Is the jig up?

[suv_guy_19]

wow regulation, I cringe everytime I hear it, especially, when the Government uses it.

 

Government regulation is an important part of society.

[Deanh]

Government regulation is an important part of society.

Thats it, in protest I am going to drive home doing 100mph, try not to spill my beer whilst smoking a fat one, and dammit I'm running EVERY traffic signal....NO MORE RULES AND REGULATIONS....and screw taxes too

Edited July 16, 2009 by Deanh

[fmccap]

Thats it, in protest I am going to drive home doing 100mph, try not to spill my beer whilst smoking a fat one, and dammiy I'm running EVERY traffic signal....NO MORE RULES AND REGULATIONS....and screw taxes too

I second that!!!

[Deanh]

I second that!!!

and I'm doing it in a car with ALL the emission equipment REMOVED ( probably get 80 mpgs ) covered in no gay marriage stickers!!!!!!!!

Edited July 16, 2009 by Deanh

[retro-man]

When talking about "wealth," there are two different kinds - individual wealth, and the wealth of society as a whole.

 

Individuals who are wealthy (or even middle class) got that way through discipline. (Even if people inherit money, they have to be disciplined enough to keep it.) This extends to eating habits. They can afford to overeat, but don't. They self-regulate.

 

The poor benefit from society's wealth. Because America is a rich country, it can afford to redistribute wealth to the lower classes. They receive other people's money to spend. They thus have the money, but didn't have to do anything to get it, except fill out a form at the local public welfare office. They receive money without practicing the habits usually necessary to get it. Thus, they spend it unwisely - resulting, in this case, in obesity.

That's right, the person flipping burgers at McDonalds, or working at Sam's Club in the day time and waitressing tables at night, yet still pulling down a poverty level income, the person picking lettuce or stitching together underwear in a garment factory, the person scrubbing toilets, or "patrolling" the empty office building at night for 30-grand - living high on the hog - I'm sure they all did nothing to deserve the fabulous i-pod enhanced splendor they live in. :rolleyes:

 

Don't forget the working poor. There is such a thing. Oh, I know: they are all unworthy slobs, who failed to rise above the projects or wherever it is they came from. Oh yeah, they "thus have the money".

 

Yes, people can be lazy, people can make shitty choices, people can be so ignorant that they will do exactly the opposite of what is good for them (ask the people who voted GWB in 2004). Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

 

Here is a quiz for your amusement. I will take it and report my own score. LINK

Edited July 17, 2009 by retro-man

[retro-man]

I scored 2.73: "liberal airhead".

[fmccap]

3.6333333333333333

 

You are disciplined but tolerant; a true American.

[suv_guy_19]

2.56, I'm a Liberal airhead.

[Ron W.]

Your F Score is: 3.3 You are disciplined but tolerant; a true American.

 

It's not like these goofy online tests mean much anyway

[goinbroke2]

4.333333333 You are disciplined but tolerant; a true American.

 

 

bu, bu, bu, but I'm Canadian! Oh wait, I'm a right wing redneck Canadian. (and DAMN proud of it)

[grbeck]

That's right, the person flipping burgers at McDonalds, or working at Sam's Club in the day time and waitressing tables at night, yet still pulling down a poverty level income, the person picking lettuce or stitching together underwear in a garment factory, the person scrubbing toilets, or "patrolling" the empty office building at night for 30-grand - living high on the hog - I'm sure they all did nothing to deserve the fabulous i-pod enhanced splendor they live in. :rolleyes:

 

Don't forget the working poor. There is such a thing. Oh, I know: they are all unworthy slobs, who failed to rise above the projects or wherever it is they came from. Oh yeah, they "thus have the money".

 

Welfare should be designed to help people survive. Ipods and fancy cellphones are not necessary for survival. If people want to buy those things on their own, they are welcome to do so.

