I don't believe that the language of your parents. sm
Posted By: m on 2008-11-26
In Reply to: anchor babies are --- - Amanda
has anything to do with being qualified to be the POTUS. We are about to have a POTUS whose father was not a US citizen.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Cut the language out. (sm)
It isn't your God-given right on this site, which is privately owned.
Coarse opinions we can tolerate but leave the language out.
Moderator
Semitic language
The Semitic language is spoken in a variety of dialects spoken by nearly 200 million people. One branch is Hebrew, another is Arabic to name a few. Just because Barack's name means "blessing" does not mean anything.
Learning a second language.
You raised some important points on which I would like to comment. If you are an MT, some of this will already be familiar to you, since we all have gone through the process of acquiring advanced medical language skills.
My husband speaks 5 languages (Farsi (L), Armenian, Greek, German (L) and English (L), and is literate (L) in 3. We met in 1990 as pen pals, a hobby he had adopted to facilitate acquiring and refining his literacy in English. From what he tells me and what I learned from this process, there seem to be certain distinct stages of learning and using another language.
Formal classes or other types of instruction to learn basic vocabulary, phonetics, entymology, grammar/syntax, reading, writing and comprehension, both written and verbal.
Practice, practice and practice some more. Use it or lose it. Typically, beyond the basics, the student will progress through the easiest to the most difficult skills in stages. The first 4 basics (stage 1), followed by the next 2 (stage 2), then written/reading and verbal comprehension (stage 3).
Verbal comprehension in and of itself is also a 2-stage process. In that final stage, most often the student will understand the foreign language much more easily (and for a much longer period of time) when it is spoken to them or around them. The most difficult stage of foreign language usage is the final stage of actually being able to produce coherent conversation with confidence.
Most of us never really get beyond the classroom/instruction level. It is a real challenge to find the time and the stage on which the remainder of the process can be played out. Here are a few ideas on how to overcome that obstacle.
· Finding venues for Spanish acquisition is pretty easy. Watch TV in that language. Start out with children’s programs and advance according to your comfort level.
· Rent movies. The ones with subtitles are particularly helpful.
· Listen to music and/or radio stations.
· Read books. Again, start with children’s and work your way up.
· Put yourself in environments where that language is being used. Perhaps you could volunteer to tutor an ESL student who speaks your language of interest. Church services, ethnic restaurants, public events, etc. Speaking events, such as public political forums, where both languages may be spoken are particularly helpful.
· Find an on-line language partner. See below.
· Make friends with someone who speaks that language.
· Find a pen pal.
Here are a few resources:
- ESL Idea Generator. Great ideas on how to teach English as a second language. Find access to a language partner and you and your partner could try some of these suggestions. It is really fun to do…kind of like a game of charades.
http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Houston-TeachingIdeas.html
http://www.sharedtalk.com/index.aspx?SRC=GAds.SN.en.Language.Exchange&gclid=CIqy8JrcyZQCFSEragodImWSkw
- TT 4 You On-Line Language Exchange. Voice chat forum / enhance conversation skills. Handy translation query text box
http://www.tt4you.com/
Most importantly, keep is casual and fun.
Foreign language
Forgot to say that my foreign language was Latin and my memory is about as dead as the language.
the English language - that's
what I HAVE. Comes in handy with my job.
Is English your third language or what?
Sheep are easily fleeced. Oh-baaaaaaaaaa-ma.
Well, there you have it, the language of obama
when is a tax not a tax? when it is a cost of living increase brought on by government regulations that are expensive to comply with.
when are promises made to be broken? when they are airy-fairy generalities made in order to buy votes. *no tax increase* can now be claimed to have meant about anything. he will claim he meant no income tax increase, but didn't mean: no tobacco tax, gasoline tax, excise tax, tax on internet, etc.
how silly all of you are who voted for obama thinking you would have more money in your pockets (taken from the wealthy), healthcare would be free and manna would fall from heaven. you fell for the biggest sucker play in history.
Well, there you have it, the language of obama
when is a tax not a tax? when it is a cost of living increase brought on by government regulations that are expensive to comply with.
when are promises made to be broken? when they are airy-fairy generalities made in order to buy votes. *no tax increase* can now be claimed to have meant about anything. he will claim he meant no income tax increase, but didn't mean: no tobacco tax, gasoline tax, excise tax, tax on internet, etc.
how silly all of you are who voted for obama thinking you would have more money in your pockets (taken from the wealthy), healthcare would be free and manna would fall from heaven. you fell for the biggest sucker play in history.
Still can't come up with that refundable credit language?
x
I NEVER START with rude language,
I only REACT to it.
Like SELF-DEFENCE. ever heard of this?
You only complain about 'bad language' if it's aimed at
!
