSHA, oversight of insurance companies, utilities, railroads, airlines, etc., not to mention the countless regulations that impact all businesses. The idea that Obama and the "statists" have come in the past two months and completely transformed the nature of the US economy is ludicrous. These companies asked the government / taxpayers for help. It is very likely that the help (read money) provided will turn the economy around. It was in fact lax regulation and laissez-faire policies in investment banking that got us into this mess in the first place!
Speaking of the founders in this context shows a lack of understanding of history. Government involvement in the economy didn't really take off until the regulation of railroads and other trusts about a century ago. The Constitution as it was originally written allowed for slavery and no women's suffrage. It was designed to be changed.

How could I have said that shorter?

"How many American corporations did they take over and how many times did they go to congress seeking expanded power to do just that?"

The answer is the equivalent to the same number of companies Barack Obama has supposedly taken over. Except, uh, O hasn't taken any over because Bush did it first. All O is really doing is flexing the muscle that Bush gave him. After all, the Bush donation did come with strings, albeit vague ones, attached and, as of yet, Obama's actions have all been within the scope of the previous order.

And Bush went to Congress seeking help to do that just once, but then Congress adjourned so Bush just did it anyway.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-33kZpjOq0

"This means the only way to stave off the collapse of the auto industry is for the government to step in."

"...3 months to put in place plans to restructure into viable companies."

Tell me neo, who do you suppose was to determine whether or not the companies were viable?

rbennet,

He's a career politician from Illinois, not Washington. That's how.

See neocon and zeus, I can be brief when it's needed.

1/3 (and counting) of his career has been in D.C. He got there as fast as he could. Also, being brief and avoiding valid points and questions are two different things.

Yvonne and zeus,

It's not idealism to suggest that these guys love America and that we agree on a lot of things. I'm not suggesting we agree on everything, and that's what tends to get discussed on here. If you and/or all the people I named really read the items I named, I truly think we all agree.

zeus said "you... speak too softly, and carry a small stick. You're simply too idealistic! We part when you say that "everyone (on here) wants to see the government help those who are truly in need." (Have you been listening carefully to what some of these folks say?) And you say, "each of (?) thinks that all Americans, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, income, etc. should be treated fairly and equally by the government and given due process before the law." ("everyone here, I mean everyone" feels this way? Not so, eric! You may think so, but it's not so!)."

Let's ask 'em. Any of the cons here disagree with these statements? We may certainly disagree about what "truly in need" means, but let's with go with a severely mentally handicapped abandoned child so we can all agree on that as well.

Also, which one is more likely to get people to actually listen and think: yelling with a big stick, or speaking softly with a small stick?

rbennet,

You mean like when you avoided discussing Obama breaking with his party on several major issues already, such as investigations of the Bush admin. and sending more troops to Afghanistan?

It's difficult to discuss point-by-point your long post because it appears we disagree strongly about government. The fact that you can't get behind the $15 billion that Bush gave toward fighting this AIDS epidemic in Africa means you and I don't have much in common.

Visit http://www.avert.org/aafrica.htm for more info about the AIDS crisis in Africa.

Here's one quote: "Sub-Saharan Africa is more heavily affected by HIV and AIDS than any other region of the world. An estimated 22 million people were living with HIV at the end of 2007 and approximately 1.9 million additional people were infected with HIV during that year. In just the past year, the AIDS epidemic in Africa has claimed the lives of an estimated 1.5 million people in this region. More than eleven million children have been orphaned by AIDS."

These are real people, just like you and me. Most AIDS orphans don't have anyone to adopt them, they just try to live on their own. I can't think of anything I'd rather have my tax money go toward before this. This expenditure also makes the US safer, as people in these parts of the world see as a good Samaritan rather than an imperialist.

Did I get that you were also against recycling? You do realize that trash doesn't "go away" when we put it in the garbage can, right? Can we continue to "throw away" all our waste, without recycling, indefinitely?

> And notice that nowhere did I make fun of how he says Masatoosits (Massachusetts), OAReeon (Orion), or Pockeyston (Pakistan, but still Afghanistan and somehow never Fronce for France), ...

Uh, I think you just did.

I guess you, like all the other cons on here, still can't think of even one positive thing to say about Obama. That really suggests partisanship, not just "honest evaluations and valid questions".

I'll try to get the ball rolling by saying one more positive thing about Bush: I think he truly loves and is committed to his wife. I'll even add: unlike his predecessor, who was a serial adulterer who regularly lied about his marriage and relationships.

"Statism (or Etatism) is a term that may refer to any of the following:

Government having a major role in the direction of the economy, both through state-owned enterprises and indirectly through the central planning of overall economy."

Sounds like an Obama plan to me...(btw, thanks so much for printing out the wiki definition for me, I've been trying to find definitions of words over four letters in length for years...now I know where to go!)

"FYI the government has played a major role in the economy of the US for about a hundred years."

One of my major complaints.

"Speaking of the founders in this context shows a lack of understanding of history."

