@wookie06

What the hell are traditional american values? seriously, I cant actualy think how you could say that there are a specifc set of values in the US that could be called "traditional".

The US has a HUGE range of people with differant values, so how the hell can you say that one part of the country is more worthy of having their values being the main ones than another part.

Generally speaking, the values upon which the country was founded and generations of immigrants have adopted, perpetuated, and improved upon which has enabled this country to rapidly achieve an excellent level of Liberty, success, and prosperity.

The two party system is broken.

</discussion>

you mean the initial values which lead to so much contention on a number of issues between the north and south that the southern states tried to succeed from the union?

Yeah...

seriously what is with all the cries of "HYPOCRISY!!!" both sides are full of it and it does not take an intellectual to figure that out.

on a different note...
i honestly dont think that the president addressing school children about the importance of staying in school is a bad thing. quite the contrary, if it actually encourages even one student to stay in school then i think its a great thing. if he were pushing certain agenda ideas then that would be a different story, but staying in school... really? how is that bad?

secede

Just because something "changes" / "evolves" over time or is "newer", DOES NOT mean its ALWAYS an improvement. Sometimes, nations go down the toilet.

Like I said near the beginning of the thread, it's just not good timing. Most people seem to disagree with his agenda that he is pretty much nonstop campaigning for right now. But I thought this was supposed to be some speech he was giving at a particular school. I guess it is more like a message that is being distributed to all schools to be played. That just doesn't feel right. Seems a little Orwellian to me.

To translate this for you so Jon'C doesn't have to do it for me, what I really mean instead of the thoughts I clearly articulated above is: I guess it would be fine if it were Bush or a white guy but Obama is a little scary.

I can name one.
:smug:

Some of us can name over a dozen. :/

(It was a joke referring to lolmerica, Thus the smug)

I know, you numpty.

It could also have referred to Mexico.

The best way I can think of to phrase a retort would be classist, and for some reason I feel like I'm above that sort of thing today.

Kindergarten logic.

It's a racist statement regardless of who originally said it. You appear to be under the assumption that I am interested in supporting the Democratic party, which isn't true. Politics is not a zero sum game.

I notice a distinct absence of a retort to my claim that the President is constitutionally entitled to nominate junior officers and advisors without house confirmation. I accept your concession.

"Statute of limitations" would be Dick Cheney's words, not mine. My assumption is that his memoirs will contain an admission of criminal activities. Can you think of a more logical reason he would use that particular phrase w.r.t. the publishing date for his book?

I'm still not sure which part you're objecting to. Do you use a hammer to screw in a light bulb? One tool is not always the right one for every job.

Haha, complaining about Obama czars?





Obama's back-to-school speech is a manufactured controversy. When Bush Sr. addressed school children in '91, he touted his own education policies and even asked school children to write the white house a letter:



Where were all the liberals in '91 running around screaming about indoctrination? Oh wait, there weren't any. Because they aren't bat-**** insane.

At least not all Repubs are acting like wacko detractors...

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_13278256

[quote=Republican Gov. Gary Herbert of Utah]"I think it's great. To hear from the president of the United States is an important thing," he said Saturday. "I'd like to hear what he has to say.
"I hope parents will take the opportunity to discuss the issues with their children, hear what the president's views are and what his vision is for the future of America. If they agree, then explain that. If they disagree, explain to their children why. I see nothing but good coming out of this," he said.[/quote]

I can understand people complaining about the appointment of czars, I mean, I would be upset if the leader of my country was ressurecting long dead russian rulers to do jobs in the politcal system.

Oh wait....

>.> <.<

STOP USING STUPID TERMS LIKE THAT.

>.> <.<

and to the last part of what vin said, I realy like that some people understand that you dont have to oppose obama just because he belongs to the other major political party.

Exactly. The founding fathers didn't get this country established by shouting at each other and plugging their ears when their opponents spoke... they compromised. But the problem with the parties right now is that there are far too many moderate Democrats who are willing to make concessions, but not enough moderate Republicans.

First time for everything, I suppose. It would be fun, though, to hear more about where you see me laying in the class structure and getting some possible hints as to where you might actually fall.



