Response to bilingual debate below.
Posted By: globetrotter on 2008-07-17
In Reply to:
A more meaningful dialog could ensue in the absence of spin. In debates void of logic and substance, contenders often employ name-calling, personal attack and slay-the-messenger tactics. These are divisive methods and are not conducive to mutual understanding.
With regard to REQUIRING (your capitals, not mine) bilingual education, the following statement was issued by the Americans for Legal Immigration: "Barack Obama has stepped on a political land mine by stating Americans should be forced to learn to speak Spanish." But that is not what Obama said. If you are English literate, then you know that “should” does not insinuate force, nor does it imply requirement. He is expressing his opinion, nothing more.
In an effort to dispel ethnocentric myth, this bulletin is just in. Multilingualism in European countries has not evolved out of a burning desire to attract American tourism, hardly the lifeblood of any European city. Rather, it is a consequence of the pride taken in a less nationalistic, distinctly multicultural approach to successful assimilation of their immigrant populations and the close proximity of their nations to one another, in recognition of the value of the self-enrichment they gain through this experience in terms of negotiating the advancing progress of cultural globalization.
Not to worry. Or course Latino populations learn to speak English; the adults on their job sites, the children in schools. No rub there. This does not mean that they should not have the option of being proud of their heritage or maintaining a distinct cultural identity in their personal and family lives as well as within the community. The duh factor enters into this equation when contemplating an appropriate Anglo response. Are our interests served best by third class, uneducated, unhealthy non-citizen slaves to be exploited, denied legitimate legal status (be it guest worker, permanent resident or citizen), barred from entry, used, abused, kicked out, walled off, separated from their families, etc, all the time singing the praises of NAFTA, CEFTA, etc? What kind of message does that convey to our children about our characters, both individuals and as a nation?
Speaking of the children, it is predicted that within the next 30 years or so, Anglos will start to slip into the status of minority population. As responsible parents, we owe it to them to address their education based on the realities they will be facing in the future, not on some Anglo-centric worldview. For example, tacit dismissal of the multilingualism of India is the end of the story only in your dreams. Yes, we all know they work for cheaper…simple economics. The rupee buys a whole lot more in India than the dollar does in the US, enabling them to undercut costs. You can stew all you want about poor quality and the need to translate into good ole ENGLISH. Duh. If you are servicing American MTSOs, that is what you do. India is an excellent case study in the value of viewing bilingualism as an asset, rather than a personal insult.
Since independence from Britain, English in India has penetrated government institutions, media, educational and legal systems and gradually, the social sphere as well. English remains the associate official language along with Hindi, the official language. English is the language of higher education and of the elite. Careers in any area of business or commerce, the government or in science and technology REQUIRE fluency in English.
In terms of number of English speakers, India ranks 3rd in the world after USA and the UK. An estimated 40 million people in India use English. This small slice of the total population (4%) controls domains that have professional and social prestige. Moreover, the literacy rate has more than tripled in the past 50 years or so. At the end of British rule, it stood at an appalling 18.33 per cent in 1951. Guess literacy did not serve the UK’s colonial interests. Since it’s independence, under Indian administration policies, the literacy rate has risen to approximately 67 per cent. During the same period, the population tripled, suggestive of an endless future resource with which our children and children’s children will compete, like it or not.
More recently, India has capitalized on its large pool of educated, English-speaking people and trained professionals, to become an important outsourcing destination, a by-product of India’s richly resourceful ingenuity, coupled with western corporate greed. The business process outsourcing (BPO) industry refers to services outsourcing industry in India, provided mainly to Western multinational corporations (MNCs). This sector experienced significant expansion during 2004–05, to include acceleration of operations by major MNC players, resulting in escalated job growth within the Indian organizations. At the same time, as we all know, US jobs are disappearing hand-over-fist, in these same sectors.
In response to demand from the telecommunications and business, finance, services and insurance (BFSI) segments, the US BPO market matched the growth of India’s BPO exports, intensified by subsequent mergers, acquisitions and consolidation. By 2005, there were over 400 Indian service providers, primarily empowered by low telecom costs and the availability of an educated ENGLISH-SPEAKING workforce in India.