Obama's New Spanish Language TV Ad Es Erróneo...sm
Political Punch
Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior National Correspondent Jake Tapper
From the Fact Check Desk: Obama's New Spanish Language TV Ad Es Erróneo
September 17, 2008 5:53 PM
Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., has launched a new Spanish-language TV ad that seeks to paint Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., as anti-immigrant, even tying the Republican to his longtime conservative talk-radio nemesis Rush Limbaugh.
As first reported by the Washington Post, Obama's ad features a narrator saying: "They want us to forget the insults we’ve put up with…the intolerance…they made us feel marginalized in this country we love so much."
The screen then shows these two quotes from Limbaugh:
“…stupid and unskilled Mexicans”
—Rush Limbaugh
"You shut your mouth or you get out!”
—Rush Limbaugh
The narrator then says, “John McCain and his Republican friends have two faces. One that says lies just to get our vote…and another, even worse, that continues the policies of George Bush that put special interests ahead of working families. John McCain…more of the same old Republican tricks.”
There are some real factual problems with this ad, which is titled “Dos Caras,” or two faces.
First of all, tying Sen. McCain – especially on the issue of immigration reform – to Limbaugh is unfair.
Limbaugh opposed McCain on that issue. Vociferously. And in a larger sense, it’s unfair to link McCain to Limbaugh on a host of issues since Limbaugh, as any even occasional listener of his knows, doesn’t particularly care for McCain.
Second, the quotes of Limbaugh’s are out of context.
Railing against NAFTA in 1993, Limbaugh said, "If you are unskilled and uneducated, your job is going south. Skilled workers, educated people are going to do fine 'cause those are the kinds of jobs NAFTA is going to create. If we are going to start rewarding no skills and stupid people, I'm serious, let the unskilled jobs that take absolutely no knowledge whatsoever to do -- let stupid and unskilled Mexicans do that work."
Not one of his most eloquent moments, to be sure, but his larger point was that NAFTA would mean that unskilled stupid Mexicans would be doing the jobs of unskilled stupid Americans.
I’m not going to defend how he said it, but to act as if this was just a moment of Limbaugh slurring Mexicans is not accurate. Though again, certainly if people were offended I could understand why.
The second quote is totally unfair. In 2006, Limbaugh was mocking Mexican law, and he wrote:
“Everybody's making immigration proposals these days. Let me add mine to the mix. Call it The Limbaugh Laws:
“First: If you immigrate to our country, you have to speak the native language. You have to be a professional or an investor; no unskilled workers allowed. Also, there will be no special bilingual programs in the schools with the Limbaugh Laws. No special ballots for elections. No government business will be conducted in your language. Foreigners will not have the right to vote or hold political office.
“If you're in our country, you cannot be a burden to taxpayers. You are not entitled to welfare, food stamps, or other government goodies. You can come if you invest here: an amount equal to 40,000 times the daily minimum wage. If not, stay home. But if you want to buy land, it'll be restricted. No waterfront, for instance. As a foreigner, you must relinquish individual rights to the property.
“And another thing: You don't have the right to protest. You're allowed no demonstrations, no foreign flag waving, no political organizing, no bad-mouthing our President or his policies. You're a foreigner: shut your mouth or get out! And if you come here illegally, you're going to jail.
“You think the Limbaugh Laws are harsh? Well, every one of the laws I just mentioned are actual laws of Mexico today! That' how the Mexican government handles immigrants to their country. Yet Mexicans come here illegally and protest in our streets!
“How do you say ‘double standard’ in Spanish? How about: ‘No mas!’”
But even if one is uninclined to see Limbaugh's quotes as having been taken unfairly out of context, linking them to McCain makes as much sense as running a quote from Bill Maher and linking it to Obama.
Asked for backup as to how Obama could link McCain to Limbaugh, the campaign provided this interview with McCain refusing to condemn the Minutemen from from the Kansas City Star:
Q: ‘Are they a good thing? The Civil Defense Corps, do you think -- do they help in the immigration fight, or not?’
A: ‘I think they're citizens who are entitled to being engaged in the process. They're obviously very concerned about immigration.’
Q: ‘Are they helpful?’
A: ‘I think that's up to others to judge. I don't agree with them, but they certainly are exercising their legal rights as citizens.’
Asked about the “lies” they’re accusing McCain of telling, the Obama campaign provided evidence that McCain in July 2008 told LA Raza that he would have voted for the DREAM act, a bill that provides scholarships for the children of illegal immigrants, even thought he earlier in the campaign season said he would have voted against the bill.
Let’s delver further into this.
In the November 2007, Myrtle Beach Sun-News, McCain said of the DREAM Act, which he had cosponsored in the past, "I think it has certain virtues associated with it. And I think other things have virtues associated with it. But the message is they want the borders secured first."
The newspaper noted that McCain said he’d vote against a temporary worker program, even though he supports the idea. "I will vote against anything until we secure the borders," he said. "There is no way we're going to enact piecemeal immigration reform."
Before La Raza, McCain was asked by a young Latina if he’d support the DREAM Act, and he said, “Yes. Yes.”
