A study of history shows that no power (nation) stays on top of the world forever. World power will always balance out, usually at the great misfortune of the former "superpower". We [the US] are not the exception to this rule.

The sad thing is that there's no reason America can't continue its status. Apathy is our only downfall. Just plain old laziness.

That's the biggest reason for the fall of the Roman Empire. The people stopped caring. They didn't care about the political corruption, they didn't care about their declining economy, they didn't care about illegal immigration (yes, it was a problem back then too), they didn't care about maintaining the army, they didn't care about the rule of law.

It's amazing how little people learn from history.

We all know how great Obama is, but did you ever realize he was THIS GOOD?

:lol:

If the Republicans pick Ron Paul as their candidate (which I strongly doubt), I'm switching parties. "Insane" foreign policy, my ass—his is the most rational I've ever heard of! As for his economic views, well...regulation or not, there seems to be negligible difference. The federal government might as well itself be a Fortune 500 corporation. And as much as I'm for states' rights, I worry that it might merely result in state governments intruding on liberties instead of the federal.
I dunno, though...I smell hypocrisy on him somewhere. That's how things work on Capitol Hill. Even if he's as honest as he seems, as President, he'd be hard-pressed to get things done with Congress and the S.C. jerking him around and the media smearing him. We'd have to follow up by voting more independents into the other two branches when the midterms come 'round, and there aren't many. Cleaning house just isn't that simple. The bastards could impeach him on some trumped-up charges if they had to, but it'd be easier to just tie his hands. The greedheads aren't gonna let one guy upset the applecart, no matter how many people support him.

Found this on youtube somehow. Thought it was funny to see Newt Gingrich get all moral:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Yf_0...acFOAAAAAAACAA

He's absolutely right. Is this the most pressing issue in the presidential race? Hardly. Why is it asked then? To take out another target liberals fear.

This is the man who was cheating on his wife while leading the charge to impeach Clinton? The man who got his wife to divorce him while she was riddled and weak with cancer? The idea that this man puts on the mantle of unadulterated purity, of some kind of virtuous defender is just silly.

We all err. It's not the end of the world. And I get it: some people sometimes fall out of love and fall in love with someone else and can't figure out how to deal with the marriage that has now ended because they fell in love with someone else. But when you are a member of a party that portrays itself as "moral," as defenders of some "Christian morality" or something and then you too err, you can't expect others to just accept your act and righteous plea for privacy and understanding.

Newt is known for not exactly being chaste and going after Clinton. That's the thrust of my having posted the video. I found his act funny. It was well written. It was also cynical.

I should have been clearer about my intentions. Then again you probably surmised them but hey, anything to perpetuate the idea that conservatives are persecuted.

Good points. Like many other beacons of christian morality (catholic priests who sexually abuse little boys, Falwell, etc) he's a hypocrite. I knew during the Lewinsky thing that it was more about getting Clinton out of office than morals and I was against the GOP trying to impeach Clinton over BS like that. I'm not concerned with who Clinton receives sexual favors from, and I'm not concerned with who Gingrich divorces or marries. It has nothing to do with balancing the budget or my freedoms or about anything I want the government to improve on. Which, again, is why it was ridiculous to open a presidential debate over jr high bs like that. There's real issues to discuss.

Reginald D Hunter (an American comedian) on Batman:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8l1PMVvfjDM

RIP Andrew Breitbart,
you will be missed!

I wish an early death upon no one, but it seems to me that anyone who would miss the provocateur Andrew Breitbart's uncivil, vitriolic, and patently false "contributions" to public discourse is revealing things about herself or himself that I would think that person would want to keep private.

Alex Pareene, writing on Salon.com, categorizes Breitbart's "contributions" quite well:

• Scalp-hunting

Pareene describes this as "the elevation and demonization of some usually obscure liberal figure done in the hopes of getting them nationally shamed and fired." As an example, he cites the Shirley Sherrod video -- which "blew up in Breitbart's face -- and notes that this kind of false demonization is so much more successful when you do it "with dead people, like Saul Alinsky" (whose famous book, notably, is required reading for many of the Tea Party leaders, and not to "know one's enemy" but as an organizing guide).

• The false "proof"

Pareene notes, "It is a sad fact of online publishing that some ridiculous portion of readers only read the headlines and look at the pictures before moving on." He describes how Breitbart's websites exploit this fact: "'OBAMA MARCHES WITH NEW BLACK PANTHERS,' or something like that, goes the headline. The story can?t support the claim. It doesn?t matter. The headline means it?s true for the majority of the readership."

Notably, Breitbart's last, great "contribution" to our political discourse has just hit the streets. It's the video that he boasted would take down the president. In it, Obama -- then the president of Harvard Law Review -- is speaking at a peaceful rally on the Harvard campus in support of Derek Bell, the first black professor at the Law School. The rally was called in support of getting Harvard to offer tenure to black professors.

The full video was shown on Sean Hannity's show on Fox "News" Channel. He had Breitbart.com editor-in-chief Joel Pollak on as a guest. Pollak described Bell as the "Jeremiah Wright of academia."