 

If our society can provide support for a certain segment of people to the point that they are not only overweight (which proves that they can overeat), but can also afford these gadgets, than the idea the American poor are living in some sort of Dickensinian Hell is nonsense. They have it quite good by historical standards. Go to a Third World country to see REALLY poor people. You should be able to find them. They aren't walking around with ipods, and they don't look darker versions of Larry the Cable Guy or Rosie O'Donnell. Their children are not wearing designer sneakers.

 

If people can afford these goodies while living on the government dole, it removes much of the motivation to improve oneself. And, despite your contentions, people do this everyday. (Legal immigrants tend to outperform American-born poor people within a decade of their arrival - and that is excluding foreign-born doctors and computer programmers.)

 

One can live reasonably well around here on a $30,000 annual income. One cannot live well on that money in, say, the New York, Los Angeles or San Francisco metropolitan areas, but that is because the cost of living is much higher in those areas, particularly as regards to housing. (What political philosophy has been the most common in those areas since the 1920s? Hint - it isn't free-market Republicanism. So we can't blame the high cost of living in San Francisco on George W. Bush or even Ronald Reagan.)

 

One cannot support multiple children on such an income, but the last time I checked, no one is forced to have children. Birth control is available to everyone, and there are government programs that dispense it to the needy. But when the government picks up most of the tab for raising children, there is no incentive to limit childbearing.

 

I rely on the experiences of my wife, her mother and various relatives, all of whom have worked with the poor on a regular basis in various capacities. The simple fact is that where you would place the blame is not the reason people are poor, or stay poor. I'm inclined to believe their firsthand experiences.

 

My wife was a social worker in Pennsylvania for a decade. Her territory included both Harrisburg (a city of about 48,000 people) and the rural portions of Dauphin County. (Social workers serve entire counties in Pennsylvania.) She now teaches special education in a Harrisburg elementary school that serves poor and low-income city residents.

 

Her mother worked with a group that provided government-subsidized family planning and medical services to low-income women in western rural Pennsylvania.

 

Her cousin's husband teaches social studies and psychology in a Baltimore County school with a large number of very low-income students.

 

These are people with real experience serving some of our society's poorest people. They don't believe in completely cutting off welfare and leaving people to completely fend for themselves, but they certainly don't view MORE money as the answer (it will only allow people to continue their bad habits, but while owning newer ipods), and they aren't blaming rich Americans, Republicans or George W. Bush for the plight of the poor.

 

I believe that you mean well, and really do care, but that is not enough to get to the root of the problem, if the goal is to truly reduce the number of poor people in this country.

 

I would be very curious to hear of your direct experiences in working with people on welfare or the really poor, and how they stack up to those of my wife, mother-in-law and her cousin.

 

Yes, people can be lazy, people can make shitty choices, people can be so ignorant that they will do exactly the opposite of what is good for them (ask the people who voted GWB in 2004). Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

 

Here is a quiz for your amusement. I will take it and report my own score. LINK

 

Le'ts remember the choices in the 2004 election. The alternative was John Kerry. When the opposition makes George W. Bush into the smart choice - well, if being stupid were a crime, they'd be on death row.

 

And there is a considerable difference between making choices that keep one poor, and choosing a candidate for president.

 

The problem is that this country has been infected with a rampant stupidity that leads one to believe that it's possible to afford a $600,000 mortgage on a $60,000 annual income...or to have 2-3 children while making the minimum wage...or that it's a good idea to refinance a house and pull out the equity to buy that luxury SUV or exotic vacation or inground pool.

 

As for the test - despite the loaded questions, I scored 3.06 - disciplined but tolerant, a true American. Whatever that means. Judging by the explanation, I guess that is the equivalent of driving a Toyota Camry...no one will get excited, but no one will be offended, either (except, I guess, at Solidarity House).

 

The various scores are quite interesting as to how all of us posters would be perceived in the real world (i.e., the world outside of this discussion board).

Edited July 17, 2009 by grbeck

[Deanh]

3.6333333333333333

 

You are disciplined but tolerant; a true American.

same here...would love to see Nap and Sprinter take this....

[stephenhawkings]

what score are you guys typing about?

[Ron W.]