The liberal elitism is finally starting to show. Opinions are like assholes, and yours is no more valid than mine. Constitutional lawyers use opinion, nothing more. (opinion based on what they want the constitution to mean) It is impossible to know every detail of what the founders intent was.

"It [the constitution} was designed to be changed"

Let's see how far a proposed amendment to allow government seizure of a corporation would get. The liberals in congress would like nothing better, imo, but they lack the balls at this point to bring it up.

I never knew who Mark Levin was until I saw him on the Hannity show a few days ago, but I'm considering ordering his new book.
*******************************************************

"Tell me neo, who do you suppose was to determine whether or not the companies were viable?"

The free market, rahrah, the free market. Not B.Hussein Obama. That's what bankruptcy laws are for.

eric,

"Also, which one is more likely to get people to actually listen and think: yelling with a big stick, or speaking softly with a small stick?"

Uhhh, I'll go with the latter. Calling people clowns, idiots, fools, etc. will earn you only ridicule on this blog.

I've seen an orphanage in Tanzania with my own eyes, filled with a few hundred kids, most of whom lost their parents to AIDS. International aid of this sort is justified. I applaud Bush for his efforts, private citizens like Bill & Melinda Gates, Oprah Winfrey, and organizations like Doctors Without Borders.

Only problem with donating money, and a big one at that, is it needs to have controls to ensure it is spent correctly instead of enriching corrupt govt. officials.

neocon,

> I never knew who Mark Levin was until I saw him on the Hannity show a few days ago

Is that when you started using the word "statist"? C'mon, be honest...

>"...central planning of overall economy."

> Sounds like an Obama plan to me...

Have you ever studied economics? The US has nothing even resembling a centrally planned economy. Cuba does. China does. They might be considered "statist", though most call them communist. Obama, again, like but more effectively than Bush before him, is trying to work with private enterprise to keep the economy afloat temporarily. Business asked Bush and then Obama to help. The two are not comparable.

>(btw, thanks so much for printing out the wiki definition for me, I've been trying to find definitions of words over four letters in length for years...now I know where to go!)

Nice snide remark. Took up four lines of your post, but I'm the one who could shorten up what I say.

>>"FYI the government has played a major role in the economy of the US for about a hundred years."

>One of my major complaints.

Are you opposed to child labor? In favor of a minimum wage? Were the robber barons doing everything right until the gov. came along? The goal of free enterprise (for a given business) is monopoly, achieved by eliminating competition. Consumers (you, me) benefit when there is more competition in industries, but when there are reasonable product safety standards, etc.. Government has generally worked to achieve these goals in the economy. Exceptions obviously exist.

As for the Constitution, liberal elitism, etc., do you think the founders wanted women to vote? slavery to be illegal? did they put in place a mechanism by which the Constitution could be changed?

How would they have felt about the current income tax? NAFTA? Undeclared wars? The New Deal? The World Bank? WIC?

My point was that mentioning the founders in the context of the current bailout situation is not an especially persuasive argument. I wouldn't say you've demonstrated a strong understanding of US history, but I apologize for questioning it. Calling something "liberal elitism" does not make your argument any stronger.

What you have never demonstrated is that the government is attempting to seize any corporation. This is the crux of your argument, but the only example you provide is GM. Obama is not nationalizing GM, he is not replacing the board of directors of GM, he is not seizing the assets, the profits, or anything else belonging to GM. While the word "seized" may be used in the press to describe the terms of the current bailout, you seem to be confusing it with the idea of nationalization, along the lines of what Cuba did during its revolution.

> Only problem with donating money, and a big one at that, is it needs to have controls to ensure it is spent correctly instead of enriching corrupt govt. officials.

100% agree on this - true for NGO aid as well as government aid. This is one problem with helping people in places like Somalia or Sudan. Very impressed by your passion for Africa - not common among Americans. I teach about Africa, Asia, and Australia, so I share your passion.

"Very impressed by your passion for Africa - not common among Americans."

I attended a university in France in the early 80's. Since most French attend the closest university, most go home on the weekends. It's nothing like an American university with all the activities, sports, parties, etc.

I lived in a dormitory with the other "foreigners" who had nowhere to go on weekends, most of whom were African. I spent a lot of weekends with those guys, ate their food, and learned about their countries and customs.

Finally I had a chance to go to Tanzania in '07 and was absolutely enthralled with the place and it's people and really want to go back again.

It is funny when people learn I went there, they always ask if I was on a missionary trip. When I tell them no, I went there on vacation I get a blank stare and "why would you want to go there for vacation"? If they only knew.

So will this thread hit 100 posts? That hasn't happened in awhile.

Yes, I heard Levin say 'statist' . I usually use "nanny staters" to describe liberals who think government knows best how regulate everything from schiiild care to the mpg of our autos.

No, I've never studied economics, but that doesn't void my opinion that that B. Hussein Obama is a socialist and that His plans for SEIZING control of corporations will eventually lead us to the type of government enjoyed by the Cuban people. So you've studied 'economics'? This makes you the authority on socialists governments?