You see, once you've said that, and counting on no one to pay much more attention, you've got the "headline" Breitbart was after. It's a headline that throws a bomb into civil discourse and upsets real discussion about real issues.

Yeah, Tracy Coxx, you should be very proud of your view that he will be "missed."

Harvard should absolutely not deny tenure based on race. At the same time, they should not grant tenure based on race. Both those actions are by definition, racist.

But anyways, I'll grant that it's important to Obama that a black professor have tenure. It's interesting that he throws all his support behind this guy though. Is it because he identifies with prof Bell, or is it just because prof. Bell happens to be the only choice at the time and any black professor would do?

Congratulations. You already know the answers to these rhetorical questions, but it is a notable, new way of dodging the substance of the post about Breitbart.

The current topic, with Breitbart dead and his video just released is the video. That is the substance, and you did address this in your response. Your frustration with the way people digest news is just that - your frustration, and not the current topic. So rather than whine about it I went straight to the relevant part of your posting.

You're quick to dismiss the two possible answers I listed rather than refuting them. I guess you're accepting at least one of them. Your response is that of the media's - ignore it and hope that it goes away. The president is endorsing a guy with this extremist racist ideology and the media is going to just shrug. This is the same media who stormed Alaska when Sarah Palin was announced as McCain's running mate and paid hackers for her emails and did exhaustive investigations on her family.

Oh well, that's my particular frustration if anyone cares. Breitbart is out of the way. Obama can go back to having MediaMatters dictate stories for the news outlets and strong arm all opposition for the rest of the election.

Back to one of the relevant topics. What does everyone think about Obama's support for Bell? Is it because he identifies with an extremist like prof Bell, or is it just because prof. Bell happens to be the only choice at the time and any black professor would do?

I will respond later this morning to the bulk of your post; right now, I must leave for a short while. But the relevant part of my post that you did not answer is this:

I wish an early death upon no one, but it seems to me that anyone who would miss the provocateur Andrew Breitbart's uncivil, vitriolic, and patently false "contributions" to public discourse is revealing things about herself or himself that I would think that person would want to keep private.

And that is what you continue to ignore.

Really? lol sorry I didn't consider that relevant at all

Of course, you didn't, because then you might actually have to answer for the destructive nature of Breitbart's participation in our national political discourse. And as we know, that part of your political perspective, expressed so often on this site, is not something you can defend ... at least judging from the fact that you ignore it whenever called out, or start whining about how you're being abused.

To clarify, the protest in question was not to get tenure but to support Derrick Bell's call for greater diversity in the faculty and granting of tenure to minorities. Now, on to answer Tracy Coxx, as promised earlier.

Ensuring diversity in a university faculty has long required some form of affirmative action in hiring and tenure-granting. Your characterization of this as "racist" suggests that there is no real point in trying to have a real discussion about the issue, unless you are willing to acknowledge the disadvantage that people of color have generally had because of the discrimination they have suffered from an early age, which results in far fewer potential professors.

By the way, Derrick Bell was granted tenure (before the protest in the "Breitbart video," because he was an eminent scholar, first and foremost. Affirmative action for tenure is not about granting exclusively on the basis of race, but on making an extra effort to find qualified candidates who will bring diversity to a faculty ... because such diversity strengthens the educational process for students.

Obama, like most of the Harvard Law School students, identified with Bell's call for diversity in the faculty ... precisely because they saw it as good for their own educations.

What a crock of shit. What a poor attempt to change the subject by making it about the media and bringing up Sarah Palin. (By the way, I think that the stuff about Sarah Palin's family was disgusting and shameful to have released publicly, regardless of whether any of it was true).

You should have worked with Breitbart, because by calling Bell "a guy with this extreme racist ideology" and then saying the "president is endorsing" him, you have done exactly what Breitbart did with the smear of Shirley Sherrod (I refer those interested to Google the words Breitbart and Sherrod)

Get out much? How's the view with your head in the sand? The idea that "MediaMatters dictates stories for the news outlets" and that the opposition is being strong-armed is nothing but talking points. It's not real discussion Prove your patently false claim.

I refer all to the points above. Bell's tenure was not in question. And define "extremist" in this context. I think it means anyone who doesn't correspond to the TracyCoxx world view.

Occupy Oakland:

http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2012/01...veloping-story

SMC,

I'm curious how far you think affirmative action should be extended within academia. As you know, I live in Maine, and it is a VERY white state. Based on 2010 census data, over 95% of the Maine population is white. The remaining ~5% is divided almost equally between blacks, Hispanics, Asians, etc.

With these numbers in mind, if the racial profile of the academic institution is to match the wider state demographics, then approximately 1 out of every 100 professors should be black. One should be Asian, etc.

Is this acceptable? Given that we are a "white state," should our academic institution mirror the broader demographic that exists here? Or should the school go out of its way to ensure a "more diverse" institution than exists in the broader population? And if the answer is to be "more diverse" than our native population-- how far is enough? Two black professors out of every hundred? Three? Five?

I'm not asking this to be condescending or anything-- I'm really curious. I value diversity (especially in academia), but I've always had a tough time with affirmative action. I don't entirely disagree with it; however, neither do I completely endorse said policies.