Here is a quiz for your amusement. I will take it and report my own score. LINK

 

 

what score are you guys typing about?

[sprinter]

same here...would love to see Nap and Sprinter take this....

 

 

3.433333333333333...

[Deanh]

3.433333333333333...

what does that equate too? Easily led American thru and thru with conspiracist upbringing?.....Hell, I would almost PAY to have you and Nap sit at the same table and hold a seminar...I'd also send in a bunch of suicide bombers...hell, with you two lecturing, hopefully they would take their own lives prior to their missions.....you guys could be national heroes!!!!!

Edited July 17, 2009 by Deanh

[Edstock]

I scored 2.73: "liberal airhead".

moi aussi.

[RangerM]

3.6

[retro-man]

moi aussi.

How do you say "and damned proud of it" in French?

[suv_guy_19]

Well, according to Google Translate, it's damn et fière de l'être, but I'm sure there are grammatical errors.

[retro-man]

One cannot live well on that money in, say, the New York, Los Angeles or San Francisco metropolitan areas, but that is because the cost of living is much higher in those areas, particularly as regards to housing. (What political philosophy has been the most common in those areas since the 1920s? Hint - it isn't free-market Republicanism. So we can't blame the high cost of living in San Francisco on George W. Bush or even Ronald Reagan.)

Well, in the case of Seattle and San Francisco one of the main reasons the prices are so high is because of the quality of life. They consistently rate among the most livable cities. They not only attract people, but they attract the best and brightest. That is due in no small part to the progressive community spirit that valued public education and the arts over the years, that promoted parks, libraries and high quality public schools, that set aside nature preserves, parks and greenbelts (a large part of Seattle's Lake Washington is ringed by parks that were laid out by the Olmstead Brothers) and promoted environmental protections and historic preservation - all those economically "inefficient" things. In fact, just this week, the Natural Resources Defense Council rated Seattle the nation's "greenest city". Seattle was followed by San Francisco at number 2, and Portland Oregon at number 3. New York is also noted as a "green city", whose residents emit 29% the national average per capita of carbon. People in those progressive-dominated cities do not rank very high among the fat and slovenly who you mention. The fat belt lies squarely across the conservative South. (And we have before compared average educational attainment in the red areas vs. the blue areas, so I won't rub that one in.) These are cities that give rise to the Boeings, Microsofts, and Apples of the world - not the Enrons. Compare any one of those cities to an anti-regulatory hell-hole like Houston. Yeah, us liberals really know how to mess things up. :poke:

 

I rely on the experiences of my wife, her mother and various relatives, all of whom have worked with the poor on a regular basis in various capacities. The simple fact is that where you would place the blame is not the reason people are poor, or stay poor. I'm inclined to believe their firsthand experiences.

 

My wife was a social worker in Pennsylvania for a decade. Her territory included both Harrisburg (a city of about 48,000 people) and the rural portions of Dauphin County. (Social workers serve entire counties in Pennsylvania.) She now teaches special education in a Harrisburg elementary school that serves poor and low-income city residents.

 

Her mother worked with a group that provided government-subsidized family planning and medical services to low-income women in western rural Pennsylvania.

 

Her cousin's husband teaches social studies and psychology in a Baltimore County school with a large number of very low-income students.

 

These are people with real experience serving some of our society's poorest people. They don't believe in completely cutting off welfare and leaving people to completely fend for themselves, but they certainly don't view MORE money as the answer (it will only allow people to continue their bad habits, but while owning newer ipods), and they aren't blaming rich Americans, Republicans or George W. Bush for the plight of the poor.

 

I believe that you mean well, and really do care, but that is not enough to get to the root of the problem, if the goal is to truly reduce the number of poor people in this country.

 

I would be very curious to hear of your direct experiences in working with people on welfare or the really poor, and how they stack up to those of my wife, mother-in-law and her cousin.