I am opposed to many of the useless 'child labor laws' as defined by the government. Who the hell are they to tell someone 15 years old cannot work for a wage if they so choose?

I am for the abolishment of the minimum wage. Who the hell are they to dictate what an employee is worth?

As for the constitution...your comment on this was in the context that it should be changed to accommodate the government SEIZURE of a struggling corporation, not to allow women to vote. You're being disingenuous.

"What you have never demonstrated is that the government is attempting to seize any corporation."

Tell me, who decided that Rick Wagoner had to go?...was he voted out by the shareholders...or by someone whose only experience in the business world was teaching others how to extort more free money from the government?

I'm not 'confused' about 'nationalization' and 'seized'. Your taking 400 words to deliver a viewpoint that could be stated in 50 neither impresses nor intimidates me. IMO, you're either confused or in denial about what a socialist the little messiah is.

The little messiah is in way over His head and to date all He has proved is He knows how to do is spend out great-grandchildren's' money in a payback scam to His old cronies over at ACORN and other supporters.

"I guess you, like all the other cons on here"

Sorry, wrong again. Please re-read my sentence about the coin. And FWIW from your 11:19 post, "calling something "liberal elitism" does not make your argument any stronger," but repeatedly using "cons" is fine?

Africa-wise, I never said not to help them, but I believe charitable giving should be reserved to individuals and not to government looking to buy favor.

"Americans increased their charitable donations significantly in 2006 to more than $295 billion"

http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2007/June/200706261522251CJsamohT0.8012354.html#ixzz0BXSG8wHI

One positive thing? Sure. Obama hasn't made fun of mentally handicapped people on national TV this week. I don't care about his family. I don't care about a swingset. I didn't care about Clinton's affair (but I did care about the lying-under-oath bit). And I hope people didn't vote for Michelle because of her designer earrings. Obama's political being is all that concerns me. The rest is shallow American Idol crap, as is posting "one positive thing" about Obama. My job is not to praise him. His job is to respond to my criticism. He works for me.

"It's difficult to discuss point-by-point..."

So the discussion stops when it gets hard? Thanks for admitting it and not just hoping to brush it off with a one liner. Didn't you want me to "honestly evaluate the man and his performance"? I did. I won't gush over him. What he has on his iPod isn't important when the value of my retirement dollars has decreased by 30% because he decided to print more money and monetize our debt. I will criticize what I see as major problems. I'm his boss.

"Did I get that you were also against recycling?"

No. Read, please. As was already posted, I'm against legislated and propped up subsidized all-items recycling. Aluminum cans? Fine. There's a demand. All-encompassing recycling? Horribly wasteful and expensive, and unexamined support for it is not to be commended.

Catch up if you want:

http://blog.news-record.com/opinion/letters/archives/2008/01/citys_recycling_program_is_pay.shtml

I'm against unrealistic legislation driving recycling just as I'm against legislated "green collar" jobs. If they can't support themselves they will only exist because more laws requiring them will be written. It's a snake eating its tail.

And sorry neocon, but I've got to ask about this:
"Obama is not nationalizing GM, he is not replacing the board of directors of GM"

Why would you post misinformation like that? Is this part of Obama's "I want you to argue with them and get in their face" call to action? He won. You don't have to pretend anymore:

"The Obama administration will play a key role in reshaping General Motors' board of directors over the next six months, potentially giving it even greater control in the management of the storied American manufacturer...

"There will be continuing coordination as decisions about the leadership of the company are made," a White House official said yesterday. "Folks from the autos task force will be involved in those decisions."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/01/politics/washingtonpost/main4909701.shtml

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29986112/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/31/AR2009033101521.html

Wow. I guess this is what you call a pile-on.

Dan,
I have a good friend who works in Dar es Salaam. Hoping to arrange a trip to see her and the sights this summer!

Neocon,
C'mon, man, you've got to be at least a little impressed that I called you out on Mark Levin and "statist". I'm not your everyday liberal, you know.

As for child labor, again, study history. Child labor laws were instituted in response to this http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/childlabor/empty.jpg and to prevent this http://www.instablogs.com/media/2007/06/child-labor_18.jpg. This stuff is not just rhetoric - it's real kids. Do you have kids? I'm not talking about 14 and 15 year olds, who, incidentally, are allowed to work with a permit. Preferably after school or during the summer, though, rather than instead of school.

Obama is not a socialist, though he might become one if you say it enough, ya never know. He has lowered your taxes since taking office, not raised them.

I certainly never suggested changing the constitution to allow for the seizure (lowercase or in all caps) of a corporation by the government. Look back at our exact quotes. I'm not cutting and pasting anything here so you won't accuse me of writing too much.

You are actually confused as to what socialism is. I'd copy you the definition, but again... An introductory economics class could actually help you understand a lot about the economy, such as appropriate roles of government in intervening and definitions of different economic systems.

