The Weakening of the United States under President Obama

[kotzabasis]

Charles Krauthammer in his latest Op-Ed in The Washington Post under a savvy and provocative caption “It’s Your Country Too, Mr President,” exposes the beginnings of the weakening of the United States under President Obama. But the ultimate judgment on Obama will be rendered by a Shakespearean king, King Lear: “Nothing comes out of nothing.” And all the other favourable judgments of the liberal intelligentsia for President Obama will be swept like rubbish off the stage of history.

http://peacewar1.com

[Richard]

In comparison, here is a 6 Apr 2009 letter from a woman to the Dallas Morning News:

I watched with gratitude and pride as Obama began the process of restoring world respect for the U.S. during this week's overseas economic summit. Already he has tackled a mind-boggling economic crisis, addressed the shame of Guantanamo and torture, reversed many of the previous administration's disastrous environmental policies, taken command of the insurgency raging anew in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and is set to tackle enormous issues such as health care, education and energy -- all the while continuing to reach out to Republicans in Congress and interact directly with the American public. Strong leadership characterized by diplomacy, clarity, intellect and humility has arrived in the form of Obama just when we need it most. I suspect the American majority who voted him into office would agree.

That Jonestown style of FlavorAid (Factoid - it wasn't KoolAid) must be mighty tasty to some - and they seem to have rather strong immunities to its more obvious side-effects. ;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

[JMI]

Right! Forget about the catostrophic, generational damage Bush did in 8 years. It is all going to fall on these first 100 days of Obama. How convenient.
:rolleyes:

[The Reaper]

Right! Forget about the catostrophic, generational damage Bush did in 8 years. It is all going to fall on these first 100 days of Obama. How convenient.
:rolleyes:

Please, elaborate.

TR

[Defender968]

In comparison, here is a 6 Apr 2009 letter from a woman to the Dallas Morning News:

I watched with gratitude and pride as Obama began the process of restoring world respect for the U.S. during this week's overseas economic summit. Already he has tackled a mind-boggling economic crisis, addressed the shame of Guantanamo and torture, reversed many of the previous administration's disastrous environmental policies, taken command of the insurgency raging anew in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and is set to tackle enormous issues such as health care, education and energy -- all the while continuing to reach out to Republicans in Congress and interact directly with the American public. Strong leadership characterized by diplomacy, clarity, intellect and humility has arrived in the form of Obama just when we need it most. I suspect the American majority who voted him into office would agree.

That Jonestown style of FlavorAid (Factoid - it wasn't KoolAid) must be mighty tasty to some - and they seem to have rather strong immunities to its more obvious side-effects. ;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Just goes to show the sheep will see what they want to see, most of those who voted the one into office wouldn't have a clue about the real world where there are bad men who will do bad things if given the opportunity, unfortunately I suspect they will learn the hard way given the rapid dismantling of the systems that have kept this nation safe for the past 7.5 years.

Drink up Mrs. Dallas and get yourself a tight grip on your hope; that may be all you have left to cling to at the rate we are going. :mad:

[Dad]

I would propose there are sheep on both sides of the road, blindly following the leaders of whichever political ideology they embrace. I have quit labeling issues as conservative or liberal because there is so much dishonesty on both sides. Rather, I prefer to view issues as: are the intentions honorable? will they work? are they affordable? will they secure a better future for our children and grandchildren? I think, by and large, those were the goals of the Greatest Generation. Unfortunately, they have largely passed on. Let's hope their integrity hasn't.

[Pete]

I would propose there are sheep on both sides of the road, blindly following the leaders of whichever political ideology they embrace.....

I disagree

The lies tend to be coming from the left - not the right.

Take my issue Gun Control. Gun control is an issue pushed by the left but they have to do it with lies. The right responds with truth.

So, just what makes an "assualt weapon" an "assault weapon"?

The Fair Tax is another issue that the left lies about and the press covers for them.

Sheep follow lies without looking for truth.

[PSM]

(Factoid - it wasn't KoolAid)

Fizzies? :D

Pat

[Richard]

A thousand words. ;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

[KClapp]

Rather, I prefer to view issues as: are the intentions honorable? will they work? are they affordable? will they secure a better future for our children and grandchildren? I think, by and large, those were the goals of the Greatest Generation. Unfortunately, they have largely passed on. Let's hope their integrity hasn't.

Ahh yes, the Greatest Generation. Just how great were they? Why, by golly, they gave us a Great Depression by giving in to the same avarice we see today. Their "progressive" ideology then extended that depression right up until a huge world war was needed to assist in the recovery. Then, after the war, they began to use advertising, in a way unheard of previously, to encourage a consumption rate that would be unsustainable. They convinced folks that they were due the best of life and should spend what they had to get it. They did a great job, too. They convinced an entire generation to spend every last bit of their disposable income. And when that was gone, they created a thing called "consumer credit" and the credit card was born. Three generations later we see the net result of such self-centered thinking. Consume, consume, consume!! Baby boomers didn't start that mindset, the Greatest Generation initiated it. I will give them their due, they survived the depression of their own making and won a hellish world war, but they made their fair share of mistakes, also.