The full exchange, however, goes like this:
QUESTIONER: Hi. I’m a part of One Dream 2009 and I am one of the 6 million who either have an undocumented parent or is undocumented and I wanted to know if you would support humanity all around the world and support our Dream Act that we are trying to pass.
MCCAIN: Yes. Yes. Thank you. But I will also enforce the existing laws of a country. And a nation’s first requirement is the nation’s security, and that’s why we have to have our borders secured. But, we can have a way and a process of people obtaining citizenship in this country. And, we cannot penalize people who come here legally and people who wait legally. And so, that’s a fundamental principle on which we have to operate. Thank you.
The Obama campaign also provided a number of seemingly conflicting comments McCain has made about offering greater funding for education programs in the No Child Left Behind act -- telling the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials in June that he “would fully fund those programs that have never been fully funded,” while not suggesting any greater funding for the bill when he’s talked about education in front of whiter audiences.
That ignores the fact that McCain has suggested reallocating the way the $23 billion for NCLB is spent.
McCain has changed his rhetoric and his emphasis when discussing immigration after almost losing the GOP presidential nomination because of it.
He now says the borders must be secured before anything else happens. And in that, he’s opened himself up to charges of flip-flopping, though the Obama campaign is quoting him selectively and unfairly to make their points.
The greater implication the ad makes, however, is that McCain is no friend to Latinos at all, beyond issues of funding the DREAM act or how NCLB money is distributed. By linking McCain to Limbaugh’s quotes, twisting Limbaugh’s quotes, and tying McCain to more extremist anti-immigration voices, the Obama campaign has crossed a line into misleading the viewers of its new TV ad. In Spanish, the word is erróneo.
-- jpt
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/from-the-fact-1.html
ohhhh so now that I found the refundable language you were looking for...
now you are yiping double standard.
Does McCain's tax credit for health care remove someone's federal tax liability? No.
Is it aimed specifically at the "bottom?" No.
Not even remotely the same. Obama has said himself...spread the wealth. Start from the bottom up. Redistribute that wealth. Have you looked at his history at all? Of course not...wouldn't want that idol to have clay feet.
Now you're speaking my language. Single parenthood
world void of credit cards. Never used one. Not once. Have only paid off one car loan in my entire (long) life...the rest of it, cash and carry, pay as you go. Paid for my condo that way and became proud owner of Acura 2.2 CL in the absence of interest back in the 90s, good ole days from where I sit now. Passed these survival skills along to my son. Credit crunch has left us unscathed. We are wondering how the rest of the folks will fare once the recession (let's not quibble and say it OUT LOUD) sets in. Guess they will have to see what it feels like to live like the great unwashed underbelly. We expect the tables will turn on some of them but will be happy to help them out and give them a "hand up," when the time comes.
freedom of speech excludes and stops at slander and foul language...sm
You are slandering the President of the United States out of ignorance, shame on you!
Where is this written in the Constitution that it is allowed to grossly insult the President?
Even if I disagree with the decisions of the President, I would NEVER slander him.
I am an independent, not a liberal, and I never slandered Bush, although I very much disagreed with him.
Therefore there are presidential elections set every 4 years, when we can elect another President, but we are disrespecting ourselves by slandering the President the majority of the population voted.
And you are calling yourselves
American citizens?
What a hypocrisy.
You are insulting the incumbent President of the United States of America and it is not even PROVEN that he made mistakes up until now. That you disagree with him, does not make it a mistakes from O's side. Or do you want to say that you are better qualified to be the President of the United States?
Can you all look into the future, like Nostradamus?
Thank God there are parents who do not think as you.
x
Me too! My parents both Democrats....
the Zell Miller kind. THAT Democratic party is no more.
It wasn't the parents
It was the caretakers in the orphanages that physically and sexually abused these children and subsequently murdered them (approximately 1910-1940). The parents gave them up because they could not care for them. There are drugs that cause miscarriage. That is abortion. There are natural causes for miscarriage (dilating cervix, the fetus is still alive). That is abortion. Overturning Roe vs. Wade will not improve the quality of life for anyone. There will just be more backroom abortions and more unwanted children eking out a miserable existence. Like I said, I will leave the judgment part up to God. And abortion isn't the only thing they want abolished - birth control is on the list, too. I guess married couples should just abstain from sex after they have had their required amount of religiously acceptable children. Some countries impose abortion on their women, I guess we are lucky not to have been born in one of those countries, otherwise, we'd burn in heck!
I asked my parents about this
and they both laughed at me. My father comes from a very politically involved family. My dad tells me things were very charged when Kennedy ran and especially when Nixon ran. He has especially bad memories of the Nixon campaign.
that is, if the child does not want the parents to know at all
xx
But till the age of 18, it is the PARENTS
who decide what is, according to their opinion, better or worse.
And this applies also to abortion, if you like it or not.