Which is exactly why I used that phrase. It was of course racist and since you know I am a racist it would make sense for me to say that. Except I'm not racist and the current Vice President made those remarks about President Obama. Hey, elitist moron, you can be against a socialist agenda without being a racist!



It's kind of hard to concede to your view that it will be an interesting thing for scholars to ponder.



Absolutely. Democrats have made it clear that they intend to find something, anything, to indict him on. Would make sense to wait until after it would be a moot point anyway.



Let me try to make this very simple for you. You copped out when you were asked which party you belonged to and then said that you don't prescribe to [things] that have nothing to do with belonging to a party. I was only pointing that out, after I pointed out that you can't really belong to any of them anyway, and you agreed. You were being inconsistent, not that it matters because it wasn't even possible for you to be consistent in this case.

Why do you have to belong to a party? I'm a liberal, I voted labour at the last local election and I support mainly (but not exclusively) left wing politics. I believe in the welfare state, equality, and helping your fellow man.

I don't belong to any party.

Seconded. Except replace labour with democrat.

That sounds pretty ageist to me

part of the problem i have with the "left wing vs. right wing" dribble is that the "values" that are assigned to either side are absolutely not exclusive to that side. the idea that only people on the left wing really want to help other people is pure tripe! while i do not consider myself a republican i can say that i am CERTAINLY not a democrat. but guess what? i too believe in helping your fellow man. the main difference being i dont believe a welfare state is an effective way of helping in any lasting way.

i actually dont really believe in equality though. at least not outside of a fairytail world. i do believe in people receiving equal opportunities. or rather in equal opportunity within reason. to truly be equals everyone would have to be brought down to the lowest denominator. Because in reality people are not equal. Some are better at math some are better at sports or more skilled in leadership. however i do believe each of us should be given equal opportunity to try and succeed. pass or fail, that is up to the individual.

Totally agree with you:

The whole point of my comment was to put an end to this "you're an X therefore you believe in Y" crap. My politics are not exclusive, they can change, and those who purport ideas closely aligned to my beliefs can come from either side of the political spectrum.

I just put in my personal politics for clarity and flavour.

Oh, and I'm not sure I quite get your take on equality, but that's a discussion for another time

Well, the idea of equality is that we are all equal under the law.

heck, here in australia, there are people who list their voting preferances (preferance based instant runoff can be much more representative of the general view, and donkey votes have their effect reduced by having names in differant orders on each voting sheet) so that the people they dislike the most have the lowest preferance, and the highest preferance is the person that the dislike the least. (we vote for our representatives directly, and they represent a win in the particular district as well as a seat in parliment).

This whole "you must belong to a particular party" thing just confuses me.

HAHA, this isn't true. The reason the health care bill hasn't pass was simply because the few "moderate" democrats (aka blue dogs) wanted to actually READ IT before voting for it, like the Republicans. Honestly the majority of the Democrats just passed it without giving a ****. That's some great congressmen there. They'll pass anything a black president proposes, without even reading it.

Somehow, just somehow I think not.

The point about czars is totally moot, anyway. I see that Vin addressed it above, but to quantify it: Obama currently has 32 "czar" jobs in his administration, as compared to the 35 of George W. Bush's administration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._executive_branch_czars). I can't recall ever hearing any conservatives, the ones on this site included, complain about Bush's czars.

JLee and others: I think this is a good (if not good, at least amusing) example of the type of hypocrisy we were talking about earlier: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-august-19-2009/fox-news--the-new-liberals

no. not because he's black. because he's a fellow democrat. Anyone that believes that any of our congressmen vote on bills based on what they believe is living in a fairytale. They vote based on pandering favor with other politicians higher on the food chain, and with businesses and organizations willing to dump money into their campaign. And that, in a nut shell, is the problem with American politics. The voice of the people is not represented. Greed is.

On another note, regarding President Obama's race. I am soooo sick and tired about hearing that Obama is a black man, in any context. I honestly don't give a rat's *** that his skin is darker than mine. Electing a black man to office is not proof of a racially enlightened society. NOT REALIZING we've elected a black man to office would be proof of a racially enlightened society. If we were all as civilized as we claim to be, there would not have been a single mention of Obama's race throughout the entire election or during his term or any time before or after. Instead every time I hear a mediaperson talk about the "racial hurdles" Obama overcame to be elected, it makes me think that everyone somehow believes that the rest of us "allowed" Obama to be president, in spite of his race, which puts "the white man" in power over him and only perpetuates the racism that is still extremely prevelant in our society, but which we don't recognize because it happens on a deeper level then stringing black people up by their necks from apple trees.