[The Reaper]

Ahh yes, the Greatest Generation. Just how great were they? Why, by golly, they gave us a Great Depression by giving in to the same avarice we see today. Their "progressive" ideology then extended that depression right up until a huge world war was needed to assist in the recovery. Then, after the war, they began to use advertising, in a way unheard of previously, to encourage a consumption rate that would be unsustainable. They convinced folks that they were due the best of life and should spend what they had to get it. They did a great job, too. They convinced an entire generation to spend every last bit of their disposable income. And when that was gone, they created a thing called "consumer credit" and the credit card was born. Three generations later we see the net result of such self-centered thinking. Consume, consume, consume!! Baby boomers didn't start that mindset, the Greatest Generation initiated it. I will give them their due, they survived the depression of their own making and won a hellish world war, but they made their fair share of mistakes, also.

Are you high right now?

TR

[jw74]

Are you high right now?

TR

It's hard to have such perfect timing on a blog but TR manages.:D

[rubberneck]

Two things. The greatest generation (the men and women who fought or otherwise served on the home front during the second world) were still children or in their early teens when the great depression began in 1929.

The second is that I think Niccolò Machiavelli was right when he noted the following in the Prince (which should be required reading in college):

The answer is of course, that it would be best to be both loved and feared. But since the two rarely come together, anyone compelled to choose will find greater security in being feared than in being loved.

and

a prince may be perceived to be merciful, faithful, humane, frank, and religious, but he should only seem to have these qualities. A prince cannot truly have these qualities because at times it is necessary to act against them.

I know that the left hates Machiavelli as much as the right hates Che but his thoughts on the subject are as valid today as they were when he but pen to paper almost 500 years ago. We should always seek to be respected but not at the expense of our security. I don't believe that we can be respected by those that currently wish us harm and secure at the same time. It is foolish to believe otherwise.

[KClapp]

Are you high right now?

TR

No, sir. I just don't buy off the idea that the Greatest Generation had it all together. At least the Greatest Generation had the benefit of being lauded when it returned home from war. They sent the Boomers off to fight and allowed them to be ridiculed when they returned. In fact, they raised a portion of a generation which then denegrated everything they proportedly stood for as a whole. The progressive movement, which we see manifesting itself prominently in this administration, had its roots in the Greatest Generation. And I stand by my assertion that it was the Greatest Generation who started the push to consume to keep the economy growing at the rate it was at the end of the war. I am open to correction, if I am wrong on all this.

[Pete]

"......... And I stand by my assertion that it was the Greatest Generation who started the push to consume to keep the GNP going at the rate it was at the end of the war. I am open to correction, if I am wrong on all this."

Production vs consumption?

Government programs?

Great society? War on poverty?

[swpa19]

K Clapp

With all your negativity, you should do well in Obama's cabinet.

[greenberetTFS]

K Clapp

With all your negativity, you should do well in Obama's cabinet.

Amen to that brother........... :rolleyes:

GB TFS :munchin

[rubberneck]

At least the Greatest Generation had the benefit of being lauded when it returned home from war.

You say that like it was a bad thing. Every returning veteran should have the benefit of being lauded when they return home regardless of what the country feels about the war. Just because Vietnam veterans were treated horribly doesn't diminish the accomplishments of the previous generation.

They sent the Boomers off to fight and allowed them to be ridiculed when they returned. In fact, they raised a portion of a generation which then denegrated everything they proportedly stood for as a whole.

They allowed them to be ridiculed? How exactly, and within the framework of our Constitution, were they supposed to muzzle the anti-war crowd? I don't think you'll meet too many people from that generation that were pleased by the behavior of the anti-war crowd in the late 60's early 70's. Most of them were disgusted and ashamed, I know my all four of my grandparents were besides themselves with anger at the treatment of returning vets. While they may have been the parents of some of the miscreants they were also the parents of young men and women who willing went off to serve in an unpopular war. I don't see what that has to do with anything.

The progressive movement, which we see manifesting itself prominently in this administration, had its roots in the Greatest Generation.

That is incorrect. The roots of todays progressives traced as far back as the anti-slavery and women's sufferage movements. The progressives of the early 60's weren't too different from what we consider moderate Democrats today. It is wildly absurd to say that just because the (modern) left has lost all sense bearing in the last 20 years that it is the fault of the greatest generation. You see every generation has the responsibility to improve on the legacy that the previous generation left us. Which brings me to your final point.

And I stand by my assertion that it was the Greatest Generation who started the push to consume to keep the economy growing at the rate it was at the end of the war. I am open to correction, if I am wrong on all this.

The greatest generation left us as a military super power and the worlds lone economic hyperpower for the next 50 years. The engine that drove us to that position was consumerism. Our failure as a country has nothing to do with consumerism but rather our failure to control ourselves. They left us the golden goose and we cooked it. That is on us not them.

[kevinlcpc]

My time with SF exposed me to many varied opinions. This was impressive and lead to diverse discussions. But I guess this thread is leaning only to the right. That to me is a disappointment.

[The Reaper]

My time with SF exposed me to many varied opinions. This was impressive and lead to diverse discussions. But I guess this thread is leaning only to the right. That to me is a disappointment.