Because there are responsible parents out there who think that producing a child entails also RAISING this child and not giving it up for adoption.
And if they cannot maintain this child, things happen!- they choose pro-choice.
Well, many parents would love to put
their children in Christian schools but you screaming God-hating liberals hate school vouchers. :) I suppose you don't mind sending your kids to public education. You want them to be just like commie, perverted mom.
Elderly parents
I think what we are going to see more of in the future is multiple generations living under one roof. It's going to be the only way anyone will be able to afford to live. They've done this in other countries for years because of the high cost of living. The elderly will not be able to afford to live on their own. Our children will not be able to afford to live on their own because they won't be able to find jobs.
My parents were smart like that too.
My dad worked for GM for 30+ years and retired in his 60s only because he wasn't capable of working anymore. They paid off their house. They had one credit card that they paid off every month if they used it. Dad had cash in the bank, stashed in other places, etc. Now my dad has been gone for almost 2 years now and my mom is living in her paid off house by herself. All that hard work that my father did to make sure that she would be taken care of after he was gone and now GM is doing horrible. Not sure what will happen to my mother's healthcare through GM or the pension my father worked so hard for. It is truly a shame if his blood, sweat, and tears of 30+ years didn't amount to anything.
A lot of younger people nowadays don't know what it is to work for what you have. Everyone wants things given to them now and that is a huge reason why I have a problem with welfare. It doesn't help the people who really need a hand up. All of these government assistant programs will do nothing but make people more lazy and dependent on others to give to them. I'd rather work for what I have and tell the government to leave me the heck alone, but that is just me.
The average American has 10K in credit card debt and think that is just sad. My DH and I have one credit card and we pay it off every month. The only thing we owe on is our house and it sucks that I'm terrified about losing it because the economy is so bad when my DH and I have been nothing but responsible with our money. We just keep plugging along and hoping that DH's job isn't one of the ones on the chopping block. If we keeps his job, we will be okay. However, if he doesn't, especially with a new baby on the way, we are in deep sh!t!
The parents liked the idea of....(sm)
having a website that students could use for their class. I have no problem with that. A lot of teachers do that. AGAIN, the problem is that it was a conservative website.
Teaching our children partisan politics when they are supposed to be learning history is completely not acceptable.
I also happen to agree that "real" history for the most part is not taught in high school. You only get the real stuff when you reach college, if you're lucky enough to get a good professor. However, I doubt very seriously what you call "real history" and the facts would match up.
Valles and these parents see the light....nm
x
Both of my parents were registered Democrats....
I grew up in a Democrat household. That being said...my parents would not recognize the Democratic party as it is today. And they could not be classified as liberals, based on what I hear and see from those who call themselves liberals. I should be more specific I suppose...when I say "liberals" I am referring to those who post here who have identified themselves as liberals, and those I have seen in print and in the media who identify themselves as liberals. That is my basis. Really has nothing to do with registered Democrats...I have no way of knowing if the liberals who post here and identify themselves as such are registered Democrats. Color me confused because I was lamblasted by some who identified themselves as liberals, proceeded to tell me there were no true liberals in the Democratic party (well, that is news to them then, because many of them call themselves liberals). That is when I made the comment that it was hardly to understand what a liberal really was when there are those who define themselves as liberals who are also Democrats and those who define themselves as liberals and say there are no liberals in the democratic party. Yeah...that is a little confusing. However...that being said...when you see me post something about "liberals" I am talking about those I have come into contact with...either in my personal life, on this board, or in print or media...all who have defined themselves as "liberals." Certainly not everyone in the country...have not met them and have no idea what THEIR interpretation of liberal is. I just have to go with what I have experience with. That being said...in my personal life are two stepdaughters who define themselves as liberals, and we have lively debates, believe me. However, I see the same tendencies in them that I see in some here who define themselves as liberal. Doesn't mean we do not care about each other, because we do. We love each other through it. But those who do not have a personal relationship with someone with opposing view...seem to want to demonize the other side. We are all Americans...and we should be able to love each other through it. And as a country we are not doing that...we are doing the opposite, and letting people like Ann Coulter and AL Franken divide us even further...when we should be condemning both. That is all I am saying... :-)
Obama's parents were never married.
Do I have to do ALL the research around here?
Y'all are so naive!
What about parents who don't discuss with their kids?
And so you know right off, I'm not a Barack fan nor McCain fan. However, my own personal beliefs aside, I believe "it takes a village to raise a child" and there are FAR too many parents NOT doing their jobs these days, which forces schools, governments, etc. to jump in to help. I see far too many parents who'd just as soon go to the bar than raise their child. There are parents who are apathetic, and there are parents who are embarrassed or ill-informed themselves to teach their kids sex ed. I don't think sex ed is a problem at all in school, so long as it's in the context of health education and not presented to students in a biased manner of some sort. It IS how mammals reproduce and therefore does have a place in education.