The GOP are screaming cut spending do away with medicare
And yet thanks to goverment cadliac heathplans that all the sen and house plus unsurpeme court presidents and vice presidents enjoy at tax players exprnse
The American people [tax payers] just got a good :coupling: today as we had to pay for Dick Cheneys heart transplant
A few hundred k to keep that MF alive
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

Keeping my fingers crossed that the Supreme Court will do the right thing & kick out Obamacare... with that and hopefully a favorable election in 2012 and maybe this whole thing will just become a bad memory.

Who ever believes that this unsupreme court will make there ruling based on the law and not party dogma stand on your head and spin
The block of five already know how they would vote even before a sign word was said want proof just look at Thomas who just sat there not making a peep or asking one single question
It'll be another five to four vote with the five in lock step just like there five to four vote giving America the biggest :coupling: in 2000 with putting W in the white house
Where's the GOP's outrage about activest judges? as none are more activest judges then the gang of five who can careless about law and only care about there parties dogma
the supreme court should be done away with all together
:turnoff: Jerseygirl Jen

C'mon, Jen, you know that a judge is only an "activist judge" when he or she disagrees with the right-wing ideologues. Otherwise, they are "constitutionalists."

LOL yeah, that'll happen.

Btw, here's a few numbers for you Jen.

Obama says Obamacare will cost $900 Billion over the next decade.
Then the congressional budget office says it will actually cost $1.76 Trillion.
Quite a bit more eh? But hold on to your socks. It was recently learned that the number went up to $2.6 trillion over the next decade.

Oh if it were only that cheap. They continued looking into it and the number is up to $17 trillion in unfunded liabilities. This comes from Obama's own numbers when combined with existing medicare and medicaid funding shortfalls.

This is what happens when you take a democrat's word when she says "You'll have to pass it to find out what's in it."

This bill alone, that was put together behind closed doors, and delivered to congress in the form of a 2000+ page bill that you know good & well no one had a chance to read but a fraction of it, will double our national debt within 10 years. Our current debt level and problems with passing a budget already took us from a 5 star rating to 4 stars for the first time in history. What effect do you think this will have?

I can look into your future though. When the next republican comes into office, you'll be cursing their name because of the $17T debt that developed during their terms LOL.

I've been following the news of this court case from my side of the border. According to one legal analyst in the US, Obama's proposal does not fall withing the jurisdiction of your federal government. However, it would be legal for any state to implement such a program.

Right, like Mitt Romney's healthcare program for his state. States are test-beds where things like this can be tried out, although I don't see the point since once you bring it up to the federal level it becomes unconstitutional.

Unconstitutional in YOUR opinion, and that of some ideologues on the Supreme Court. Whether they are on the "left" or "right," those who rule on the constitutionality of these sorts of things (unlike, say, the equal protection clause), where the Founders are not around to chime in, are doing so based as much on subjective interpretation as objective fact.

Don't take my word for it. Take Obama's... well at least the one on the right :lol:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOaLLdpVzAs

The Constitution empowers Congress to regulate interstate commerce. Now whether you believe this power should be interpreted broadly or narrowly may depend on your political stripes; however, the Court's earlier rulings in Wickard and Raich so broadened the interpretation of what constitutes "regulating interstate commerce" that I'd personally consider ANYTHING fair game. Normal judicial interpretation would be bound by precedent set by the earlier Court rulings-- but I'm sure the block of 5 are figuring a technical loophole so that they can say Wickard, et al. does not in fact apply.

What's interesting is, Congress could have EASILY mandated a flat tax on EVERY citizen (let's call it the Health Care Tax). They could have then offered an offsetting tax credit (equal to the original tax) for anyone that had qualifying health insurance. This would have easily fallen under Congressional authority to tax. This would have had the same practical effect as the insurance mandate. A lot of the Constitutionality of the mandate hinges upon whether it is in fact a tax or a penalty. The political distaste for being seen as "raising taxes" is coming home to bite the Democrats in the butt. If they had the foresight to simply levy a tax (and call it that), this bill wouldn't be in Court today (at least for the individual mandate).

I don't care who came up with it first. It's unconstitutional. Mitt Romney forced it upon his state. How many republicans do you see supporting that now?

Well dodged. Again, you ignore the original point I made about the Supreme Court, and try -- by simply ignoring the challenge -- to make it seem as if Obama himself ever called the individual mandate "unconstitutional."

As for Republicans supporting it ... well, there is hypocrisy in politics, isn't there. The opposition isn't principled; it's for political expediency.

What this nonsense? Where you try and claim that only a few ideologues and ME think the health care bill is unconstitutional? I didn't think it was serious enough to comment on, but of you insist, see the attachment.
Even the majority of democrats must admit that the bill is unconstitutional.

edit: it wouldn't attach. Tlb says it's not a valid image for some reason.
Here's the url instead
http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/...qljhlh9b9q.gif

Isn't it just grand to read things in a manner where you see only what you want to see, rather than what someone really wrote? That way, you can argue whichever point you want, regardless of anything, put words in the mouths of others, and try to get away with shifting the focus.