With the left offering unilateral disarmament, appeasement, apologies, bizarre foreign policy, deference, aid, and comfort to our enemies as well as disrespect to our friends, crushing future debt, inflation, pork, voter fraud, full rights and privileges to illegals, complete lack of ethics or the desire to enforce them, socialized medicine, social experiments with the military, and assaults on virtually every aspect and Amendment of our Constitution, what's not to love about them?

If the tone here bothers you, you can find plenty of left only boards like moveon.org and The Daily Kos where you can revel in their munificence.

TR

[blue02hd]

My time with SF exposed me to many varied opinions. .

You have spurred my interest. Is there a duty description for the time you spent in SF? I ask only to seperate you from the chaff if in fact you are a Qualified QP. Your opinion would weigh heavier on this forum if you walked the same path as many here have as opposed to the path well traveled.

I am sorry this forum has left you disappointed.

[nmap]

And I stand by my assertion that it was the Greatest Generation who started the push to consume to keep the economy growing at the rate it was at the end of the war. I am open to correction, if I am wrong on all this.

Their predecessors in 1929 emphasized consumption, too.

Before that was the panic of 1873, which was remarkably similar to the present situation. LINK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1873)

The fundamental problem is that humans do not have a deep understanding of the exponential function. People assume growth will continue forever. It does not and can not. But, for a time, the belief that it can fuels economic bubbles which, in due course, revert to normal levels.

As for the POTUS - if the economy does well, he will, I think, be popular. If it does badly, he will be decidedly unpopular. ;)

[The Reaper]

As for the POTUS - if the economy does well, he will, I think, be popular. If it does badly, he will be decidedly unpopular. ;)

Until a massive attack on us occurs and affects life here.

You lose NYC or LA and the mood could change quickly.

TR

[Richard]

Two things. The greatest generation (the men and women who fought or otherwise served on the home front during the second world) were still children or in their early teens when the great depression began in 1929.

Personally - I think Tom Brokaw is near criminally remiss in his adulation of his parent's generation and in not identifying those of the latent 18th Century who philosophically and physically founded this nation as being THE Greatest Generation this country - perhaps, the world - has ever produced.

For me, Thomas Jefferson's tombstone and the three things he wished to be remembered for inscribed upon it - a summation of the impact of just one member of that generation upon our lives and the lives of so many in the world even today - says it all:


Author of the Declaration of Independence
Author of the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom
Father of the University of Virginia

MOO - Brokaw's so-called Greatest Generation doesn't even come close to that singular list of personal accomplishments, let alone the cumulative achievements of that amazing group of men.

Richard's $.02 :munchin

[charlietwo]

Until a massive attack on us occurs and affects life here.

You lose NYC or LA and the mood could change quickly.

TR

Sir, that is my nightmare scenario. The chess game I have in my head does not look pretty. Fortunately for us, the 2nd Amendment is like having three queens on the board :)

I pray the Obama administration does not see it necessary to challenge that right.

[Retread]

I am hesitant to make disparaging comments about my CINC over the internet. However I will say that he caused me to have my doubts on some points, and pleasantly surprised me on others.

That said, his party has some serious issues with their zealous celebrating over their victory and their orgy of smug self-importance. I no more side with the far religious right foisting Christian dogma than I do Left-wing secular progressives nannying the country.

But these people are engaging in corruption and self indulgence on a scale that would make Caesars and Senators blush...

And for the record, Jefferson is my favorite Founding Father. Him and Andrew Jackson. "Old Hickory". The original "Pipe Hitter."

[caveman]

And for the record, Jefferson is my favorite Founding Father. "Old Hickory". The original "Pipe Hitter".

Wasn't that Andrew Jackson?

[SF-TX]

I no more side with the far religious right foisting Christian dogma than I do Left-wing secular progressives nannying the country.


Retread,

Please provide us an example of Christian dogma that has been foisted upon us by the far religious right.

[Retread]

I fixed that, yes, it was Andrew Jackson. I meant to add him in the last statement and was distracted by my 3 year old. :D

Second, Right commentators such as Rush Limbaugh and (even though he is sharp on many points) Bill O'Reilly, have continuously inundated their discussions with stories of their religious upbringing and how those values need to be replaced in schools and such. The Late Reverend Falwell and others have lobbied tirelessly to get Congresspersons and Senators into office that will toe their religious agenda.

Am I a religious person? Yes. Does it belong in the decisions of government officials? No. In fact, being so adamant about running that ticket has given secular progressives more traction than they would have had running against someone more moderate.

The two-party system sucks. They cycle is going to go from knee-jerk to knee-jerk until it is either fixed or something very bad happens.

(Edited for spelling.)

[steel71]

My time with SF exposed me to many varied opinions. This was impressive and lead to diverse discussions. But I guess this thread is leaning only to the right. That to me is a disappointment.