BTW, multilingualism in a global economy may very well more bills down the line, but only if Americans are able to expand their horizons and embrace the inevitable. The choice is ours. We can employ this most valuable tool along with our good ole Yankee ingenuity and meet new and exciting challenges that lay ahead of us, or remain mired in blustering antiquated dogma that will bury us in the rubble of our ranting resentments.
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
Another classy response. I won't say liberal response,
because I don't think you and these pile-on posters are indicative of liberals as a whole. Don't know why they let you speak for them...but that is up to them. Obviously you don't think compassion is a personality trait...obviously you feel that it can be turned on and off to suit your agenda. So be it.
Debate, lets debate
Honey, I dont know if your problem is Alzheimer's or Parkinson's but I have debated all over this board..I have tried and tried again and again to debate with your cohorts..It starts out okay and then your conservative friends start attacking and it continues through the debate to where then there is no longer a debate. I ask for you to check the archives and you will see this..nothing but personal attacks against me, which then I attacked back..Debate..lets debate..I WOULD LOVE TO DEBATE WITHOUT ATTACKS..Place an issue and lets debate..Who knows..my consciousness might be raised or yours might be..Lets do it,,
You do not know how to debate
you are the biggest hypocrite ever. I was debating with you, but just because you didn't like what I said you said I was attacking you.
Again, you're are a sad individual....hateful sad individual.
As far as I see it, there is no debate.
This country has gone to the dogs. We are now just another *invading* country, with no morals, no Constitution, nothing of which to be proud. We have a lying, warring regime taking us down with them, taking our freedoms, spitting on the Constitution, tearing the very fabric of this country, and you see nothing evil about that? That, my fellow American, is what I cannot comprehend. Furthermore, Iraq was not our enemy. The Bush Family MADE him our enemy so that our very DEMOCRACY would be eroded to the point that we won't even recognize by the time he is out of office. And you don't see any EVIL in that? WAKE UP, Smell the coffee, or even the stench that wreaks from this regime.
Debate
One of the biggest problems that we have today is our inability to have intellegent discussions. The previous commenters irrational, over-wrought statements, frought with conspiracy theory, does an excellent job of proving that point. There is plenty of grist for calling those in power to task for their actions and decisions without foaming at the mouth. Oh, how I long for the days of the old boy's club of the congress before the eighties when people of conscience could disagree on substance, still be fast friends and treat their political opposites with respect and decorum. I'm contuinally amazed how the most vocal and extreme ascribe nefarious motives to others. This seems to be, almost exclusively, an affliction of the left. Without this intellectual pollution, we might be able to actually find common ground.
Debate me...
First it was that **we couldn't debate,** now it is ** persecution.** When did I say I was persecuted. I merely said the Crusades have been seen in a negative light for as long as I can remember and suddenly they are being seen in a good light. That's all, kaput, the end. Martyr...don't think so.
I don't know how you can live with such disdain for all liberals and all Arab peoples and have any peace or joy in your life. That is a full-time job, being angry.
debate
Hillary all the way -
No need to debate this...because I see it as the same and you do not....
I listened to AL Franken on Air America quite a few times...that was mild, and it was not a joke. He meant it when he said it. I find that offensive. You do not, probably because Ann Coulter did not say it talking about Democrats. Face it, if Ann Coulter had made the same comment Al Franken did, substituting Democrat names and Democrat for Republican, you would not say Ann Coulter was obviously joking and ignore it. That is what I am talking about...you can see exactly what Ann COulter did wrong, but blow off Al Franken as obviously joking. I just don't get that kind of rationalization, sorry. No offense meant...just don't understand it, and it seems so prevalent on the left side of the house. I mean, I can say Ann Coulter was wrong and that both statements by both people were offensive and wrong. You can agree that what Franken said was tasteless and classless, yet he gets a buy as *obviously joking." I just don't get why you can't just say both were wrong and leave it at that...Coulter has to be worse and Franken gets a buy.
Debate
Once again, this is a subject I feel very strongly about. I applaud anyone who broadens their education by learning a foreign language or learning anything new for that matter.