 

I applaud your family's service with the poor. I haven't worked with the destitute myself.... I did volunteer in a nursing home for a couple of years, but they weren't destitute old people. I guess my most immediate experience with the underside of society was living in an apartment owned by a notorious slumlord, when I was young and poor. Upstairs there was a chronically angry and haggard single mom with a little hellion of a son. Next door was another single mother, with an alcoholic teenage daughter and a crackhead son. I got threatened behind the building by one of his friends once, who was hopped up on something. One door over from them was a guy who I used to go running with. He had been in prison. When I asked him what for, he said "You don't want to know." I never did find out - but I liked him, my wife and I socialized with him and lived to tell about it. I helped offset our rent by "managing" the 8 units. I showed a vacant unit once to a young single mother (recurring theme, eh?) whose son wet himself while I was carrying him, and who twirled dramatically around the shabby living room like Cinderella at the ball and dreamily said "we'll take it!". Her credit reference was a checking account that had been closed 3 years earlier. She didn't get the apartment. There were two types of people there: people who needed sympathy but who - now that you've got me reflecting on it - really didn't merit any, and people who, like myself and my wife, were passing through on their way up. So I have to give you the advantage on this one.

 

 

Le'ts remember the choices in the 2004 election. The alternative was John Kerry. When the opposition makes George W. Bush into the smart choice - well, if being stupid were a crime, they'd be on death row.

Highly debatable. But we'll never know. The swiftboating and fanning the embers of 911 worked.

And there is a considerable difference between making choices that keep one poor, and choosing a candidate for president.

 

The problem is that this country has been infected with a rampant stupidity that leads one to believe that it's possible to afford a $600,000 mortgage on a $60,000 annual income...or to have 2-3 children while making the minimum wage...or that it's a good idea to refinance a house and pull out the equity to buy that luxury SUV or exotic vacation or inground pool.

On those points, I am in complete agreement with you. You will recall that I have long been a critic of the consumerist silliness of the 1990s and the hangover years of the early 2000s, as an Architect I find McMansions ridiculous, gauche and environmentally irresponsible, and I am a critic of irresponsible procreation.

 

As for the test - despite the loaded questions, I scored 3.06 - disciplined but tolerant, a true American. Whatever that means. Judging by the explanation, I guess that is the equivalent of driving a Toyota Camry...no one will get excited, but no one will be offended, either (except, I guess, at Solidarity House).

 

The various scores are quite interesting as to how all of us posters would be perceived in the real world (i.e., the world outside of this discussion board).

Well, you know, when the test came up on Google, I was trying to find some pithy article linking the authoritarian mindset with repressed homosexuality and Nazism. There were some post-war studies pointing in that direction - but most, like this test, are considered specious by now. Edited July 18, 2009 by retro-man

[sprinter]

Two more joining Cook's lawsuit

 

 

Retired general, lieutenant colonel join reservist’s lawsuit over Obama's birth status

 

http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/story/778482.html

[suv_guy_19]

Who knew that so many people in the US army wore tinfoil hats.

Edited July 20, 2009 by suv_guy_19

[sprinter]

Who knew that so many people in the US army wore tinfoil hats.

Speaking of 'tin foil hats', CNN mentions that very same remark against Lou Dobbs

 

http://mediamatters.org/research/200907170039

 

 

During the July 15 edition of his radio program, CNN host Lou Dobbs devoted substantial airtime to the issue of President Obama's birth certificate, asserting repeatedly that the president needs to "produce" it. Dobbs said that the birth certificate posted online by FactCheck.org "purporting to validate the president" has "some issues ... I mean, it's peculiar," and stated that he wants to see a "long form" birth certificate, which he called "the real deal." By contrast, Dobbs' CNN colleagues have repeatedly debunked claims that Obama has yet to produce a valid birth certificate, calling them "total bull" and "a whack-job project," and have characterized those who make these claims as "conspiracy theorists" who wear "tin foil hat."

 

 

During his radio program, Dobbs stated: "hould he produce his birth certificate -- the long form, the real deal? Should he be a little more forthcoming? ... What is the deal here? I'm starting to think we have a -- we have a document issue. Do you suppose he's un -- no, I won't even use the word undocumented. It wouldn't be right."