I get what you're saying. The "right" is just a product of the 'left" an opposition force. It's a classic Hegelian Dialectic scheme. They are really 2 sides of the same coin, whoever has the power takes a little more civil liberties away, while the party out of power claims to support our civil liberties. Then it switches every 4 to 8 years, SOS just a different label. :mad:

[SF-TX]

I fixed that, yes, it was Andrew Jackson. I meant to add him in the last statement and was distracted by my 3 year old. :D

Second, Right commentators such as Rush Limbaugh and (even though he is sharp on many points) Bill O'Reilly, have continuously inundated their discussions with stories of their religious upbringing and how those values need to be replaced in schools and such. The Late Reverend Falwell and others have lobbied tirelessly to get Congresspersons and Senators into office that will toe their religious agenda.


Correct me if I am wrong, but you can choose to listen to Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly. Or, you can choose not. Again, please provide an example of Christian dogma being 'foisted' upon us by the far religious right. For your edification, the definition of foist:

foist
   /fɔɪst/
–verb (used with object)
1. to force upon or impose fraudulently or unjustifiably (usually fol. by on or upon): to foist inferior merchandise on a customer.
2. to bring, put, or introduce surreptitiously or fraudulently.

Am I a religious person? Yes. Does it belong in the decisions of government officials? No.

The founders of our country would disagree. In an address to the military, John Adams had this to say about religion and government:

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Reference: America's God and Country (10-11)

[Retread]

Yes sir, you are correct that I may listen to Limbaugh or O'Reilly or I may not.

And while I have respect for John Adams, Thomas Jefferson had this to say: "Difference of opinion is advantageous in religion. The several sects perform the office of a Censor - over each other. "

As well as this: "But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

And: "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802

As author of our Constitution, it is plain to see his intent.

[SF-TX]

Retread,

You keep dodging the question. You made a statement about Christian dogma being foisted upon us, but have yet to provide an example.

The quotes you reference do not advocate that legislators abandon their religious beliefs. They address the founders intent that their should be no compulsion in religion. Would you suggest that a Catholic legislator ignore his views of when life begins in matters regarding abortion?

[Retread]

I apparently have failed to articulate my point. Forgive me, and let me try again:

First, I do not, whatsoever, want legislators to abandon their personal beliefs. I simply do not want them to feel obligated to vote one way or the other based on religious pressure, or pressure from any church to which they might be a member. I WANT legislators with a moral compass. I just don't want legislators with a moral autopilot.

A good example of religion entering politics:http://http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa012901a.htm
Now, I am not a Bush-basher, and I personally HATE the blind idiots that jump on that bandwagon, but he did provide an easy example for my position.

All of that said, this has been an excellent discussion. Thank you BTW.

[Retread]

Link is not working for some reason. I'll just cut and paste:

Bush's Faith-Based Initiatives Launched


Current Status of Faith Based Legislation
You will not be able to apply for assistance under the Faith-Based Initiative until a bill creating the program and providing for funding is passed by Congress and signed by President Bush. Keep up with progress of the bill here.

Dateline: 01/30/01

As he promised during the campaign, President Bush launched his "faith-based" initiative on Monday by establishing a White House office to assist and encourage faith-based organizations is seeking federal funds to combat problems like drug addiction and homelessness.

In a first executive order, Bush created the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. University of Pennsylvania political science professor John Dilulio was named as the head of the new office.

A second related order relieved regulations within the departments of Justice, Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Services, Labor and Education which, according to the President, made it difficult for private organizations from seeking federal funds.

In a White House announcement, President Bush stated, "It is one of the great goals of my administration to invigorate the spirit of involvement and citizenship. We will encourage faith-based and community programs without changing their mission. We will help all in their work to change hearts while keeping a commitment to pluralism."

Fending off criticism that the new White House office violated separation of church and state as provided for in the "establishment clause" of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution, the Bush Administration assured that use of federal funds for religious purposes will not be allowed.

"It can fund the soup, it can fund the shelter. It shouldn't fund the Bibles, and I think if we maintain that division, we'll be in the right place," stated former Indianapolis Mayor Steve Goldsmith. President Bush has selected Goldsmith to oversee the AmeriCorps volunteer program and to assume a leadership role in assisting faith-based organizations.

Faith-Based Tax Deduction Legislation
President Bush will also announce new legislation on Tuesday that will allow all taxpayers to deduct donations to charitable organizations.

Under the current tax law, some 80 million taxpayers who claim the standard deduction, rather than filing itemized deductions, are prevented from deducting charitable donations.

In offering the legislation to change this law, the Bush Administration suggests that allowing all taxpayers to claim charitable contributions will encourage billions of dollars in new donations to local public service organizations, thus reducing dependence on the federal government.

The new legislation will also create state tax credit to be extended to charities that directly address poverty. The tax credit will also extend to private corporations making efforts to fight poverty.

The faith-based initiatives announced this week are part of Bush's promised administration of "compassionate conservatism," dedicated to continuing and extending social service programs through local, rather than federal government involvement.

Opposition to Bush's faith-based initiatives has come from organizations including the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Both organizations have stated that the initiative represents an unconstitutional merging of church and state.

The First Amendment to the Constitution states, in full: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." (Emphasis added to the establishment clause.)

Many times in the past, the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the meaning and intent of the establishment clause of the the 1st Amendment and the separation of church and state.