That being said, I believe that anyone who wishes to immigrate to THIS country should wish to embrace our language, our customs and our way of life, not the other way around. I am speaking here of the illegal INVADERS. I imagine that those who become citizens through legal channels, most likely learn English. I am sick to death of hearing babbling everywhere I go, to the grocery store, to restaurants, everywhere. My ancestors immigrated LEGALLY from Ireland and Germany. The other side of the ancestors were herded up and driven to a reservation like so many cattle. I live next door to the Cherokee Nation and not once have I heard them speaking in their native tongue outside of their Powwows, although they strive to keep the language alive. They don't require a press 1 for Cherokee on every telephone message system.
If this language issue isn't enough, it infuriates me that the Mexicans can come here to OUR country and march in their demonstrations while waving their MEXICAN flag.
Unfortunately, the reason we have to learn THEIR language to commuicate is most likely the majority who enter our country illegally are ignorant in even the most basic education and thus not likely to be able to learn a foreign language i.e. English.
You are correct, if we aren't willing to stand up for the heritage of our country; we may as well learn the language as one day we will most likely be part of Mexico and Spanish will be the official language.
debate is on
per debate commission and Obama. Let's rock.
debate
i will probably watch on cnn. i do not want to miss a word or a fumble/jumble confused silly look on anyone's face. I am my own best commentator and so will listen to the commentators after the debate.... one candidate is really not overly intelligent. i will see how well he was briefed...looking forward to the comedy !
I too think that this debate could have
been more indepth and not just the same old ho hum we have been hearing since the start. Then again, it was only the first debate and hopefully they will get better. We have a right to hear specifics from both candidates. We have a right to see them put on the spot to see how well they handle themselves. I want specific questions directed to each candidate and I was specific answers with details. I don't want just a pleasant little Q&A session of fluff.
On the debate....
I was kinda struck by how Obama kept harping on the 10 billion a day (was it?) spent in Iraq...but talking about more troops to Afghanistan. Three brigades I think he said he would send. Okay. So, we are just going to transfer the 10 billion a day to Afghanistan instead of Iraq. Still going to spend it, just in a different place. I was almost yelling at the TV at McCain...ASK HIM ABOUT THAT. lol.
All kidding aside....what I took away from it was Obama leans heavily on Joe Biden for the foreign policy stuff because he is just out of his element. I thought Obama looked uncomfortable, and I got really tired of the smirk after awhile.
On the other hand...in all fairness, John needs to drop the "Miss Congeniality" line. I was talking to the TV again..."we know, John, we KNOW." lol.
I think what makes Obama dangerous is his world view. I do not say that to be mean....I just don't think he is realistic about it. On the one hand he praises General Petraeus (that he got right), and turns right around and won't own up to the fact that the surge worked (even though O'Reilly got him to admit it). Just goes back to the war was wrong. The country is still divided on that. You can't turn back time...and to lose it now would be wrong. Petraeus DID say Obama's plan for a timetable was wrong. I would think more of him if he would say "okay john, you were wrong about the war, but we're there and can't change that. And I was wrong about the surge." I know...dream on...lol.
It was a little alarming to me, facing what we are facing with this "rescue" bill, he STILL talked about spending bazillion dollars. He would not, when pressed, name ONE thing he would put on hold. That just makes NO sense to me, with the "rescue" bill, the deficit, owing money to China yada yada....and wants to fund that stuff with stiff taxes for business...in a down economy. Sorry, I think that's NUTS. Sorry....that also tells me he is either not real smart, or trying to get the vote of people who can't see past "he is going to lower my taxes and give me free health care." I really don't think he is not really smart, so if he gets selected he will be saying "I wanted to do these things, but the economy won't let me."
I have heard people talk all morning (on the Dem side) about how he mentioned the middle class and John McCain didn't. Frankly, the way it appeared to me, was Obama was pandering to the have nots and McCain is not going to promise something he knows he couldn't deliver in the economic situation we find ourselves in. I thought it was kinda patronizing actually. McCain understands that small businesses and yes, nasty corporations, drive this economy and employ a huge number of Americans. In an economic downturn higher taxes on businesses does not work.