Obama didn't fire Wagoner. A panel at Treasury did, in essence. Do you feel this dismissal was wrong? Was GM a very successful company with great leadership? Again, these companies are begging Washington for money. This is fundamentally different than a seizure or nationalization, which is involuntary.

I'm not trying to intimidate or impress you. I'm trying to discuss something with you. I think this post is shorter than your last.

rbennet,

I assume you mean when you said you're neither R nor D. Yeah, me neither. I'm liberal and you're conservative. You can call me "Lib" if you want - God knows everyone else does. I think "cons" is cute and fairly original. It's the only namecalling I'll do on here, and mostly just saves space, which is not my strong suit. :)

Bush was not trying to "buy favor" by giving money to fight AIDS in Africa, though that was one result, he was trying to slow a horrible epidemic that is killing millions and orphaning millions more. I hate to say it, but if these were white people that looked like your kids and friends, would you feel the same way. Visualize before answering, and be honest with yourself.

Your one positive thing about Obama was a snub. I still have not seen one nice thing you or any of the other conservatives on here say one positive thing. That should tell you something about yourself. I completely agree with you that coverage of his iPod, Michelle's arms, etc. is ridiculous. I don't think he's invited this, though, since what he talks about, given the choice, are serious matters such as the economy.

I get that you are in favor of a very limited role for government, and I respect that view. What I meant by it being hard is that your post touched on whole lot of topics, not that I couldn't handle it. I have already addressed most, but I'll also mention that I largely agree with you on No Child Left Behind and many other federal programs that require implementation by individual states - they often do more harm than good.

I misunderstood you on recycling, but certainly still feel that recycling all recyclable materials is the best strategy for the long term, and I'm certainly in favor of green jobs. I think the government plays a role in both of these things, but agree with you that they cannot play the main role, since this is not sustainable. If these proposals never lead to profits and privatization, then they're not good enough ideas and should be improved.

All three,

I still say we agree on more than you think. In most cases, our disagreements are more in degree than in kind. You see a limited role for government, while I see a more active role.

Sorry the post was long, but it was a three-fer.

Eric, if you go you must see the Serengeti Plains and the Ngorongoro Crater. Near the crater is the most awesome place I've ever stayed in my life, Gibbs Farm. Just about everything you eat at the restaurant is grown on site. It's not cheap but well worth it.

http://www.gibbsfarm.net/

So tell me what is the problem with the first link you posted, eric. As long as the (apparent) teens in the photo are getting paid and working with the blessing of their parent/guardian? Do you deem them incapable of performing the task? I couldn't pull up the second link.

All my 'children' are adults, and I'll trust them to make the decision concerning the work rules for their children over some government bureaucrat who never put in an honest days work in his spoon fed life. (can you say 'uncle teddy'?)

"Obama didn't fire Wagoner. A panel at Treasury did, in essence"

Picking peanuts outta $#!+. The buck (is supposed to) stop with the little messiah. Are you suggesting the anointed one never knew about nor had a hand this?

" these companies are begging Washington for money"

And they should have been informed that Washington was not in the business of doling out taxpayers monies to poorly run corporations.

"Do you feel this dismissal was wrong?"

I feel it is none of B. Hussein's concern who runs or doesn't run GM.

BTW, who signs your paycheck? I understand from reading another thread that perhaps maybe...just maybe, mind you, that you are for a more 'active role' by government in the private sector to (perhaps) prevent private sector competency from replacing failed institutions like our public education system that graduates illiterates who cannot balance a checkbook and name the three branches of government? Hmm...

neocon,

So you're opposed to public education?

The second link was a picture of one of the many pre-teens (kid's about 6) around the world who work instead of going to school. Like many poor kids did in the US before they passed child labor laws. Their parent's blessing probably comes from the fact that they're poor. In addition to protecting individual children from exploitation, child labor laws protect the future of the country, in that children need to be educated. Parents may be too short-sighted and/or needy to consider this.

I get that you're opposed to the bailout of GM and other companies. Why engage in all the ridiculous hyperbole instead of just saying that? It's not socialism. It's not seizure or nationalization or anything else. It's a bailout. And you're against it. I get it. I'm not sure how I feel about it, myself. I guess you've assumed that I favor it, since I've been trying to get you to discuss it with accurate, less loaded terms, but I'm really not sure where I stand.

"Parents may be too short-sighted and/or needy to consider this."

Nothing exemplifies the liberal mind like this statement. The state knows best.

I'm opposed to a system that enjoys a monopoly (where oh where have I heard that word lately?) where education is concerned. I'm opposed to a system where incompetent employees are guarded and protected by their state run union that isn't really a 'union'. I'm opposed to a system that wastes billions of taxpayers' money busing students so they can experience 'diversity'.

Yes, it's well past time to shut down these little government indoctrination camps that litter the landscape where many graduates cannot read, do basic math, or name the speaker of the house.