[PSM]

Link is not working for some reason. I'll just cut and paste:

Bush's Faith-Based Initiatives Launched


Current Status of Faith Based Legislation
You will not be able to apply for assistance under the Faith-Based Initiative until a bill creating the program and providing for funding is passed by Congress and signed by President Bush. Keep up with progress of the bill here.

Dateline: 01/30/01

As he promised during the campaign, President Bush launched his "faith-based" initiative on Monday by establishing a White House office to assist and encourage faith-based organizations is seeking federal funds to combat problems like drug addiction and homelessness.

In a first executive order, Bush created the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. University of Pennsylvania political science professor John Dilulio was named as the head of the new office.

A second related order relieved regulations within the departments of Justice, Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Services, Labor and Education which, according to the President, made it difficult for private organizations from seeking federal funds.

In a White House announcement, President Bush stated, "It is one of the great goals of my administration to invigorate the spirit of involvement and citizenship. We will encourage faith-based and community programs without changing their mission. We will help all in their work to change hearts while keeping a commitment to pluralism."

Fending off criticism that the new White House office violated separation of church and state as provided for in the "establishment clause" of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution, the Bush Administration assured that use of federal funds for religious purposes will not be allowed.

"It can fund the soup, it can fund the shelter. It shouldn't fund the Bibles, and I think if we maintain that division, we'll be in the right place," stated former Indianapolis Mayor Steve Goldsmith. President Bush has selected Goldsmith to oversee the AmeriCorps volunteer program and to assume a leadership role in assisting faith-based organizations.

Faith-Based Tax Deduction Legislation
President Bush will also announce new legislation on Tuesday that will allow all taxpayers to deduct donations to charitable organizations.

Under the current tax law, some 80 million taxpayers who claim the standard deduction, rather than filing itemized deductions, are prevented from deducting charitable donations.

In offering the legislation to change this law, the Bush Administration suggests that allowing all taxpayers to claim charitable contributions will encourage billions of dollars in new donations to local public service organizations, thus reducing dependence on the federal government.

The new legislation will also create state tax credit to be extended to charities that directly address poverty. The tax credit will also extend to private corporations making efforts to fight poverty.

The faith-based initiatives announced this week are part of Bush's promised administration of "compassionate conservatism," dedicated to continuing and extending social service programs through local, rather than federal government involvement.

Opposition to Bush's faith-based initiatives has come from organizations including the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Both organizations have stated that the initiative represents an unconstitutional merging of church and state.

The First Amendment to the Constitution states, in full: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." (Emphasis added to the establishment clause.)

Many times in the past, the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the meaning and intent of the establishment clause of the the 1st Amendment and the separation of church and state.


And your feeling of 4 billion (with a B) Dollars (with a D) to ACORN are: ___________________ (Fill in the blank.)

Pat

[Retread]

I don't care for ACORN either. Or any other socialist program. As I said before, the two party system is broken. I do not lean left, and barely right.

I vote freedom, not any particular party.

[swpa19]

Am I a religious person? Yes. Does it belong in the decisions of government officials? No

Imagine that! Religion involved in decisions of government officials. Whodathunkit, religion incorporated in a Judeo/Christian, along with Greco/Roman fundamentals melded together to form a more perfect union. Geez wonder where we went wrong.

[Pete]

.....A good example of religion entering politics:http://http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa012901a.htm
Now, I am not a Bush-basher, and I personally HATE the blind idiots that jump on that bandwagon, but he did provide an easy example for my position......

Religion foisted upon us?

And you give that as an example?

Weak, real weak, so weak it don't count.

Foisted would be more like the "Blue Laws" that died out in the 80's. Hated when they took back half the stuff in my cart on Sunday.

Or you could make a weak case with some of the laws still on the books. Argue that they are based on religion and "foisted" upon you.

But seriously, Foisted? The only "Foisting" I see going on right now is a serious push from the left to make everybody accept their way of thinking.

[Richard]

Foisted would be more like the "Blue Laws" that died out in the 80's.

Blue Laws remain in existence around this area - they are 'community based' ordinances of individual towns/cities. The most obvious example nowdays is the no alcohol sales on Sunday prior to noon law.

As far as 'foisted' goes in relation to religious conviction and government, the best examples I consider as falling into that category are (1) the words In God We Trust on our currency and (2) the pressure of the KofC for Congress to amend the Pledge of allegience and add the words under God during the Eisenhower Administration in 1954.

However, prior to that, there were religious groups who protested their members having to say the Pledge in school on the grounds that their beliefs forbade them swearing any sort of fealty to anybody/entity but God or to any God at all.

A few thoughts:

"Errors of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."
- Ths. Jefferson

"Our conviction stems from our faith in the justice of our position and our nation, and is the result of our experience."
- Bashar al-Assad

"The past is a source of knowledge, and the future is a source of hope. Love of the past implies faith in the future."
- Stephen ambrose

"If a man went simply by what he saw, he might be tempted to affirm that the essence of democracy is melodrama."
- Irving Babbitt

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."
- Ths. Jefferson

And so it goes...;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

[Pete]

.....As far as 'foisted' goes in relation to religious conviction and government, the best examples I consider as falling into that category are (1) the words In God We Trust on our currency and (2) the pressure of the KofC for Congress to amend the Pledge of allegience and add the words under God during the Eisenhower Administration in 1954.....