Another thing I think McCain should have JUMPED on is that Obama supports the Hank Paulson rescue plan endorsed by Bush and John McCain doesn't like it as it stands. Obama is siding with BUSH! Oh well....lol.
in this debate
the results would be the same no matter who the moderator or modulator or referee or interpretor was.
Debate
After watching the debates I have finally made up my mind. We can not afford to have the angry, unstable John McCain in the White House. He was not only angry, he was sarcastic. My husband and I kept laughing waiting for him to explode. I happen to live in a state that is leaning toward McCain. I notice on the local TV station's forum, 5 people who have been avid McCain supporters have said they changed their mind after watching the debates. It was evident that Obama was angry a couple of times, and I don't blame him but he never lost his "cool."
The race issue is going to play a part in this election but I wonder, has anyone considered that Obama is both black and white? Maybe, just maybe, he could be the one to finally put the race issue to rest. Many blacks will vote for him because he is "black." Many whites will not vote for him because he is "black." Ridiculous. He is equally black and white. Since Lou Dobbs is not running in the first place, he has no chance of being elected. I have decided I will take a chance on Obama. If he turns out to be the worst president in history, well, I'll come back and say I helped elect him. The only real issue I have with him is that of his church affiliation. I noticed that was not brought up in the debate so I can only assume that McCain has investigated that thoroughly and found that there is nothing there that would benefit him.
And as for "Joe the plumber"........I have no doubt that with his notoriaty he will own his own plumbing company but what about my son, "Bill the plumber" who also aspires to own his own plumbing company? My son, "Bill the plumber" has been inclined to vote for McCain but doesn't think either candidate will help him own his own company and neither do I.
I didn't hear anything about "Jane the MT." What about all the MTs who can't find a job? That might be a good talking point.......did anyone notice that Obama wants to reduce medical costs by putting medical records on the internet? Can anyone say bye-bye medical transcriptionists? Of course that is already in the works so really won't make much difference.
debate
I agree. McCain cannot hide his shifty, deceiving body language. He blinks more often and quicker, and he doodles on paper rather than being comfortable making eye contact with Obama.
No one in this world can perform miracles, per se, but I feel that Obama has integrity and diplomacy and really wants to try and better the multitude of conflicts this nation is under, in a realistic but motivated fashion.
Actually during the last debate
He said "when I am president" quite a few times. Just FYI.
Thanks for the debate, its been fun
I think we both have valid concerns. Here's hoping things turn out better than they are now.
Almost a different debate entirely
This thread was started with no differentiation made between Radical Islam and the more moderate practitioners. Do you believe that evangelical christians are a religion? How about the fundamentalists? I personally consider all of them (radical, evangelical, fundamentalists) to be a religion, albeit one that may not necessarily hold the same values as the broader category they fall under.
no response ....
No response
We are not supposed to cross post, so I am respecting the administrator's request.
My response
There is no sound byte answer about Rev. Wright. I'll give you a hint. It has to do with the fact that men of his generation experienced life in America differently than the whites did. Historically, many black churches have been and are political forums, stemming from the days of slavery, when the churches provided a refuge where freedom of speech was possible. I don't know what Obama did or did not hear, and neither do you. What I do know is that he has written extensively about the confusion he had over the "black" part of his identity and part of his search for meaning, purpose and belonging in his younger days was played out in South Chicago. If you have read anything about the church at all, you will know that they have been engaged in many extensive and successful outeach programs in their community and I suspect his "association" with Trinity was focused and centered around that. Too bad a person cannot be judged but his deeds, rather than wild speculation, innuendo and smear campaigns about the company he keeps.
A response from.....sm
To the first 4 paragraphs decrying the decay of black leadership while attempting to lay the blame at the feet of the democratic party, encouraging blacks to bail and proclaiming the dawn of a new day for black conservatism, all that needs to be said is yeah, right. The proof is in the pudding. Black voters are backing Obama 94-1, according to this random poll citation: http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1192 …6% stampede, and we have not even made it through the convention. Great big whoop.
The abortion graphics let us know that the minister is pro-life. OK. Fine. Next, we have this twisted accusation that Obama supports partial birth abortion. That is not his position on abortion, and it is laid out in no uncertain terms on his website and countless times in his speeches and townhall meetings. What he said is that he supports the notion that things should stay as they have been and that those issues should be determined on a state-by-state basis at the local level. Same thing with regard to same-sex marriage and the federal government not being in the business of defining the meaning of marriage, which he clearly believes is a union between a man and a woman (not exactly the most popular position in the gay community).