 

Dobbs later stated that when examining the birth certificate issue, at first he "thought, 'Here we go with the lunatic fringe. This is a bunch of quackeroos going after him.' " However, Dobbs said he now believes that there are "some issues here that should be really resolved" with Obama's birth certificate.

 

During his program, Dobbs repeatedly faulted Obama for what he said was Obama's failure to definitively answer questions raised about his birth certificate:

 

* Dobbs stated: "The first thing is to determine whether or not his birth certificate is valid. And what I don't understand is why that has not been released and given over to the public record."

 

* After a caller said "something doesn't smell right" with Obama, Dobbs said that the "way to get rid of those odors is always just open the windows and let the sun shine in. And all we need here is a doggone document, but for some reason the president doesn't want to release that."

 

* Dobbs said that in contrast to efforts undertaken by Sen. John McCain "to determine that he met the standard of natural-born citizen," there is "absolutely, you know, no effort to do so on the part of Barack H. Obama. Nor, as also our callers have pointed out, this president would not release his medical records. And the national media seemed to be fine with that, whereas they probably would have eviscerated John McCain for failing to do so."

 

* After a caller theorized that Obama is rushing through programs because Obama "knows what's coming" with regard to the birth certificate lawsuits, Dobbs said: "Certainly your view can't be discounted at this point, because this president refused to provide the documentation that would settle all of the controversy here."

 

* After a caller said she initially thought the birth certificate controversy was "the dumbest thing ever," Dobbs replied:

 

DOBBS: Well, it is a dumb thing. I think we have to all admit this is a dumb thing either way, because, I mean, I can't understand why the president wouldn't just move to get this stuff out of the way. Show the documents, get it done -- I mean, he -- think about it.

 

Dobbs also claimed that a soldier questioning Obama's citizenship "should be taken seriously. There are real questions here that need to be answered" and "reasonable people should be interested" in the birth certificate issue:

 

DOBBS: I mean, because I got to be honest with everybody. When I started looking at this and the lawsuit -- Orly Taitz his attorney, for Major Cook, when he -- you know, I thought this is kind of peculiar. But I thought we should find out what's going on because, you know, it's a lawsuit -- a major who is -- he is, by the way, a combat veteran. Some people in the media have called him a coward; they are fools for doing so. But they're fools, anyway; it isn't this one instance that makes them fools.

 

This is a man who should be taken seriously. There are real questions here that need to be answered. And people talk about, quote-unquote, the lunatic fringe are the only ones interested in this, and it turns out that reasonable people should be interested, and reasonable -- excuse me -- reasonable minds have to understand what's going on. And this can be dismissed with one -- the production of one simple little document, and that's a birth certificate. It's extraordinary.

 

During the show, Dobbs also repeatedly cast doubt on Obama's birth certificate posted online by FactCheck.org, saying that it is a "peculiar little document" that has "some issues." In the first hour, Dobbs hosted Temple Law School professor Peter J. Spiro, who said that there's "absolutely no doubt that [Obama is] eligible to be president of the United States." Dobbs replied to Spiro that he has "got the problem that other people looking at the only document that's available say, 'Wait a minute,' " to which Spiro replied:

 

SPIRO: I'm not sure what the "wait a minute" is about. I think what's fueling these theories is the counter-factual of if he had been born in Kenya, under the citizenship statute as it was then written, he would not have been a citizen at birth.

 

DOBBS: Right.

 

SPIRO: So that gives these theorists something to work with.

 

DOBBS: Right.

 

SPIRO: Even though at the threshold there's a basic factual problem with the theory.

 

Dobbs also said: "We have a certification of live birth that doesn't have a signature or an attestment of any kind attached to it." Spiro replied:

 

SPIRO: You know, I'm not an expert on Hawaii documents, but my understanding is that this is the real thing.

 

DOBBS: Right. No, no, I understand the same thing, too --

 

SPIRO: And that, you know, at this point, the claims are fringy enough that, again, in the absence --

 

DOBBS: My word exactly.