God gave us free will and if you try to control the free will of someone else, how is that right? I believe in consequences of free will when someone chooses wrong, which is why we have laws in place. I don't believe it's any one person's or party's place to tell another how to live their life, period.
Personally, I'd like to see more parents do their jobs at home so gov't and schools didn't have to do it for them (and all the rest of us too as a result), and sure, ideally I'd like to see more kids abstaining from sex altogether. But I'm also a realist and know that my beliefs and willpower aren't the same as everyone else's. That's what is supposed to be great about USA.
The reality is that not all kids have the willpower to abstain in the heat of the moment, no matter WHAT their upbringing or what wonderful parents they have. As you said, it's everywhere - on TV, movies, ads, games, you name it! It's in their face now more than ever, so to ignore it and act like it won't ever happen isn't the answer, either. No, I don't know what the answer is, either, but I don't think that's it.
Also, to take away any access to sex ed and/or birth control at all is in a sense forcing the ideals/morals of one group of people on another and basically taking the free will of the other group - how do you reconcile that? I'm being sincere, as this question plagues me often when considering these issues.
Thank you Amanda..besides, I think that if most parents could send their
child to private schools..and he and his wife are PAYING for it, so what is the problem??
Yes, children are but NOT the ILLEGAL PARENTS...they
--
Parents want to abort Bennett's 3M pact
Parents want to abort Bennett's $3M pact
By MENSAH M. DEAN
deanm@phillynews.com
Philadelphia parents and education activists are
demanding that the city school district end the $3
million contract it awarded in April to K12 Inc., in
light of controversial remarks the company's board
chairman made this week about aborting black babies.
William J. Bennett, chairman of the board of the
Washington-area education company and a former U.S.
Education Secretary, set off protests with remarks he
made during his nationally syndicated radio talk show
Wednesday.
Responding to a caller, Bennett took issue with the
hypothesis put forth in a recent book that one reason
crime is down is that abortion is up. Bennett said:
If you wanted to reduce crime, you could - if that
were your sole purpose - you could abort every black
baby in this country and your crime rate would go
down.
That would be an impossibly ridiculous and morally
reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would
go down, Bennett said.
White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan yesterday
said The president believes the comments were not
appropriate.
Bennett later said his comments had been
mischaracterized and that his point was that the idea
of supporting abortion to reduce crime was morally
reprehensible.
Though some of the Philadelphia school district's top
science teachers raised concerns about K12's
qualifications and experience, the district awarded
the company the contract to supply kindergarten
through third-grade science curriculum materials in
April.
I find it hard to see any explanation for why they're
here in Philadelphia educating many of the black
children Mr. Bennett clearly finds it provocative to
call expendable, said Helen Gym, a mother of a
district third-grader.
I am very rarely struck speechless anymore. However,
I could not get words out of my mouth this morning
when I realized that my school district is somehow
providing support to this company, said Ellayne
Bender, mother of a district 11th-grader.
On a moral level, as a human being, Bender added, I
would like to see the contract voided.
Last fall, Bennett publicly touted district schools
CEO Paul Vallas as a good candidate to become the next
U.S. Secretary of Education. Last night, however,
Vallas stepped away from the man with whom he had been
cordial.
I read his comments, and his comments are outrageous
and offensive to all of us, Vallas said of Bennett.
We do not have a relationship with Bill Bennett. Our
contract is with K12, who are doing an excellent job
in our schools. In my opinion, any extension of the
contract could be jeopardized by his continued
presence on the board.
The length of the contract was not immediately known.
Bennett was education secretary under President Reagan
and director of drug control policy when Bush's father
was president.
No boyfriend sleepovers for parents in Michigan...sm
Dad Pans Girlfriend Sleepover Ban
DETROIT, Dec. 22, 2005
 (AP / CBS)
This antiquated law allows the state to unconstitutionally interfere with a parent's relationship with his or her children.
Kary Moss, executive director, ACLU of Michigan
|
|
(AP) A divorced father will fight a ruling that keeps his girlfriend away from their Michigan home when his children visit overnight, the state chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union said Wednesday.
The ACLU said it would appeal to the state Supreme Court on behalf of Christian Muller, whose ex-wife sought the court order based on an 1838 state law that makes lewd and lascivious cohabitation a crime. Michigan is one of only seven states with such a law on the books, the ACLU said.
This antiquated law allows the state to unconstitutionally interfere with a parent's relationship with his or her children, said Kary Moss, executive director of the ACLU of Michigan.
Muller shares legal custody of his two daughters, ages 5 and 7, with his former wife, Nicolette Muller.
Oakland County Judge Daniel Patrick O'Brien ordered that both parents be prohibited from having overnight visitation with their children when they have unrelated overnight guests of the opposite sex.
The latest appeal argues that the Court of Appeals decision conflicts with its prior rulings and with the Child Custody Act of 1970, and relies on an unconstitutional statute — the 1838 state law.