I don't see your examples as "foisted" upon us.

Words on paper or coin don't burn a hole in your pocket if you don't believe in God. The Pledge? "Under God" or not, plenty of court cases on the Pledge. So much so that most schools don't even say it any more.

"Foisting"? Smoking, Transfats, Global warming, Lifestyles, Hate speach, etc. As I said I see more foisting coming from the left.

Foot baths in public places? Private prayer rooms? Is that "foisting"? Did tax payer money pay for them?

Just wondering.

[Richard]

I don't see your examples as "foisted" upon us.

Words on paper or coin don't burn a hole in your pocket if you don't believe in God. The Pledge? "Under God" or not, plenty of court cases on the Pledge. So much so that most schools don't even say it any more.

"Foisting"? Smoking, Transfats, Global warming, Lifestyles, Hate speach, etc. As I said I see more foisting coming from the left.

Foot baths in public places? Private prayer rooms? Is that "foisting"? Did tax payer money pay for them?

Just wondering.

1 a: to introduce or insert surreptitiously or without warrant b: to force another to accept especially by stealth or deceit
2: to pass off as genuine or worthy

Don't understand where the idea that something isn't 'foisted' if it doesn't cost money come from? :confused:

And I thought the discussion was on religion being 'foisted' upon us by government agencies/administrations. :confused:

...plenty of court cases on the Pledge.

And that hasn't cost us > time and $$$?

So much so that most schools don't even say it any more.

I'm not sure that's an entirely true or supportable conclusion.

Foot baths in public places? Private prayer rooms? Is that "foisting"? Did tax payer money pay for them?

Never seen any foot baths - which is not to say they may not exist - seen the prayer rooms (publicly at airports, hospitals, and cemeteries and in govt hospitals or cemeteries) and would have to assume we paid for the ones in the govt hospitals and cemeteries - I personally don't consider that an unwarranted expense.

Smoking, Transfats, Global warming, Lifestyles, Hate speach, etc. As I said I see more foisting coming from the left.

As far as I can determine - it's not just the 'left' involved in supporting many of the arguments regarding our needing to do something [e.g., regulate] about all these issues. I don't agree with all the reasoning or conclusions, but, personally, I'm a bit of a skeptic of anyone 'preaching the gospel of whatever' to me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZR64EF3OpA

Fortunately, I choose to live in a nation/state where the 'government nanny' remains tolerable...for the moment.

Richard's $.02 :munchin

[KClapp]

K Clapp

With all your negativity, you should do well in Obama's cabinet.

I see myself as pragmatic, not pessimistic. I am wholeheartedly dismayed by what appears to be this generation of Americans' desire to toss aside liberty for their sense of entitlement. It grieves me deeply.

The greatest generation left us as a military super power and the worlds lone economic hyperpower for the next 50 years. The engine that drove us to that position was consumerism. Our failure as a country has nothing to do with consumerism but rather our failure to control ourselves. They left us the golden goose and we cooked it. That is on us not them.

Excellent point about our failure and Scripturally sound. I stand corrected in that respect. However, exerting self-control in the environment of consumerism is a daunting, if not nearly impossible task for most, as we have seen. Christ did indicate if our right eye offended us, we should pluck it out. Still, it was our choice, not the previous generation's.

Brokaw's so-called Greatest Generation doesn't even come close to that singular list of personal accomplishments, let alone the cumulative achievements of that amazing group of men.

An excellent argument and one I intend to use in the future.

I deal with WWII and Korean vets on a fairly regular basis. I get no sense that they understand how very fortunate they were to receive a hero's welcome. I do believe Private Ryan would have reacted much differently, if his service had been denegrated as it was for the returning Vietnam veteran. I appreciate what that generation did, but they aren't going on any pedestal here.

[GratefulCitizen]

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802

As author of our Constitution, it is plain to see his intent.

FYI: Jefferson didn't even sign the Constitution, much less write it.

He did, however, write the DOI.

The first line of the body of the document (emphasis mine):
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

His letter to the Danbury Baptist Association should probably be taken in the context of everything he wrote, and the times in which they were written.

[kevinlcpc]

After my post, I enjoyed the responses. They were what I was hoping would be present. My SF time left me with a respect for those with who I served. That was what I felt was unique about SF. It seemed that this thread was only including the right-wing dogma of the comedian Rush Limbaugh, "no-spin" O'Reilly and the lakey Sean Hannity. This has become boring and only a forum for hate and total disregard for what the First Amendment is all about. Have you ever seen any of these jokers ever allow a true discussion with those that disagreed with them? The country and in particular those of the right-wing rhetoric that feel that a fascist like Limbaugh provides the correct path for our country need to open their ears and minds to different opinions. That was the belief that founded our great country and why we will not fall like the other 'great societies'. Thanks again for all of your opinions because they convince me of the hope I have for our future. Let's just accept that we managed to live through the last 8 horrible years. Now we have to begin swimming to get our heads out from under the water.

[Pete]

.... Have you ever seen any of these jokers ever allow a true discussion with those that disagreed with them? ....

Yes, I have. That's because I listen to them and hear what they and the callers say.