1. I NEVER, EVER used the word "only" where you ascribe it to me.

2. I wrote about the SUBJECTIVITY of determining the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of things that aren't specifically mentioned in the constitution.

Anyone who reads the exchange can see that. So, keep trying to put words in my mouth. It doesn't change the truth.

As for the opinion of the American people, it is an acknowledged fact among all serious followers of politics that the polls on this issue are heavily influenced as much by how the debate has been framed by partisan messengers, or how some have failed to frame the debate, as anything else. This is typical with such polls. Reasonable people can reasonably conclude that the poll you cite is no different than all the polls showing that people who opposed ALL government involvement in healthcare before the Affordable Care Act was passed were also highly like to agree with the statement "Keep your government hands off of my Medicare."

I think you're getting our debating styles confused.

Granted, you didn't say only, but you did say "Unconstitutional in YOUR opinion, and that of some ideologues on the Supreme Court." I didn't see anyone else in your list of who considers it unconstitutional.

I think reasonable people would be able to see that the poll includes groups other than those who oppose ALL government involvement in healthcare and that Democrats also think that forcing all Americans to buy health insurance is unconstitutional.

Translation: "I will just imply that smc did what I did, and hope that it will confuse everyone and make it seem like a non-issue. Truth be damned!" -- Tracy Coxx

(Yes, and before you go accusing me of putting words in your mouth so as to deflect the discussion once again away from the real issue, I acknowledge that this is a rhetorical device I am using.)

Translation: "I wonder how it will work if instead of addressing the real substance of what smc wrote, which he has now stated more than once, I keep up this same line and try to avoid answering the point about the subjectivity of determining the 'constitutionality' of something?" -- TracyCoxx

(Again, before you go accusing me of putting words in your mouth so as to deflect the discussion once again away from the real issue, I acknowledge that this is a rhetorical device I am using.)

Translation: "Hey, maybe it can work again? I will avoid the substantive point smc makes about how the terms of debate influence polls, and just restate my earlier point. That way, people will think I'm actually discussing when I'm not." -- TracyCoxx

(For a third time, before you go accusing me of putting words in your mouth so as to deflect the discussion once again away from the real issue, I acknowledge that this is a rhetorical device I am using.)

You really do display tremendous cowardice when it comes to debating. Perhaps you should run for public office ... you'd fit right in with most candidates of both major parties.

(And just to be clear, before you go whining to others about how you've been insulted, I characterized your debating style, not you.)

Translation of your translations: I'm going to read things in a manner where I see only what I want to see, rather than what TracyCoxx really wrote. That way, I can argue whichever point I want, regardless of anything, put words in the mouths of others, and try to get away with shifting the focus.

Let's cut the crap. Do you really think anyone believes you're accurately paraphrasing my position? Do you really believe they haven't noticed that you're dodging the discussion again .

We're off topic and back on to familiar whining territory. Let me know when you're ready to discuss things reasonably.

And now for your predictable response complaining of dodging, sophistry etc to which I'll say seriously... Back on topic.

Yes, back on topic. Go back to what I wrote about the subjectivity of determining the "constitutionality" of something and respond to it. Otherwise, quit your bullshitting and admit that you changed the subject, not me.

Ok back on topic...

It's not opinion. There simply is no power granted to the government by the constitution to force citizens to purchase or otherwise obtain a good or service. If the Constitution does not restrict the government from doing something, does that mean it's constitutional for them to do it? No. For example, the mandate to pay income tax was found to be unconstitutional in 1895 because that power was not granted to the government. The Constitution had to be amended via the 16th amendment go give the government power to collect income taxes.

The Affordable Care Act would impose a penalty, not a tax, on individuals who do not get health insurance. That power is nowhere in the constitution. If the government really wanted that power they would have to amend the constitution.

You say it is a penalty, not a tax, and that the government has no power to impose such a penalty. Yet, one issue before the Court is, in fact, whether the penalty is a tax. Some argue that it IS simply because it happens to be collected by the IRS. But that, logically, does not AUTOMATICALLY make it a tax. Hence, my point about subjectivity. The justices must opine as to what it is. As I wrote earlier, the Founding Fathers are not here to weigh in, and who knows ... perhaps they would not have seen it as a tax, according to their understanding of what "tax" means.

Further, the Constitution does allow the government to regulate interstate commerce. Some argue that this penalty falls under that allowance. Again, it is a subjective judgment that must be made.

That's an excellent point smc about the subjectivity of determining the supposed "Constitutionality" of things not explicitly granted or forbidden to the government. Personally, do I think it's wise governance to go mandating the purchase of certain independent, third party products/services? No, not really. However, reading our current Constitution also does not lead me to feel such regulation is outside the realm of what Congress can legally do.

The commerce clause reads pretty broadly to me-- and it has been interpreted in such a way historically. For anyone (aka. Tracy) who feels that this is such an obviously unConstitutional issue, I want to know why you feel that the precedent of Wickard can be ignored in this case? Some of the Supreme Court justices were mockingly asking questions if the Affordable Care Act's logical conclusion was that the government could mandate buying broccoli, etc. Personally, I don't think it matters if this is the end conclusion of such "mandates." I find that such market regulation to not be forbidden by the Constitution.