Elizabeth Silverman, an attorney who had represented Nicolette Muller, said Wednesday her services had not been retained for the latest appeal.
A home telephone number could not be found for Nicolette Muller, who lives in southeastern Michigan.
I can't begin to imagine what the parents must feel.
I would be so enraged if I were in their position that I'm not sure what I'd do. I hope I would remember that keeping my family together and supporting my child (or children if there are siblings) has to be a priority, but on the other hand, to know that this monster is free to walk the streets and do this to other children... I'm not sure I wouldn't do whatever was necessary to put him either behind bars or underground. I certainly couldn't condemn a parent in that situation who made that choice.
I really hope there is enough uproar over this to change things. Otherwise, what choice do people have to protect their children but to take the law into their own hands? These judges (and legislators, for that matter) need to realize that, like guards in a prison, government rules by consent of the governed. Fail to protect the governed or to enforce reasonable laws in a just manner, and the governed will assume control one way or another. I am not an anarchist by any means, but law and order is one of the most basic governmental responsibilities. We can argue til the cows come home about everything else we would or wouldn't like the government involved in, but if they fail on too large a scale in this most basic duty, vigilantism and anarchy become inevitable.
I don't care how much the parents make per year...
Their kids still deserve affordable healthcare. You keep talking about people making $80,000 per year, and yes that is a lot of money, and more than double what I make, but those people can still get into trouble with medical bills of $100,000 to $200,000, and is it fair for that hard-working upper-middle-class family to have to sell their house simply to pay medical bills for a sick child? Not in my personal opinion.
Some people don't prioritize their spending well - I agree with you there, but should their kids suffer health-wise because of their parents horrible spending habits? Is it fair that many parents have to take a 2nd job simply to pay for their health insurance premiums? Is it fair that they cannot afford to take simple family vacations because ALL of their money goes to bills and health insurance? Is it right that many parents don't spend quality time with their children at night and aren't there to help their kids with their homework because they have had to take a 2nd job to cover health care for the family? For most families it is not a choice between cable TV and healthcare. Cable TV costs about $60 to $100 per month. Health insurance premiums can be upwards of $1000 per month plus additional costs. $12,000 per year on cable TV? I don't think so.
I personally don't go out and buy extravagant things, and that is fine with me. I can barely afford to take the kids on a weekend trip to the museum in the next town, but I know if I keep working hard someday I might be able to take my kids on more trips and broaden their herizons a bit more. In the meantime, we have a lot of love to go around, and I know that is what kids needs most, but I long for the freedom to show them a little more of the beautiful state we live in without having to worry about a $1000 per month health insurance premium.
I was raised by very conservative, strict parents. - sm
But once you get beyond high school, and into college or out into the working world, you meet so many different kinds of people. I'd be lying if I said I got along with all of them (or even maybe most of them?) But in my own experience, beginning back when I met the first gay person I ever knew (he had his own horse, and he let me ride it all the time), my personal friendships have been good ones. I wouldn't trade any of them for anything, and feel sad when I think they sometimes have to live certain aspects of their lives as ƈnd-class' citizens. Especially when each and every one contributes so much to society, and to life in general. So I really have no idea, as well.
I agree - parents are always proud of their children
And I guess if all the Billy Boy Clinton fans think its okay for Billy to say the things he is about his daughter (who has never been involved in politics herself) then I think Bush Sr. can think highly of his sons too.
If my grandparents and great parents were alive
They would slap me upside the head and say "Snap out of it. When I was your age I had to walk to school in the snow without a coat and shoes up hill - both ways". My grandmother would then call me pannywaste (whatever that is but when someone was wimpy she'd call them that), and my other grandmother would call me wimpy, whoos, or other words like that.
Our grandparents went through a depression, a couple of wars. They went hungry and went without. My grandfather told me his family was so poor he didn't even have shoes to go to school in. He had to wait for his brother to outgrow his so he could inherit them. They went through worse than us and they survived and they didn't have any government office telling them how to get through it.
I wonder if this new website was part of the spendulous plan (is this where our tax money is going?).
When are people who have any power to be able to do anything going to say enough is enough, your all fired. When people are inept and destroying a country (oops, mean corporation), it's time to fire them. Not them them spend more years in the seats continuing to put the country in ruins.
If my grandparents and great parents were alive
They would slap me upside the head and say "Snap out of it. When I was your age I had to walk to school in the snow without a coat and shoes up hill - both ways". My grandmother would then call me pannywaste (whatever that is but when someone was wimpy she'd call them that), and my other grandmother would call me wimpy, whoos, or other words like that.
Our grandparents went through a depression, a couple of wars. They went hungry and went without. My grandfather told me his family was so poor he didn't even have shoes to go to school in. He had to wait for his brother to outgrow his so he could inherit them. They went through worse than us and they survived and they didn't have any government office telling them how to get through it.