 

SPIRO: -- in the absence of any proof to the contrary, he's satisfied any burden of proof here.

 

Dobbs later said of Spiro to a caller skeptical of Obama's citizenship: "I was sort of taken by the fact he declares President Obama to be a natural-born citizen without having looked at any of the real documentation that would make it so." Another caller also asked Dobbs if he had seen the birth certificate online, and Dobbs replied that it is a "peculiar little document, this certification of life birth that everyone is purporting to validate the president" and "there's some issues with this."

 

Dobbs also dismissed the "certification of live birth" because it says "that this is evidence that another document exists somewhere at some place at some time":

 

DOBBS: There's some reason -- there's some reason that they don't want to do this. I mean, I don't know what the heck it is. But this whole -- you and I agree no matter what you believe about this other stuff -- we agree, do we not, [caller], that if we just looked down at a certificate of birth that had the signature of the doctor, the testament of the hospital, the name of the hospital, the seal, whatever, you know, that would be sufficient.

 

But what we've got here is a certification of live birth that says that this is evidence that another document exists somewhere at some place at some time.

 

Dobbs also hosted former presidential and Illinois senatorial candidate Alan Keyes and lawyer Orly Taitz. The Orange County Weekly described Taitz as the "queen bee of people obsessed with Barack Obama's birth certificate" and the "the most controversial figure in the effort to prove that President Barack Obama is foreign-born." Keyes has filed a lawsuit against Obama.

 

On the July 16 edition of his radio show, Dobbs was asked by a caller why Obama is "refusing to show his real birth certificate. What has he got to hide?" Dobbs replied:

 

DOBBS: Well, you know, that is the real question, isn't it? I mean, why not just get this silly, you know, nonsense out of the way? I mean, let's just say you put your birth certificate out there. You know, you have to present a birth certificate to get a passport. You've got to have a birth certificate drivers licenses in some places. We use birth certificates all the time. Why is there such a special need to keep that birth certificate out of the public eye?

 

Kathy, I think you're asking a very important question. It gives the appearance he's hiding something. I personally don't think he is, but I also think it's so silly of the Obama administration and this president not to just put it out there, get all the nonsense out of the way. It's the smartest thing he could do.

 

Dobbs' CNN television show

 

Dobbs discussed the Obama birth certificate issue on the July 15 edition of his CNN program, noting the remarks about the birth certificate by Cook, FactCheck.org, and the White House:

 

DOBBS: Well, new questions are raised about the president's eligibility to be president. The latest from U.S. Army Reserve Major Stefan Cook, who refused deployment to Afghanistan. Cook claimed his orders were illegal because President Obama wasn't born in United States, which makes him ineligible to be president and commander in chief. The major's orders for deployment to Afghanistan were rescinded. An Army spokeswoman told us the major volunteered to go to Afghanistan for one year and could rescind his request at any time right up to his deployment. This is what the Army said: "Based on the fact that he no longer wished to serve on active duty and at the request of central command his orders were revoked on July 14."

 

Now the major's attorney is challenging the legitimacy of the Obama presidency in court. She joins a lawsuit by former presidential candidate Alan Keyes, who wants documentary proof the president was born in the United States. President Obama was born in Hawaii, according to state officials, and copies of his certification of birth -- FactCheck.org, investigating those circumstances prior to the election, and they have a copy of what they say is the original birth certificate posted on their website. It is, in fact, the so-called short form, not the original document. It is really a document saying that the state of Hawaii has the real document in its possession. White House press secretary Robert Gibbs in May said Hawaii provided a copy of the birth certificate with the state seal that's posted on the Internet.

 

Documentary proof needed to run by office, by the way, varies from state to state. The Federal Election Commission -- you may be surprised to learn -- does not require any kind of certification or proof of citizenship in running for president. They leave that to the states. And in the state of Illinois, for example, where President Obama first ran for office, proof of citizenship is not required for either the state Legislature or to run for Congress or for the United States Senate.

[suv_guy_19]

It's not news that Dobbs wears a tinfoil hat.