I take it that Tracy finds the individual mandate repulsive because it "mandates" the purchase of insurance through the use of coercive penalties (taxes?). Whether this is Constitutional or not has yet to be determined. But you can't deny the broad power to tax, can you? Congress has the power to tax income via the hallowed Constitution. It would be perfectly Constitutional for Congress to levy a healthcare tax on EVERYONE...Then offer an offsetting tax credit to anyone that holds an acceptable health insurance policy. This would have the same income effect-- people would be financially incentivized via the tax code to purchase insurance. However it would not selectively impose a penalty?/tax? on someone who chooses to not do something (even though the private insurance market routinely penalizes market participants for inaction).

It is an issue before the court because that is the only argument Obama's administration has that would make it constitutional. They don't have a leg to stand on though. Now it may be subjective in the sense that certain justices are biased. Such as Sotomayor, who would have been one of the ones who would argue the case to the supreme court for the administration. Why hasn't she recused herself? If Sotomayor, or any justice, explains their ruling based on what can be found in the constitution, then I wouldn't call it a biased ruling. But someone like her, who would have been instrumental in arguing the case to the supreme court that she now is part of is obviously a conflict of interest.

I'm going to work so I'll answer the rest of your post later, but I'll respond to this part. If they had replaced penalties with taxes then they would have had a lot stronger case in the supreme court. But they didn't...

the ad i'd love to see the GOP do
 

Everyone knows how the GOP hate goverment ran/sponsered health insurence, but notice how many of em has turned down there's and wentout to buy private insurence :lol:
But the GOP should bring a camera crew in to Dick Cheney's private room and have him tell the Americian people how bad goverment ran/sponsered health insurence is and how we will all hate it and will miss and be better off with the current private heath insurence ran mess we all get :coupling: by
Cheney can then go on about how the goverment ran/sponsered healthcare paid all the bills for his heart transplant [a bill must private insurence compnies won't cover] but you won't like it and you'll be happier with buying your own health insurence from a private provider but Cheney will suffer with goverment ran health insurence he gets for free
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

A new ice cream !
 

In honor of the 44th President of the United States, Giffords Ice Cream has introduced a new flavor: Barocky Road

Barocky Road is a blend of half vanilla, half chocolate, and surrounded by nuts and flakes. The vanilla portion of the mix is not openly advertised and usually denied as an ingredient. The nuts and flakes are all plentiful.

The cost is $92.84 per scoop...so out of a hundred dollar bill you are at least promised some CHANGE..!

When purchased it will be presented to you in a large beautiful cone, but after you pay for it, the ice cream is taken out of the cone and given to the person in line behind you at no charge.

You are left with an almost empty wallet, staring at an empty cone and wondering what just happened. Then you realize this is what "redistribution of wealth" is all about.

Aren't you just stimulated?

as they say
 

I was wondering about that. A lot of people are waiting for the stimulus to Solyndra to trickle down.

And remeber the "cash for clunkers",,,,,,,,it's harder now, for 99% as you call them, to get used parts to repair their cars.

trickle down may not work in your community but trickle up poverty is doing well.

I won the bet
 

Giffords Ice Cream
 

Wow, Giffords. That brings great memories. Are there any of their stores left? I remember the name being reused a few times, a couple of stores that I've not seen recently, and a retail distribution.

OMG that was too funy!!:lol: true, butt funny:lol:

IKR A lot of the used car lots don't have the cheap cars anymore. Also, junk yards suffered because of that as well.

There is still a Giffords store where I live. It's a spring ritual when the store opens up for the first day of the season, they give out free scoops of ice cream all day.

trickle down at full strenght
 

We will feel the full flow of trickle down under a president Romney or a pope Santorum
Yes that's right we'll all feel the flow as they piss on our backs and the GOP spin machine [Rush & Ann] we tell us it's only raining
Golden showers anyone? just vote GOP and they'll give you one
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

], because it's like shooting fish in a barrel ... and I need the exercise.[/QUOTE]

still getting your shots off even if you have to unload by hand.

nice.

I had corresponded with smc via PM regarding our earlier conversation. At his request, I'm posting this here to forward the conversation for all to see. This is originally in reference to post #222 (one page back):

Conservatives have managed to successfully paint affirmative action as "reverse racism." I must admit that I've fallen victim to this line of thinking. When you look at a pool of applicants, and all else being equal, it doesn't seem right that the minority candidate will get the job just to meet a quota. Or that the minority candidate will get "bonus points" just by virtue of their race/gender/etc. I'd prefer applicants be picked SOLELY on their qualifications, and if it's neck and neck based on that, then the interviewer/company needs to dig a bit deeper and not settle on the candidate whose race will ensure compliancy with some federal statute.

That is one side of my brain. The other side of my brain is not so naive as to believe that just because you outlaw discrimination that it actually goes away. Even in communities where there is no overt racism or discrimination, certain minorities are cogs in a machine that by design puts them at disadvantage economically, educationally, etc. The whole "white, male privilege" thing. Racism was so institutionalized in our nation's past that entire communities of African Americans will never have the same opportunities that I had growing up. And I don't buy the Republican bullshit that all you have to do is work hard and pull yourself up by your bootstraps and you'll become the next Steve Jobs.