Yet despite this, the pastor insists he is champion of the gay agenda and the abortion "industry." Never mind that the democratic party platform includes many pro-active initiatives that conservatives will continue to obstruct regarding abortion prevention through sex education, birth control, encouraging and enabling single parents to keep their children with parenting education, job skills training and making adoption laws more user friendly. Most democrats perceive the conservative views on abortion as caring about unborn right from conception to the moment of birth. Beyond that, the babies kind of fall off the radar screen.
For this radical stance (i.e., preserving status quo), the pastor evokes the Barack HUSSEIN Obama slur and is all indignant that Obama puts himself out there as a Christian. Champion of the dead horse drumbeat. This guy is not looking real credible at this point. Performer, he calls him, doubting Obama's sincerity. The "God's on our side" mantra rings hollow as well, considering the conservative pathologic disdain for poverty and conflicts over notions such as the measure of a nation's moral character is only as strong as it's care for the least among us.
He then proceeds to twist the words of THE greatest black leader of modern times…MLK. The infanticide he referred to was the practice of killing female infants/gender selection in biblical patriarchal societies.…a practice emphatically condemned by the Islamic Prophet Mohammed in the Quran back in the day. Twist, turn, spin.
Lets see. Obama is evil incarnate because homophobic interpretations of the Bible do not impress him as much as the Sermon on the Mount? That would be the moral teachings of Jesus, to include the Lord's Prayer, the injunctions to "resist not evil" and "turn the other cheek", as well as Jesus' version of the Golden Rule. Other lines often quoted are the references to "salt of the Earth," "light of the world," and "JUDGE NOT, LEST YE BE JUDGED." These are the core beliefs of the Christian doctrine. Drag out the tar and feathers and hang him high for that sacrilege.
Then another call to arms for those 6% black conservatives, a 2nd reference to Barack HUSSEIN Obama. As for the upcoming black conservative youth, it is the youth vote from the remaining 94% blacks and whites alike that just might boost Obama over the top, last I heard.
Then of course, there are a few paragraphs of closing prayers. If this is what it means to be "right," this guy ends up making the Obama nation look better and better.
response
So you are saying all other media outlets except Fox are liberal and therefore cannot be trusted to provide accurate information. Therefore, you can only get true information from their network, because they tell you that is so. I see where you are coming from.
response
All the examples you use about being make to hate, if the individuals mentioned being indoctrinated resisted by using their minds to seek broader or alternative information could simply resist the information being forced on them and resist hating. Poor sentence structure, I admit.
response
McCain did the same thing when he was defeated in N. Caroline because Rove used dirty tactics like push polls calling people and asking if they would vote for McCain if they knew he had a biracial baby. McCain had to suck it up and stand next to Bush and announce that he would support him. I thought he was ethical enough to resist using such tactics when he the chance to campaign. but I was wrong.
response
Of course I believe they can. Luckily you tacked on white supremacists right there at the end or I would have been appalled at the assumption that non-caucasian, non-christian people are incapable of thinking for themselves.
response...
Both Bush and McCain supported privatizing social security IF a person wanted to...neither have advocated making it mandatory. Perhaps if that had been done in the first place, it would not have been a fund that a Democratic congress could have raided to fund other programs. I personally would like to have control of my own funds (except congress has already spent them) and put in a CD..not the stock market. So that govt grubby paws could not get at it anymore. But that is just me.
I think the operative word is McCain said he did not disagree. He did not say he himself would re-start the draft. In the world the way it is, if enlistment really dropped off, it might be necessary just so we would have the size Armed Forces we would need, should the need arise. That just makes good sense. A peace time draft might be a good thing...two years in the service might change the direction some kids might choose to go. Would also provide some skills training and the ability to go to college after their service...instead of gangs...instead of being on the street...learn a trade, get a job...I don't necessarily think it would be a bad thing. The Armed Forces have been good careers for a lot of men and women...the Armed Forces are not just for war. But again...that is just me.