I wonder if this new website was part of the spendulous plan (is this where our tax money is going?).
When are people who have any power to be able to do anything going to say enough is enough, your all fired. When people are inept and destroying a country (oops, mean corporation), it's time to fire them. Not them them spend more years in the seats continuing to put the country in ruins.
just like sex ed, they should make kids parents decide
ever remember having to have a permission slip for sex ed or even for your kids? They should do the same thing for the gay thing. For a species to thrive it needs to have male and female parts to reproduce, so why teach something that would not benefit the species? I am not against gay people. I am just against my kids being forced to think that it is something that they might have to look into and that it might be "cool".
For many parents of military personnel, a flag
--
It seemingly is hard for a lot of parents to understand....(sm)
as that idea is obviously either not being taught or just doesn't work. If that were working, this wouldn't be an issue.
Another post below mentioned Hardball. This is an interview with parents
of a Marine who was killed this week in Iraq. Here is the transcript of the show. I think it's very compelling. These people certainly gave the ultimate sacrifice, and to me, their views are very important.
The interview with Ken Allard is also very interesting. This can all be found at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8838904/
MATTHEWS: Tonight, we begin with the parents of Lance Corporal Edward Schroeder, who was among the 14 Marines who lost their lives in yesterday's attack in Iraq. His parents, Rosemary Palmer and Paul Schroeder, join me now from their home outside Cleveland.
Well, it's a terrible thing to do, but I want to talk to you both about the war in Iraq and the loss of your son.
Ms. Palmer, did you sense that this war was very dangerous for your son, even before yesterday?
ROSEMARY PALMER, MOTHER OF KILLED U.S. MARINE: Well, war is always dangerous. And there were so many deaths that it was starting to mount to the point where I was actually thinking yesterday that if Auggie (ph) were not among the 14 killed, I was almost to the point of calling the Department of Defense and just saying, for mental health reasons, he had to come home, that I couldn't handle it anymore. It was just too much.
MATTHEWS: What made you feel that the danger was growing?
PALMER: Well, it's the old game of the fewer. And the 325 unit that he's in has been having more and more casualties. And if you have fewer guys and the same number of people, well, then, the other—the chances are growing that your person is going to be the one that's hit.
MATTHEWS: Let me ask you, Mr. Schroeder, why do you think we're in this war? What do you think is the real reason for this war in Iraq?
PAUL SCHROEDER, FATHER OF KILLED U.S. MARINE: Well, I really don't know why. I could guess, which might be unfair. But I would guess it has to do with oil. It has to do with deposing a dictator that we used to love and came to hate.
MATTHEWS: Yes.
SCHROEDER: That goes on repeatedly.
MATTHEWS: What did your son say was his motivation for fighting? Was it just patriotism to our country or a belief in the mission?
SCHROEDER: He did not have a motivation to fight. He had a motivation to do his duty to the Marine Corps and to be part of the Marines. His entire life was devoted to doing what he promised he would do.
MATTHEWS: What did he tell you...
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: What did he say about how the war was going?
SCHROEDER: Well, early on, when his unit arrived there in March, he was talking about the friendly Iraqi people. After May and June, he stopped talking about the friendly people, not that they weren't friendly. But he stopped talking about it.
Two weeks ago, in the last conversation I had with him, he simply said, the closer we get to coming home, the less worth it this is.
MATTHEWS: How did you interpret that?
SCHROEDER: I took that to mean that his participation in Operation Matador, Operation New Market, Operation Sword, Operation Spear, and a couple others that I don't know the names of were failing. And that's, basically, the operations were intended to go into these towns, kick out the insurgents, take their weapons, arrest whoever they could, and then they would withdraw.
They only had to go back and find more insurgents in the same places. The fact that these 14 fellows were blown up indicates to me, logic would say, that this policy, this strategy, this tactic has failed.
MATTHEWS: Let me go to Rosemary...
SCHROEDER: If it was successful, if it was successful, then he would still be alive, as would all those other kids.
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: Rosemary, let me ask you about the—what is your feeling about this war and the goal of trying to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people? And do you think that was a smart thing for us to try to do?
PALMER: It was a very naive thing for us to do.
You don't go to another culture and try to impose yours and expect it to work. We're not Iraqis. We don't have the same culture. And while I understand that we're a multicultural nation, we don't act like it sometimes. We act like the whole world thinks exactly the way we do.
MATTHEWS: Do you think that the war is going to get any better now that your son—I mean, you have paid the ultimate price? And, by the way, thank you. I don't know what it means to say thank you for your service, except I mean it. The courage of these young guys and some women over there is unbelievable. And I guess everybody wonders about the conduct of the war, whether they're being—these lives are being wasted or these lives are being put to good purpose.
What is your feeling about that now?
PALMER: Well, I personally believe that, since it is not working, then we have to make a change, that it is not worth the sacrifice if it is just more bodies on to the heap.