I'm opposed to government interference in free enterprise. Call it what you wish. Government interference in the private sector = socialism. You can dress it up with links to wiki till the cows come home and it still smells like, looks like, and feels like socialism. It must be socialism.

"The free market, rahrah, the free market. Not B.Hussein Obama. That's what bankruptcy laws are for."

I understand that that is how you would prefer it. I just don't think that's what George Bush intended when he signed the Executive Order giving Chrysler and GM billions of dollars and the government much more control over their operations.

The point that I'm trying to make is that you say, "Obama's taking over these companies," when the truth is that Bush did the taking. Obama's just exercising that power.

You can be against it, I don't care, but admit, at the very least, that there are two bogeymen here.

eric,

You'll just have to learn that neo's against all things good and for all things eeevil. ;)

There are many more than two bogeymen, rahrah.

--
eric,

Wow.

"I'm liberal and you're conservative. You can call me "Lib" if you want"

and
"but if these were white people that looked like your kids and friends... be honest with yourself."

and
"That should tell you something about yourself"

But nowhere was anything coherently addressed. Just categorization, race card, and straw men. Something about "feel" and something about "think", but nothing based on facts like these:
http://www.ecologycenter.org/ptf/misconceptions.html
(love misconception #5)

You're a teacher? Through your actions, are you teaching your students to handle opposing viewpoints the same way?

(It's what plants crave)

Anyway, you seem to agree with me about the American Idol drivel, yet you go on to complain that I still haven't submitted the same. Fine. I have two. His labiodental fricatives are remarkable, and people can relate to him. I don't personally see the latter, but my British co-worker often comments on how surprised he is that a lifetime private-schooler can be so bloody common.

Oh, and his bowing looks to be top notch.

You completely ignored my question of why you posted misinformation regarding the board of GM. I request an answer.

I was equally against Bush's 'bailouts', but the little messiah has taken the country to new depths. The anointed one has proposed more spending in 8 weeks than Bush spent in 8 years.

Bush fired no one in the private sector. The little messiah did, and if He gets gets His way, there will be a lot more getting their private sector pink slips from the government. It saddens me to no end that He is doing this with the blessings of many of the citizens of this once great country. The entitlement mentality combined with the class envy propagated by the PR wing of the democratic party has turned us into a nation of sheep, where we cheer a socialist politician who has seized control over a corporation and mewl for more of the same.

Pitiful.

i fear that eric will miss the joke and the point.

it's real.

http://www.brawndo.com/
http://www.drinkredux.com/products.aspx

it'll help you 'win at yelling.'

99

100, sorry but I couldn't help it.

"Yes, it's well past time to shut down these little government indoctrination camps that litter the landscape where many graduates cannot read, do basic math, or name the speaker of the house."

Took my "little brother" out with my kids this afternoon, he is 8 years old. The subject of how many states we have came up, he answered 12. I know his family is incapable of teaching him much but I thought 8 year old school children would be taught by the schools that we have 57 states. Or is it 58 or 59? I'm confused.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws

I double dog dare anyone to sit through the entirety of his G-20 press conference without forwarding past the bulk of his articulateness.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/30000586#29990244

Damn, it took me so long to read this blog I almost forgot I had a nice link for everyone to enjoy:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YWI4ZDcwMzNiZmQ5MmQ4MzkwNjEyOGEyMGU3N2JmMjY=&w=MA==

Neocon,

>>"Parents may be too short-sighted and/or needy to consider this."

>Nothing exemplifies the liberal mind like this
statement. The state knows best.

I was talking about, for instance, parents in Pakistan who sell their children into slavery. Or perhaps sharecroppers who had just emerged from slavery. Or recent immigrants around the turn of the century who saw little opportunity in education. Go back and look at the context.

You know absolutely nothing about my mind. I was merely suggesting that without the government passing child labor and compulsory education laws (as they did here), children who are not "teens" might still be working in dangerous jobs rather than attending school (as they do in many other countries and used to here). Perhaps Dan can speak to this, having visited Africa.

eric, I simply want all American children to go to school and learn that we have 50 states, not 12 nor 57.

P.S. I want African children to go to school too.

rbennet,

Awesome link about plastic recycling. I just learned recently that Greensboro only recycles plastic containers with "necks", for instance, and have been really pleased by the recent popularity of reusable shopping bags over "paper or plastic". I guess you didn't read the whole link, though, since the last three "Strategies to Reduce the Environmental Impact of Plastics", which follow the misconceptions, all call for government mandates, precisely what you said you oppose.

Here's your link again: http://www.ecologycenter.org/ptf/misconceptions.html . Now look at the bottom:

"3. Require producers to take back resins
...

4. Legislatively require recycled content
...
5. Standardize labeling and inform the public
..."

Your "facts" are more in favor of government-mandated recycling than I am!

Incidentally I'm an awesome teacher, and I encourage my students to always analyze evidence before reaching conclusions, to respect others' opinions, and to effectively develop arguments to support their viewpoints. This is also how I try to conduct myself both in life and on here.