See my response above. And you are right - sm
I think both sides need to leave the experience thing alone.
The rep response is
lie, lie, lie and CYA. This whole SP story is going to blow up in their faces. At least, that's what I'm expecting, but sure will be amusing to watch over the next couple of weeks. Joe Scarborough, a former republican representative, said he would have never chosen her with just 1 1/2 years of governership and a mayor of a small town as experience. The media is not expected to ask questions or interview Ms. SP at least for two weeks yet. What are they hiding? Why can't the media ask her questions? This is quite as someone said before "a sideshow." Very entertaining.
response (sm)
Let the oil companies bail them out since they directly benefited from some of the bad management decisions.
This would never happen. I doubt the oil companies care if the US auto industry goes down. If it does go down, then we will have imports, for which we will also have to buy gas (which would actually be a better alternative for the oil companies as opposed to us building vehicles that would not be dependent on oil).
Don't bail out the companies. Give the money to the workers for re-education, etc., while the auto companies restructure.
Re-education takes time. If these workers are already or soon to be out of work, they need jobs yesterday. They have families to feed, and that can't wait for a new career.
I think the best approach is to go ahead and bail them out (as much as that stinks), but set criteria they have to meet that would show re-tooling and progression to non-gas vehicles. I like the Pickens plan myself.
You know, that was my first response too.
but would like to see him cut loose a little and put it against a contrasting charcoal gray shirt. I think he's a knockout....nothing sexier than a confident, intelligent man with a heart of gold.
and your response to GP was so much
Your original post to wasn't an attack on the pubs? Hypocrit.
Response
Yes, we do only have one president at a time.
However, both the incoming and outgoing Presidents have a responsibility -- they are handling the nation's business.
As Obama comes into power, it is very transparent of him to keep the nation apprised of what he is doing, thinking, planning.
Good for him! I hope we hear from him every single day!
It doesn't matter whether it is Obama or it would have been McCain -- we need to hear what the incoming President is planning and doing.
response (sm)
Move to Russia----that's the problem. If you guys are confronted with any sort of ideas that are not part of your belief your first instict seems to be to just remove it. That's not tolerance -- that's segregation.
As far as kids go, I would challenge you to show me 1 child 4th grade and up (probably lower than that) that does not know what *gay* means, and homosexuality is not being taught in schools now. As far as the TV, mine came with a remote with little buttons for changing the channel and a handy dandy on/off switch. Toy dispensers in gas station bathrooms: Yes, there are some of those out there. However, they are no where near as common as you would make them out to be.
Marriage -- what is it to you if they call it marriage? You do realize there are christian gays and lesbians? The problem is that on this issue christians seem to think that everyone should live by their rules when everyone else has a different set of rules. What about Muslims who are married? Is thier marriage worth anything in your eyes? They didn't get married with God as a witness as you would discribe Him. I'm married and yet I'm and athiest. Is my marriage worthless?
Christianity is an all or nothing proposition. When it comes to laying down legislation for a nation as diverse as ours, that all or nothing mentality does nothing but divide the nation.
Response...(sm)
Whether you aggree with Al Jazeera or not, they are a valid news organization. They show the viewpoint of others in the region. In order to understand a situation I feel it is important to understand both sides of it, and then make an informed opinion. Your unwillingness to even consider what they say as a different viewpoint is pretty typical of Americans, which in my opinion is to only concern themselves with the viewpoint that best suits thier agenda.
Why is it that your only response....(sm)
to any discussion is just one-line BS? Do you have any evidence to show that the people being held at Gitmo are what you say they are? Can you show where this defense attorney is incorrect? Do you perhaps have inside info on exactly what will happen to the prisoners? Or better yet, do you even have any kind of rationale for your opinion other than your obvious paranoia concerning bringing the prisoners here? There is the concept of us having to pay for their upkeep, but hey, guess what? We're already paying for that. In addition to that, how much do you think it costs just to keep Gitmo open, not only financially but in political capital as well?
Helpful hint: If when responding to a post if you click inside the big white box underneath the subject line, it will allow you to type in a more detailed note, thereby, possibly (and I use that term loosely), giving more credibility to your posts.