It's because nobody knew about them.

oh, well i do totally agree with that then.

yeah but again, this sort of hypocrisy is not exclusive to the right. the same thing happened when bush was in office on the left. any anti war protesters were valiant people on the side of peace! and anyone pro-war was a gun toting redneck!

See? Republicans are hypocritical.

Ad hominem.

Wrong. You can't be a human without being subject to conscious or subconscious predispositions and preconceptions (i.e. racist.)

You've already demonstrated your contempt for people you perceive as outsiders: such as your assertion that all people are ignorant, unless they have something in common with you (military service, nationality) in which case they might not be. An analogous statement: "I'm not racist, I have lots of black friends."

It depends on your definition of interesting, of course. I find rigorous mathematical proofs interesting while you would probably find them quite dry.

Red herrings aside, I'm going to continue to assume your concession that the President does have the Constitutional privilege to nominate junior officers and advisors without house confirmation.

If Dick Cheney believes he is innocent, how does he know how long to wait? The statutes of limitations vary depending on the crime and the state it was committed.

Did you know that PIRLS rated American basic literacy and reading comprehension skills unfavorably compared to my region?

I agreed that party affiliation and ideology are distinct concepts.

If you knew even the slightest thing about countries other than your own, you'd be aware that single party affiliation is a phenomenon limited almost exclusively to the United States. If you ask a stupid question you're going to get a stupid answer.

Transcript of Obama's speech for September 8, 2009

The speech is pretty much what the White House representatives said it would be. He emphasizes the importance of education to succeed in life and to help the U.S. make some progress. At times he tried to be empathetic and talk about how he realize school can be tough sometimes, but it's no excuse to drop out or to not try your hardest.

Pretty good speech overall for the target audience even if the message is a bit redundant. I think he could have been a bit more positive here:



Maybe there could have been an added line of "Still, you can improve your chances by being any of those if you keep working hard at them" or something along the lines of that.

...which is an "average" and says nothing of the individual 'skills' (scores) of those involved with this thread. I know where you were trying to go with your rebuttal, but it's a logical reasoning fallacy to assume individual skill sets of those that you are debating with based off of the geographical "average" of those involved. Granted, Wookie06 could have chosen better wording what he basically meant is "let me rephrase".

Just thought I'd point that out, to be fair. To add my two cents to this thread, overall my opinion is that Jon'C is right and Wookie06 is wrong. While I may disagree with some points of Jon'C, the overall point is that the the Neo-Con Republicans are going to whatever lengths to try and save their party. While I have conservative values, I strongly disagree with the way the so called "Republican" party has been operating for the last 20 years, and it's only got worse.

Wookie06, don't watch FOX news, it's only good for your ignorance. It's time you took a step back and grow-up, politically speaking. If you take a realistic look at the so called "Republican" part (as I have) and look at what they've done over the last 20 years, then you'll realize that what they say they stand for and what they actually do doesn't line up. True, the same could be said about the Democratic party as well, but as much? I'm not so sure. Right now, I'm unpolitically aligned. I vote for whoever I think will actually go to DC and do their job, regardless of political affiliation. That's the problem with the system, not who's red or blue, but who's doing the job they're elected for and who is not. Jon'C is right, the system is broken, but our system isn't the only one that is broken.

You don't know what you're talking about.

As for the speech, I read it. It's entirely apolitical and pretty inspiring. I wonder what the lunatic fringe will ***** and moan about now.

Q.F.T.

I am racially prejudiced, and homophobic. I feel uneasy walking through a housing estate largely populated by black people, and I feel uneasy if I spot a gay man trying to catch my eye. However, these are my knee-jerk reactions and I am capable of overcoming them. It is in our genes to be prejudiced, to favour those who are genetically similar to us.

I think you'll find it's QFBTWIWGTS lovebunny xxx

(Detty is right btw)

Indeed.