Do you deny that you are conservative and I'm liberal? While you may not identify yourself as a con (sorry, couldn't resist), anyone else reading your statements would. I'm not terribly liberal, but like the label, based on its historic meaning.

I don't know whether race figures into (what I perceive as) your lack of empathy for AIDS victims and orphans in Africa or not. I was asking you to self-reflect and ask yourself if it might. I can't get in your mind, but I suspect that if you heard that 1.5 million White American children were orphaned by a particular disease, you would be willing to "donate" some of your tax dollars toward preventing it. This is an entirely preventable epidemic, but it costs a lot of money, since HIV medication, which allows people to live with HIV (like they do here) instead of dying of AIDS (like they do there), is prohibitively expensive for most of the world's people. Maybe there's no racial dimension. Maybe you actually have a lot of empathy and are just damn stingy. Maybe I'm way off base. But I don't think it's out of line for me to suggest that you reflect on this.

dan,

Looks like we would have made it past 100 anyway.

My students not only know that we have 50 states, but what the 50 states are, and that Puerto Rico, Guam and others are territories rather than states. Most can come up with cogent arguments why these two have not been granted statehood.

Most can also name and label all the countries in Africa and most in Asia, and know more about African and Asian history than most college professors (outside the history dept.). It helps that I have an awesome content knowledge base to share with them, that I developed in my own education in public schools at at a state university.

Sadly, social studies in general is by far the most neglected subject in public schools today, since there is immense pressure for students to perform in reading and math but none in history or geography. Your little brother probably doesn't learn social studies or science at all, since these subjects have been pretty much removed from elementary schools. While I teach my students the awesome depth and breadth of knowledge I shared above, I usually also have to teach them to read a map and the difference between continents and countries. If you're concerned about public schools' teaching of social studies and/or critical thinking, talk to your school board member, congressman, or other representative about the importance of these areas, because they are not currently tested and are therefore deemed expendable.

I'll teach my kids what the schools don't eric, my son could identify all 50 states when he was 3 years old. No need to contact my congressman, I will pick up the slack for my kids.

It simply amazed me that my 8 year old little brother replied that we have 12 states. And that our president replied that we have 57 states :--)

Hopefully Monsieur Obama now knows we have 50 states.

Dan,

C'mon now, surely you recognize 57/58 states was a joke. Don't you see the little grin when he says it? Sad that there are so many on youtube and the net who actually think the Pres. is that dumb. I'll admit it wasn't a very good joke, but pleeeeeease tell me that you know it was a joke. You're the only con on here for whom I'm holding out much hope....

Overtaxed,

Wow that article wasn't biased at all. National Review is where I get all my news. They were especially prescient about how the Iraq War would go, as I recall.

You must really like reading my long-winded posts. I couldn't believe you read this whole thread until I read the verbose piece of crap you linked to. If you read that whole thing, you're a real trooper.

Found you cons an awesome link on National Review (online)'s predictions for 2003 - not a joke but it'd be hilarious if not for its deadly seriousness.

http://www.nationalreview.com/symposium/symposium122702.asp

Here's a sample in case you won't bother with my link:

Frum: "...the U.S. will take military action in Iraq in 2003 or that such action will be swiftly successful. So let me try some more audacious ones. We will see none of the threatened consequences of the war — the price of oil won't spike, the Arab street won't rise, and anti-American sentiment in the Middle East won't be inflamed. Instead, Americans and liberated Iraqis working together will stun the world by bringing the nation's sabotaged oilfields rapidly back into production. By year-end, the price of a barrel of oil will fall below $20..."

Goldberg: "Osama bin Laden's death will be confirmed. "

Hanson (author of overtaxed's link): "Parts of bin Laden's corpse will turn up.
The anthrax attacks will be positively linked to Iraq and al Qaeda."

O'Beirne: "Elsewhere: Once Saddam Hussein is toppled, there will be regime change in Saudi Arabia. Iran too. And, Arafat will be ousted."

Yeah, so, overtaxed, I'll pass on these guys' predictions for Obama's next few years.

here's a more balanced look at Obama's first days...

http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displayStory.cfm?story_id=13362078

"I was talking about, for instance, parents in Pakistan who sell their children into slavery"

But the immediate subject matter at hand was US schiiild labor laws...not Paaaakistan laws, or the lack of. When was the last time you purchased an American slave? (schiiild or otherwise)

"You know absolutely nothing about my mind."

On the other hand, YOU have all the 'cons' figured out.

Got it.

rahrah, your 'balanced' piece on the little messiah starts out with His 'impressive achievement' of spending $787 billion of other peoples' money.

Pretty impressive, to be sure.

No one managed the press conference? Oh well. I couldn't, either.

eric, in order:

The recycling link, from a pro-recycling group, had a fact. I posted referring to it. Those things at the bottom are "Strategies to Reduce the Environmental Impact of Plastics", not facts.