Like President Bush said, he wanted to stay the course and honor the memory of the ones who died by continuing to fight. If it didn't work before, why does fighting more—you know, you do the same thing over and over, that's—expecting a different result is, I think, the explanation of insanity.
MATTHEWS: Yes.
Well, the way you describe it, it is like pouring water into a sand hole on the beach and having it drain right through and start over again. It seems like a repetitive process that doesn't seem to be getting anywhere.
PALMER: Exactly.
SCHROEDER: Well, the repetitive process has been going on for 27 months, since the active invasion phase ended, 27 months of doing the same thing over and over and over again, with no evidence that it is getting better.
If there were evidence it was getting better—and I have yet to see it—and I—frankly, if it was getting better, these fellows would still be alive after all of this strenuous effort. Then it is time to make a change. Either put the number of troops on the ground that you need to really do the job or get the heck out.
MATTHEWS: Do you have a sense...
SCHROEDER: We have a saying—we have a saying in the Midwest, piss or get off the pot.
MATTHEWS: Do you have a sense, because of your son's tremendous, permanent, total sacrifice of his life and his experience in these months fighting this war, that the middle-level officers, the majors, the captains, do they have a sense of a clear vision of what they're getting done over there?
SCHROEDER: I can't speak to those fellows. I have great respect for the Marine officers at that level and the sergeants who made these troops, great respect.
I would tell you that they probably are frustrated, just like a lot of the ground troops, the lance corporals and the privates are. I would say that one thing that we have to make crystal clear, which is why we agreed to talk today, is that there is a—you cannot equate. There is a clear difference between supporting the troops on the ground and supporting the policies that put them there.
The president likes to make those—to equate those two things. If you don't support the war, you don't support the troops. And too many American people are buying into that. I don't buy into that. Rosemary doesn't buy into that. It is time that we say, look, we can support the troops all until the cows come home.
(CROSSTALK)
SCHROEDER: We don't support the policies that put them there.
MATTHEWS: You two have more right to answer this question than anybody else in the country today. After reading those headline—and to most of us, they're just headlines. They're American G.I.s, Marines in this case, giving their lives for their country, 20-some this week, in that one part of the country in Iraq.
What should be the reaction of the American people who pick up their newspapers, watch television, and learn of these horrors? What should they do as a result of seeing that news, Mr. Schroeder?
SCHROEDER: They should stand up and tell President Bush, enough is enough. You've had your chance. Now let somebody else come up with a different plan. If you can't come up with a different plan that is going to work, in my view, that is more troops, then get out.
MATTHEWS: Rosemary, is that your view? Is that how we, all of us, not in the news business, regular Americans from your part of the country, across the country, getting this horrible news, how should they react to it?
PALMER: Well, I think most people are just saying, you know, the latter, just get out, because it is clearly—well, it is obvious that the politicians are not going to institute a draft. And with the number of deaths and the dangers being what they are, they are not going to get the recruits.
So, therefore, if you can't—you can't get enough guys to do the fighting, well, then you have to get out. Do it or get out of the game.
MATTHEWS: I got you. I heard your views and they sound similar.
Thank you very much for this hour of—this time of anguish, to be giving this information. I think the public needs to hear from folks like you.
Thank you very much, Rosemary Palmer and Paul Schroeder, who lost their son, Lance Corporal Edward Schroeder, just today, last 24 hours.
We'll be right back with HARDBALL.
Great solution. Skip healthcare for the parents.
Because it is great for kids to be motherless and fatherless? Right. I actually do not have any health insurance, and since I put my kids first (who are covered btw), that is okay for now, but should I really have to do without? I agree tax refunds would be good for people who pay health insurance, but I think a better solution would be for government to force the health insurance companies to offer more affordable, straight-forward plans. WHY ARE YOU PEOPLE SO AGAINST FREE OR AFFORDABLE HEALTHCARE FOR KIDS WHO DO NOT HAVE A CHOICE WHAT INCOME LEVEL/INTELLIGENCE LEVEL THEIR PARENTS ARE. I am a broken record here. I don't care what argument you give me, I will still believe that government should cover all kids, just like it already covers all poor people. Does a poor adult deserve better healthcare than a middle-income child? No, of course not, but God forbid someone raise your taxes (even though they will continue to rise regardless) to fund health care for kids.
parents signed their child up for the religion teaching
nm
I totally agree, but the PARENTS have neglicted thes precious lessons entirely...sm
They are too busy being "kids" themselves, chasing their selfish satisfactions. The Moral Decay of America, as in ancient Rome, will certainly be its downfall, not any terrorist organization. Look within, sadly.
Any child born to American parents is an American -
I am sorry, but I respectfully disagree with you - any child born to American parents is an American even if they are born overseas. The birth has to be registered with the United States, but they are still an American even if they are born in the foreign hospital.
I have 2 cousins who were born in Japan and they have no problems at all being "American".
|