Well, at least YOU got a response.
I wrote to them, as well, and didn't receive a reply at all (not that I was expecting one of any substance).
I'm glad to see I wasn't the only one who wrote to them.
Response...
1. You'll find it useful to look at the upcoming budgets and then re-discover the notion of percentages.
2. If unions infested the transcription industry, you might very well not have a job. Don't believe me? Tour Detroit.
3. Trash talk that typifies political discourse today, says nothing, doesn't advance your cause, and doesn't merit response.
4. More of #3.
Response...
You have a very narrow view of taxes, my friend, and obviously have no idea what's coming down the tracks.
We are already seeing increases in taxes (on everyone) at the state and local level, for one thing, and many more are in the works. Look for higher sales tax rates, higher car license fees...oh, who knows where your piddly little "increase" will wind up going?
You can't possibly - even if you're no economist - believe that the government can print $trillions and obligate the nation to $trillions more in debt and none of the cost is going to come home to roost on your doorstep. You're just going to float along while someone else ("the rich") pay for all of this, eh? You're a politician's dream come true.
Politicians count on people who will look no further down the road than this week's pay stub and scream for joy at the $23.48 increase. "Lord, let them never realize that we're going to take it all back away from them at some other level of government - and so much more besides", pray the politicians.
My response is --
President Obama's sequel came out during his presidency. His first book was actually released in 2005 before he even entered politics. The income was listed on his taxes that were released as a presidential candidate.
His charitable contributions were also listed, but the information I just quickly googled said his 2006 contributions amounted to a little over 6% of his income.
He was of interest to folks before he became involved in politics.
what is this in response to?
The original post was not about George Tiller or William Long?
in response --
I have been duly chastised and I accept that. However, i saw no need for him to be "protecting" himself. Noone was bothering him. They stool calmly by and watched him do what he did. Secondly, there was no need to cut the flag down, he could have just removed it. Then, as he removed it, he could have folded it in some way other than just wadding it into a ball.
There was never any confrontation wher he had to be scared or feel threatened - so that is not an adequate defense. I understand that he was upset, I agree that he very well should have been, and I myself am upset about the way things are going in this country and the things that are being allowed to happen.
Yes, I very well do get it!!!
Why won't you debate the issue
because you can't back up what you are saying, I assume. You just point fingers and call names like that's winning a debate.
They don't want debate or dissent, although....
that is the biggest cry from the left, that dissent is good. Unfortunately they only tolerate dissent that THEY agree with. I actually find it quite boring to simply say on my own board and preach to the choir. That's what's fun about politics, the debate and the banter. But I see far less tolerance for differing opinions from the liberals in this country even though they claim to be all for choice and dissent and all those other nifty little words they volley about.
There are several topics of debate
that have attempted to be started on the CON board. Unfortunately, no one seems interested in engaging in an intelligent discussion there. Instead, they apparently prefer to come here and vent. I have no idea why you're congratulating me. I don't believe I've chased one LIBERAL away from the LIBERAL BOARD.
And I obviously don't deserve any congratulations for chasing the CON trolls from this board because they've entrenched themselves here and won't leave. Maybe your congratulatory wishes should instead be directed at them.
Can we keep the peace and also debate, please?
Here we go..how many days was there peace over here on the liberal board..three? Five? Oh geez..I did not generalize..I most certainly have seen many anti choice people screaming out against a womans right to choose about her body..all I was stating is I sure hope they are screaming also for the children who are lost in the system, living in horrible homes or group homes. From what I can see, there are so many children waiting for adoption, in foster care. Lets help them FIRST..
Democrat knows how to debate. sm
She actually entertains views other than her own and guess what...she reads the thread and what's in the posts. Imagine that! If I was trolling, by the way, I would choose a different name, now wouldn't I? you know, like you do when you come on the other board (LOUD EXPLOSION OF *I NEVER COME ON YOUR BOARD* COMING)!!!!
I would be willing to debate you any time. TI
Let's start with the chosen people concept.
Obviously, this person does not wish to debate. TI
We are wasting our time here.
You surely know how to debate.....not
....and you are one high quality person.....not.
Someone we'd definitely want to listen and debate with.....not!!
|