I don't parrot what the MSM says they said.

You should try it some time.

[The Reaper]

After my post, I enjoyed the responses. They were what I was hoping would be present. My SF time left me with a respect for those with who I served. That was what I felt was unique about SF. It seemed that this thread was only including the right-wing dogma of the comedian Rush Limbaugh, "no-spin" O'Reilly and the lakey Sean Hannity. This has become boring and only a forum for hate and total disregard for what the First Amendment is all about. Have you ever seen any of these jokers ever allow a true discussion with those that disagreed with them? The country and in particular those of the right-wing rhetoric that feel that a fascist like Limbaugh provides the correct path for our country need to open their ears and minds to different opinions. That was the belief that founded our great country and why we will not fall like the other 'great societies'. Thanks again for all of your opinions because they convince me of the hope I have for our future. Let's just accept that we managed to live through the last 8 horrible years. Now we have to begin swimming to get our heads out from under the water.

Don't be a hater, Kevin. President Bush is retired. BDS should be over.

Take a few deep cleansing breaths, stop drinking the Kool-Aid, and turn off Air America for a minute.

I hope that our country survives the next eight years as well as it did the past eight. I really have doubts, given the events since 13 Jan.

If you cannot articulate your positions on why you think the leftist path is the correct one, then you are starting your fight without any ammo. What are you trying to say (that you are not getting from the MSM and far-leftist whackos) is so great about the current situation and the actions of our Congress and President? Make good arguments, use good credible sources, avoid ad hominem attacks (as you are already starting to make) and stay on topic. What is your specific issue? How about starting by explaining what a fascist is and why you think Limbaugh is one? My experience is that the broadcasters you have named are much more tolerant of dissenting viewpoints than any on the left (or on the major broadcast networks, for that matter).

I have argued with almost everyone on this board, at one point or another. Virtually all of them are still here to argue, unless they violated the rules. I even learned a few things along the way.

Best of luck.

TR

[Sigaba]

But I guess this thread is leaning only to the right. That to me is a disappointment.
It is my observation that conversations in a particular thread are best understood in that threads relation to ongoing discussions on other topics. Some of these discussions have been going on for years.

Most of these discussions reveal substantial differences in viewpoints that defy easy categorization with tidy labels such as "left" or "right."
After my post, I enjoyed the responses. They were what I was hoping would be present. My SF time left me with a respect for those with who I served. That was what I felt was unique about SF. It seemed that this thread was only including the right-wing dogma of the comedian Rush Limbaugh, "no-spin" O'Reilly and the lackey Sean Hannity. This has become boring and only a forum for hate and total disregard for what the First Amendment is all about. Have you ever seen any of these jokers ever allow a true discussion with those that disagreed with them? The country and in particular those of the right-wing rhetoric that feel that a fascist like Limbaugh provides the correct path for our country need to open their ears and minds to different opinions. That was the belief that founded our great country and why we will not fall like the other 'great societies'. Thanks again for all of your opinions because they convince me of the hope I have for our future. Let's just accept that we managed to live through the last 8 horrible years. Now we have to begin swimming to get our heads out from under the water.

With respect, I think that your word choice suggests that you've made a number of assumptions that merit reconsideration.

[RT AXE 10]

My time with SF exposed me to many varied opinions. This was impressive and lead to diverse discussions. But I guess this thread is leaning only to the right. That to me is a disappointment.

You were exposed to varied options, you encountered diverse discussions and you're disappointed because it leans right? Did you fall off the pumpkin wagon? As an SF type, you should be able to take a role in any direction. That is where learning and experience comes to play. But as mentioned, if it disappoints you, you may/should look else where...

[afchic]

After my post, I enjoyed the responses. They were what I was hoping would be present. My SF time left me with a respect for those with who I served. That was what I felt was unique about SF. It seemed that this thread was only including the right-wing dogma of the comedian Rush Limbaugh, "no-spin" O'Reilly and the lakey Sean Hannity. This has become boring and only a forum for hate and total disregard for what the First Amendment is all about. Have you ever seen any of these jokers ever allow a true discussion with those that disagreed with them? The country and in particular those of the right-wing rhetoric that feel that a fascist like Limbaugh provides the correct path for our country need to open their ears and minds to different opinions. That was the belief that founded our great country and why we will not fall like the other 'great societies'. Thanks again for all of your opinions because they convince me of the hope I have for our future. Let's just accept that we managed to live through the last 8 horrible years. Now we have to begin swimming to get our heads out from under the water.


Interesting that you only bother to mention right wing talk show/radio hosts. It seems to me, that even if, in your OPINION, they don't let a guest get a word in edgewise, at least they have a guest with a different political leaning on the show. CNN, MSNBC and many others I could name don't even bother inviting guests of the right wing persuasion. They instead prefer to invite guests that are going to agree with them 100% of the time. Did you happen to catch Olberman the other day with Jeanine Garofalo???

You have a right to your opinion. The problem I have with most of your statements is that you are quick to throw rocks at those of a different political persuasion than you, but fail to do so to those whose view apparently agree with, when they are guilty of the same behavior. It is intellectual dishonesty, IMO

Yes this board does tilt to the right, but if you take the time to read the many political threads, there are views of all persuasions, and most here are happy to call a spade a spade, even if it is someone on their "side" of the aisle.