I'm always of these two minds. I guess I feel that affirmative action is too blunt a sword for a job that requires a precise knife blade. I can see where AA is a good thing and perhaps still needed in some capacity, but I'm also not convinced that the way it is currently administered is the best course. With that said, my preferred method of combating institutionalized disadvantage is no more popular with our conservative friends. I feel that poverty remains one of the biggest institutions that people struggle to ever break free from. I don't have solid solutions for creating upward socioeconomic mobility-- but I have NO PROBLEM redistributing the wealth downward. It's patently false that the majority of poor people (which includes many blacks) are lazy and just want to live on the government cheese train.

Regarding diversity in general, having spent much of my life in and around academia, I really value diversity in our universities and schools. And I guess I agree with you that these institutions should probably be more diverse than the surrounding demographics might suggest. Maine is TOO white for my taste. It's bad that you can go entire days (or weeks even) without encountering a non-white individual. That wasn't usually the case at the University.

And as I have responded, amendments have been made to the constitution to allow certain laws which were declared unconstitutional because they had no basis in the constitution. Don't you think that says something about laws being made that aren't specifically referenced in the constitution?

I was under the impression that they issued rulings. They will explain their position as an "opinion". But realize that this is different than the casual usage of opinion and that terms may have different meanings in the context of law. A "judicial opinion" or "opinion of the court" is an explanation of the order or ruling which lays out the rational and legal principles that the justice relied (in principle, not personal opinion) on in reaching their decision.

I have no idea what his wife's organization is.

Don't confuse Cheney's healthcare as former VP with the healthcare we would all get under Obamacare. And don't think for a minute that every 71 year old needing a heart transplant would get one under Obamacare.

I'm more concerned when they give the job to an underqualified black person in order to fill a quota.

ie...
White firefighters in New Haven, Conn., passed an exam for a job promotion only to have the test results thrown out because no African-American candidate received a high enough score to also be considered for promotion.

The Phi Beta Kappa graduate of the University of Washington who was denied by the university's law school twice. There were, however 30 minority-group students with lower grades and aptitude scores that were granted admission.

In HUD, white employees are routinely denied promotions so the agency can hire 382.9% more blacks than in the civilian work force.

etc etc etc...

In a situation where you have two applicants, one white, one black, and they're both equally qualified, and your employees do not match the local demographics, then yeah, give the job to the black person. But that's about as far as I would take affirmative action. But don't screen out much more qualified people who happen to be white.

That's another thing... you or anyone else could say this and generally no one would think twice about it. Now think of what the response would be if I said:
New Orleans is TOO white for my taste. It's bad that you can go entire days (or weeks even) without encountering a non-black individual.

Oh, now THAT is racist.

NAAWP (National Association for the Advancement of White People) - racist
White History Month - racist
National Society of White Engineers - racist

When people see someone like Herman Cain, do they assume the presidency of Godfather's Pizza was given to him because he is black? If I were him I'd be pretty insulted by that given that he's a highly capable individual who probably earned his position there.

I think there's a perception that Charles Bolden, head of Nasa (and the guy who said Nasa's foremost mission was to help Muslims feel better about themselves), was an affirmative action pick because he's a complete joke. But wait... sure he's qualified... he was an astronaut for cristsakes! Uh... yeah... He was an astronaut... when the shuttle program was starting off and Nasa needed to show that space flight was routine and quiet criticisms that all their astronauts before had been black.

I have no problem with quotas so long as they are something we agree to socially, as a nation. And if the discussion of affirmative action was an honest one, rather than charged with the falsehoods that its opponents use to paint it a certain way, I have every confidence that Americans would support a more robust, rigorous affirmative action.

Of course, when you take GRH's comment out of the context of an honest, respectful discussion about affirmative action, you can make her sound like a racist. And that's precisely my point above.

Well played. :no:

Tracy...You do realize that I am white? So it's not like I'm black and saying that I don't like all the whites in my state. I'm simply comparing the demographics of my current location to the demographics of other places that I've lived. I fail to see how stating that I wish my current state had more diversity makes me racist...

"Reverse racism"? Self hating "reverse racist"? The world will never know...

That's sarcasm folks.

Sorry, I couldn't find Jen's point about 71-year-olds. Could you post it please?

All I could find is this:
This is where she was saying a GOP camera crew should go into Cheney's private room and tell americans how government ran/sponsored healthcare paid all his bills for his heart transplant. Then she says he'd say "but you won't like it". What's 'it' in this context? Government ran/sponsored health care. Is that the same government ran/sponsored health care she just mentioned? No it's not is it, but she seemed to imply that it was. Next time I think Jen would be better qualified to interpret what she meant. I kind of thought she'd be more than able to understand what I wrote and reply for herself anyway. I guess that's just me though.

I never thought, or said you are black. I'm only talking about the comment itself. If it's said about whites, it's fine. If not, it's perceived to be racist. I'm not saying it is a racist statement. But if it was said about blacks instead of whites (even without racial intentions), whoever said it would be accused of being racist.