I shouldn't have to point such simple things out, so please read more carefully.
--

"analyze evidence before reaching conclusions, to respect others' opinions, and to effectively develop arguments to support their viewpoints. This is also how I try to conduct myself both in life and on here."

I'm sure you're an awesome teacher, but please, on here, try harder. I respect and enjoy opposing viewpoints (ask JDR, verelse, rahrah, and others) because I learn from them, but I also expect a solid debate, as do they. Monkeys flinging poo is the next blog over.
--

Wow, you're back on your diversionary non-topic of race.
--

And once again you completely ignore my question of why you posted misinformation regarding the board of GM.

I request an answer to that specific question.

"C'mon now, surely you recognize 57/58 states was a joke"

I didn't see it as a joke, rather a result of campaign trail fatigue. I trust someone running for president will know how many states we have.

What is scary is that an 8 year old public school student thinks we have 12 states.

neocon,

What I was saying about child labor laws is that they were passed in response to, and in order to prevent, exactly the type of exploitation of children that still occurs in other countries. You seemed to be saying that they only affected 15-yr-olds and that parents and/or kids themselves should be free to make decisions about labor without government interference. I agree when a kid is 15, lives in the U.S., and has responsible parents - such a person is already allowed to work with a permit. Our child labor and compulsory education laws, which you have expressed displeasure with, PREVENT the type of problems that used to exist here and still exist in most of the Third World. I'm not changing the subject, you're just not listening.

I never claim to know what you guys are thinking or to know your "minds". I have asked you to self-reflect and have questioned your thoughts and feelings, but I would never attempt to tell you what you think, since I don't know.

rahrah's piece was indeed very balanced. The second paragraph listed "failures". I guess you prefer articles where he is called "little messiah"? Overtaxed can probably find you something...

rbennet,

You said:
"And sorry neocon, but I've got to ask about this:
"Obama is not nationalizing GM, he is not replacing the board of directors of GM""

I thought you were addressing neocon, not me, that's why I didn't respond. To nationalize a company means to take control of not only the leadership of the company, but its assets and profits. The Treasury Dept. has not done this with any company. Treasury (not Obama, but rather a continuation of Bush's policy) has shaken things up at GM, and I think most people agree they needed shaking up. This did include replacing the some of the board of directors as well as the CEO, I believe, but it was not done by Obama himself.

Your tone is getting pretty offensive and less than civil. I've not once on here insulted or berated you, despite the fact that you've not responded to virtually anything of substance that I've said. I can't try harder. I've addressed every bit of minutae that the three of you throw at me, and there's only so much time in the day. What would be nice is if you guys addressed some of my direct questions for a change of pace.

Dan,

This is what I'm trying to tell you - they don't teach social studies in elementary school. They are explicitly told not to, in many cases, because it is not a tested subject so politicians and the public are perceived not to care about it. Unless your mentee has been taught by his parents or by you, he probably won't learn how many states there are or what the states are until at least 5th grade. It sounds like the problem is either (1) we should teach social studies and science in elementary school, &/or (2) this kid's parents should teach him more about geography. I'd agree with both of these, but they are no reflection on the quality of schools, only on the realities we face daily. I expect his school does an excellent job and has countless programs when it comes to teaching him math and reading.

"The biggest surprise of Mr Obama’s first two months has not been his policy preferences (most of which he advertised), but a certain lack of competence." The Economist

"your 'balanced' piece on the little messiah starts out with His 'impressive achievement' of spending $787 billion of other peoples' money."

I'd think you'd have to agree, neo, that passing a $787 billion stimulus bill makes an impression.

I'd hope the line didn't preclude you from reading the rest.

rahrah,

Safe to assume that it did.

It certainly wasn't a flattering article, and I didn't necessarily agree with a lot of it, but it was definitely "balanced" as you advertised.

"It sounds like the problem is either (1) we should teach social studies and science in elementary school, &/or (2) this kid's parents should teach him more about geography."

(1) yes, it should be taught by the schools. I'd rather kids learn about the planet they live on rather than how to put a condom on a cucumber. Considering how interconnected the world is now geography should really be taught. Hey it might even help them learn about diversity!!

(2) good luck with this kid. His mom is in jail and his dad is a drunk and he probably couldn't identify half the states on a map. Even though the kid doesn't know how many states there are at least he knows how many beers come in a case.

We don't teach about condoms at all at my school, nor do they at most schools. Then again, perhaps if the drunk and the criminal had known how to put one on a cucumber, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

http://www.mcpscurriculum.com/video.shtml

So they obviously do that in one county in one state. What about the millions of other children in the country? You might be overgeneralizing there.

125 posts, can't remember that in all these years. I realize not all schools do this, but give it time. It shouldn't be done in the first place.

Still a couple more left, Dan.

"Your tone is getting pretty offensive and less than civil."

Sorry eric, you're right. I'll try to cut back on using my "negative/ruse/prisoner" double entendre and will also try to avoid repeatedly turning the discussion to implications on your inherent racism.