It's the point about 71-year-old Cheney. You know exactly what was meant. But why let that get in the way of you shitting on a serious discussion? I imagine you sitting all alone, smugly thinking that you've bested everyone by pointing out that Jen never used the exact phrase "71-year-old," and believing that somehow you have won. But all you've really done is prove to that you are a miserable troll. I've said it before and I say it again. You've only been indulged for some reason I don't understand, but I stand by this characterization and say enough is enough.

Go ahead ... complain to the site owner about the words I just used. My argument will be this. The rule about not "insulting" other members shouldn't apply to someone who insults the entire site, and offers nothing here except provocation.

Read on...

Jen is one of the most highly valued members of this site. I have no doubt that she would be the first one to tell you that perfect writing in English is not her strongest suit. But you use that as a cudgel against her because you disrespect her, and you disrespect her because she has opinions that differ from yours and is not afraid to state them. And that makes you the very embodiment of everything that's wrong with discourse in this country.

You make me want to vomit.

Do you see what you have done Tracy? Now I'll have to be on the phone all night with the insurance company about treatment for smc's nausea and I don't think private insurance provides transsexual nurses. I'm calling Obama.

LOL not really, but that is interesting that you would say that though since you routinely attack the words I choose or phrases I choose rather than what I'm actually trying to say. That's an interesting window into your world. Thanks for that.

Why? What did you say? No, it was more humorous than anything else.

Aside from her spelling, she is quite capable of making herself clear. And I do respect her for that. I think you should too and let her speak her mind.

And btw, I don't disrespect people for having opinions different than me. There were a number of people on this site that had different opinions than I had and we had many fruitful discussions. That is until you took it as your personal mission to respond for every single person that I tried to engage in a discussion with.

Do what you must.

lol if we can get transsexual nurses in private health care will we be good then?

Dissemble dissemble dissemble... muh ha ha ha!

This is a new low Tracy. It's not even ironically amusing.

And time and time again you mischaracterize my statements so that you can argue a different point that has nothing to do with what's being said. I never said this is a private discussion, keep out or anything like that. I said you make it your personal mission to respond for every single person I try to engage in a discussion with. Does that mean you can't participate in the discussion too? No. But common courtesy says you would at least let the other person respond without jumping in with your two cents once in a while. But no. Almost EVERY SINGLE TIME. Doing it sometimes, I can see, but i'm literally talking above 95% over the past few years. I'm talking about etiquette, not privacy.

I too missed the irony. I don't think I meant any irony.

I did not mean that you were being ironic. I meant that you tend to roll into this forum writing silly provocative and at times insulting posts which I find ironically amusing.

I have a pretty well developed sense of morbid curiosity. I don't remember having one prior to signing up as a member of this forum and reading your stuff over the course of two years. A big part of why I return to this website is to read your latest outrageous comment.

No obama has made it illegal to protest in his presence.
A short vid about HR 347
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v...irzg&vq=medium
Now before you liberals roll your eyes and say "it's just Fox News", lets hear from Huffington Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeanin...b_1328205.html

It's outrageous, and The Huffington Post is correct to state that Obama's has morphed into a third Bush term (on issues like this). But let's be honest about it: do you think that if Bush was about to sign legislation like this, the Fox News report would even be remotely similar?

Of course not. It would have been touted as crucial to fighting terrorism, sedition, or whatever. There would not have been a peep about civil liberties.

Very late into his second term (like almost the last thing he did) Bush did sign into law a bill that in effect made it illegal to criticize the sitting president.

I wonder how many of Obama's other skeletons in his closet took the pay-off?

So Obama wasn't just a passive listener in church. Interesting to hear what Obama considers "the truth".

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/nationa...l3fUF0cb7LpcNM

Oh, my god! A politician from one of the two parties of the ruling rich using money to silence someone who might derail their campaigns. I can't imagine any Republicans have ever done this.

Yes, if it's true, it's reprehensible. Reprehensible. But a surprise? No. Uncharacteristic of politics? No. Newsworthy? Maybe a bit.

the same dusty failed econmic plan
 

So far all Romney and other GOP bozos have done is bitch and complain about Obama's handeling of the econmy and so far all they have done is preech and hold up there dusty failed econmic plan that lead us to the econmy tanking under GOP control and the rain of George W Bush
The failed trickle down policies of cutting taxs for the rich cutting captial gains tax and cutting taxs for the multi billion dollar bussiness's and shift all the tax burden on the 99 ppercenters
so far the econmy savior Romney has offered nothing new on how to fix things his announced plans to basicly pick up where W left off :eek:
doubling down on the failed policies that kead us in to the worst econmey since the great depression which was caused by the GOP by the way under president Hover and president Coolidge
Wake up America and smell the coffee
Romney is nothing but a bussiness CEO and spoiled rich brat which sounds like another failed president George W Bush
in US history we have so far had only two CEO's as president Hoover and W and both destory our econmy and yet the GOP is givings us another on who what to pick up where W left off and actually put us in to another great depression
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

The Difference
 

The Difference


President George W. Bush's speech afterthe capture of Saddam Hussein:
"The success of yesterday's mission is a tribute to our men and women now serving in Iraq . The operation was based on the superb work of intelligence analysts who found the dictator's footprints in a vast country. The operation was carried out with skill and precision by a brave fighting force. Our servicemen and women and our coalition allies have faced many dangers in the hunt for members of the fallen regime, and in their effort to bring hope and freedom to the Iraqi people. Their work continues, and so do the risks. Today, on behalf of the nation, I thank the members of our Armed Forces and I congratulate them!"


Obama's speech after the killing of Osama bin Laden:
"And so shortly after taking office, I directed Leon Panetta, the Director of the CIA, to make the killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority of our war against al Qaeda, even as we continued our broader efforts to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat his network. Then, last August, I was briefed on a possible lead to bin Laden. It was far from certain, and it took many months to run this thread to ground. I met repeatedly with my national security team as we developed more information about the possibility that we had located bin Laden hiding within a compound deep inside of Pakistan . And finally, last week, I determined that we had enough intelligence to take action, and I authorized an operation to get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice. Today, at my direction, the United States launched a targeted operation against that compound in Abbottabad , Pakistan ."



Obama did not once acknowledge our brave men and women who fight for our country....and that myfriends is THE DIFFERENCE !

I am not an Obama supporter, but I am a supporter of truth. And I am afraid that the post by franalexes is not the truth.

The full transcript of Obama's speech announcing the death of bin Laden is readily available at the White House website and on many, many other sites (including news sites such as CNN.com). There, the untruth of franalexes' post can be found. Obama said in that speech:

"Tonight, we give thanks to the countless intelligence and counterterrorism professionals who've worked tirelessly to achieve this outcome. The American people do not see their work, nor know their names. But tonight, they feel the satisfaction of their work and the result of their pursuit of justice.

"We give thanks for the men who carried out this operation, for they exemplify the professionalism, patriotism, and unparalleled courage of those who serve our country. And they are part of a generation that has borne the heaviest share of the burden since that September day."

A post of the type above by franalexes is designed to perpetuate the myth the right so adroitly spins that Obama is somehow "different" or "other." Hell, she even uses the word "difference" to close her post. But the only difference here is that Obama, in this one speech, limited his direct thanks to those who carried out the mission in Afghanistan to get bin Laden. Bush, who sent American soldiers to lose their lives in Iraq based on a total lie, broadly thanked the members of the Armed Forces.

Just to set the record straight, Obama makes speeches thanking the Armed Forces for their service with regularity. Here are excerpts from just one example, at Fort Bragg on December 14, 2011, announcing the formal "end" of the war in Iraq:

"... the United States military is the most respected institution in our land because you never forget that. You can?t afford to forget it. If you forget it, somebody dies. If you forget it, a mission fails. So you don?t forget it. You have each other?s backs. That?s why you, the 9/11 Generation, has earned your place in history.

"Because of you -- because you sacrificed so much for a people that you had never met, Iraqis have a chance to forge their own destiny. That?s part of what makes us special as Americans. ...

"Because of you, in Afghanistan we?ve broken the momentum of the Taliban. Because of you, we?ve begun a transition to the Afghans that will allow us to bring our troops home from there. And around the globe, as we draw down in Iraq, we have gone after al Qaeda so that terrorists who threaten America will have no safe haven, and Osama bin Laden will never again walk the face of this Earth.

"So here?s what I want you to know, and here?s what I want all our men and women in uniform to know: Because of you, we are ending these wars in a way that will make America stronger and the world more secure. Because of you. ...

"The war in Iraq will soon belong to history. Your service belongs to the ages. Never forget that you are part of an unbroken line of heroes spanning two centuries ?- from the colonists who overthrew an empire, to your grandparents and parents who faced down fascism and communism, to you ?- men and women who fought for the same principles in Fallujah and Kandahar, and delivered justice to those who attacked us on 9/11. ...

"All of you here today have lived through the fires of war. You will be remembered for it. You will be honored for it -- always. You have done something profound with your lives. When this nation went to war, you signed up to serve. When times were tough, you kept fighting. When there was no end in sight, you found light in the darkness. ...

"And years from now, your legacy will endure in the names of your fallen comrades etched on headstones at Arlington, and the quiet memorials across our country; in the whispered words of admiration as you march in parades, and in the freedom of our children and our grandchildren. And in the quiet of night, you will recall that your heart was once touched by fire. You will know that you answered when your country called; you served a cause greater than yourselves; you helped forge a just and lasting peace with Iraq, and among all nations.

"I could not be prouder of you, and America could not be prouder of you."

The honest response from franalexes would be to come on and post a simple retraction of her attempt to divide people on such a flimsy basis. There are plenty of genuine policy differences among politicians that demand serious discussion. The attempt to perpetuate the pseudo-"otherness" of Barack Obama does a disservice to the cause of everything I bet franalexes would insist she stands for as an American.

There WAS a difference between the two speeches SMC. One of them dealt with a credible threat to our national security; the other, not so much. I don't think that was supposed to be what I took away from Fran's post though.

LOL, that's our fearless leader for you. And you can bet your cute ass if the mission went bad the word "I" would not appear in the speech.