Any of your on-topic "of substance" questions have been addressed. And then some.

My "sorry neocon" was for potentially stepping on another poster's toes if he wanted to inquire about your "board of directors" post. You'll notice the next time I asked it was under the "eric" catch-all.

Your words @ 11:19am, April 2,
"he is not replacing the board of directors of GM..."

are untrue. What I'm trying to determine is whether it was intentional or if you were just uninformed. Your last post to me, while appreciated, didn't cover it, so I'll ask again as I've asked before. Remember, you wrote:

(quote)
"he is not replacing the board of directors of GM"
(end quote)

While the news had previously reported:

"The Obama administration will play a key role in reshaping General Motors' board of directors over the next six months, potentially giving it even greater control in the management of the storied American manufacturer...

"There will be continuing coordination as decisions about the leadership of the company are made," a White House official said yesterday. "Folks from the autos task force will be involved in those decisions."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/01/politics/washingtonpost/main4909701.shtml

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29986112/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/31/AR2009033101521.html
(end news quotes and links)

Which is why I asked about the misinformation. Did you know and post anyway, or did you not know and post anyway?

When they say the Obama administration, they mean the Treasury Dept.. Obama is a person, who played and will play no role in selecting GM's board of directors, since he's busy doing important things. I notice you dropped the thing about nationalizing the company. Did you look it up?

Okay so I've answered one more of your questions. Here are the substantive points and questions on this thread that I have addressed specifically to you but to which you have not responded:

* Do you guys really think the Democrats wanted Obama to win the nomination originally?

* Am I the only person who's noticed that he's bucking his party on a whole lot of stuff, and that he does things differently than other people in Washington?

* Is he thoughtful and reflective before reaching decisions? Does he genuinely care about regular Americans? Is he genuinely concerned about soldiers and their families? Is he truly dedicated to trying to solve the current economic crisis, including issues with housing, banking, and the auto industry?

[I did find your half-assed half-answers: "doesn't seem to be (just hesitant, meaning no real compass), nope, hard to say, nope (or yes but he has no idea what he's doing, only that he has to "do something")" that really offer nothing of substance, but I guess I'll count them. Note that my answers to your questions are a lot more thorough and thoughtful.]

*The fact is that everyone on here, and I mean everyone, wants to see the government protect America and help those who are truly in need. We agree that our federal taxes are too high and/or are widely wasted, and that people in Washington and others in government are seldom responsive to what regular Americans feel. In fact, I would venture that each of thinks that all Americans, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, income, etc. should be treated fairly and equally by the government and given due process before the law. Probably that it is important to have clean air and water and basic safety standards in food, working conditions, and products. Probably that there are too many abortions in this country and that late-term abortions are morally abhorrent. Probably that a stable two-parent home with strong family values is the optimal place for a child to be raised. Probably that all Americans deserve a free high-quality education through twelfth grade.

If I'm wrong and anyone disagrees with any of the above, please correct me.

* You mean like when you avoided discussing Obama breaking with his party on several major issues already, such as investigations of the Bush admin. and sending more troops to Afghanistan?

* You do realize that trash doesn't "go away" when we put it in the garbage can, right? Can we continue to "throw away" all our waste, without recycling, indefinitely?

* Do you deny that you are conservative and I'm liberal?

So do you stand by your statement that, "Any of your on-topic "of substance" questions have been addressed. And then some."?

You're still welcome to answer any of them, btw. That's why I asked. I actually wanted to know. Even willing to endure the hate you've been spewing in order to get there.

This thread is toast, won't likely be on the list of links tomorrow. It's been a good one. Thanks eric, get back to teaching sometime eh?

I dropped the nationalizing part to make your comment easier for you to see. Yes, I did look it up to be sure I was right. And I was. And I provided a link.

You're making distinctions between the physical Obama and his administration? Wow. Then technically you agree that Bush was fine since he never personally waterboarded anyone, right?

See the flaw?

More answers to your questions:

Unknown.

I don't know.

Already answered those. Sorry you didn't like them. As has been shown, I can provide yes and no answers as well as thorough and thoughtful ones. Please read.

Your "the fact is" paragraph is nice, but you've already posted that you tend to see government as the default answer while I don't. And, where it is the default answer for me, it should be handled at the lowest possible level.

Have investigations been discussed on the Senate floor? If not he's not breaking from anything. You fall for semantics to believe otherwise. The only things that count are those that are voted on or passed as laws.

"The war on terror is in Afghanistan."
Pelosi, Jan. 31, '07

http://www.npr.org/about/press/2007/013107.pelosi.html

You were saying?

You fail to understand my point about recycling. The links I provided went into great detail. Read if you'd like to understand.

You've labeled yourself. That's fine. What's not fine is using cutesy double-entendres to try to distract a debate. Use facts. They're infinitely more useful than calling names.

Yes.

Please demonstrate one "spewing" of hate from me as I believe you're mistaking me with someone else. Just one will do.