[greenberetTFS]

After my post, I enjoyed the responses. They were what I was hoping would be present. My SF time left me with a respect for those with who I served. That was what I felt was unique about SF. It seemed that this thread was only including the right-wing dogma of the comedian Rush Limbaugh, "no-spin" O'Reilly and the lakey Sean Hannity. This has become boring and only a forum for hate and total disregard for what the First Amendment is all about. Have you ever seen any of these jokers ever allow a true discussion with those that disagreed with them? The country and in particular those of the right-wing rhetoric that feel that a fascist like Limbaugh provides the correct path for our country need to open their ears and minds to different opinions. That was the belief that founded our great country and why we will not fall like the other 'great societies'. Thanks again for all of your opinions because they convince me of the hope I have for our future. Let's just accept that we managed to live through the last 8 horrible years. Now we have to begin swimming to get our heads out from under the water.

Kevinicpc,

You say you served in SF, 8th GRP.....Are you a SFQC graduate? If so, why haven't you requested QP status? Can anyone vet you? That's all it takes........:confused:

GB TFS :munchin

[The Reaper]

Kevinicpc,

You say you served in SF, 8th GRP.....Are you a SFQC graduate? If so, why haven't you requested QP status? Can anyone vet you? That's all it takes........:confused:

GB TFS :munchin

Negative, read his intro. Once he made one.

TR

[Richard]

You say you served in SF, 8th GRP.....Are you a SFQC graduate?

Negative, read his intro.

Yep - sounds like an MP assigned to 8th SFG when it was an SAF // 1st SFG...and now a Licensed Clinical Professional Counselor. All types of inferences could be made of that - kinda helps explain some of the word choices and points-of-view - makes me wonder whether or not he's one of many whose 'real' purpose in life (if they're actually willing to be honest about it) is to figure themselves out at the expense of others. But then again...maybe not. MEBUSOO.*

Just pondering here and it is late in the afternoon.

Southern Sign - Kudzu. ;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

*My Experience-Based Unscientific Opinion Only

[blue02hd]

After my post, I enjoyed the responses. They were what I was hoping would be present. My SF time left me with a respect for those with who I served. That was what I felt was unique about SF. It seemed that this thread was only including the right-wing dogma of the comedian Rush Limbaugh, "no-spin" O'Reilly and the lakey Sean Hannity. This has become boring and only a forum for hate and total disregard for what the First Amendment is all about. Have you ever seen any of these jokers ever allow a true discussion with those that disagreed with them? The country and in particular those of the right-wing rhetoric that feel that a fascist like Limbaugh provides the correct path for our country need to open their ears and minds to different opinions. That was the belief that founded our great country and why we will not fall like the other 'great societies'. Thanks again for all of your opinions because they convince me of the hope I have for our future. Let's just accept that we managed to live through the last 8 horrible years. Now we have to begin swimming to get our heads out from under the water.

I noticed you did not answer my question. Based on that, I would have to strongly disagree with your post. You just may owe a debt of gratitude for "living through the last 8 horrible years" to the very administration you clearly dislike. Name calling and waving of arms does not a point make, especially when you do not substantiate your "SF experience" on a forum ran by SF members?

Your response, unfortunately, was expected and dissappointing. I guess we now have common ground?

[steel71]

Link is not working for some reason. I'll just cut and paste:

Bush's Faith-Based Initiatives Launched


Current Status of Faith Based Legislation
You will not be able to apply for assistance under the Faith-Based Initiative until a bill creating the program and providing for funding is passed by Congress and signed by President Bush. Keep up with progress of the bill here.

Dateline: 01/30/01

As he promised during the campaign, President Bush launched his "faith-based" initiative on Monday by establishing a White House office to assist and encourage faith-based organizations is seeking federal funds to combat problems like drug addiction and homelessness.

In a first executive order, Bush created the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. University of Pennsylvania political science professor John Dilulio was named as the head of the new office.

A second related order relieved regulations within the departments of Justice, Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Services, Labor and Education which, according to the President, made it difficult for private organizations from seeking federal funds.

In a White House announcement, President Bush stated, "It is one of the great goals of my administration to invigorate the spirit of involvement and citizenship. We will encourage faith-based and community programs without changing their mission. We will help all in their work to change hearts while keeping a commitment to pluralism."

Fending off criticism that the new White House office violated separation of church and state as provided for in the "establishment clause" of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution, the Bush Administration assured that use of federal funds for religious purposes will not be allowed.

"It can fund the soup, it can fund the shelter. It shouldn't fund the Bibles, and I think if we maintain that division, we'll be in the right place," stated former Indianapolis Mayor Steve Goldsmith. President Bush has selected Goldsmith to oversee the AmeriCorps volunteer program and to assume a leadership role in assisting faith-based organizations.

Faith-Based Tax Deduction Legislation
President Bush will also announce new legislation on Tuesday that will allow all taxpayers to deduct donations to charitable organizations.

Under the current tax law, some 80 million taxpayers who claim the standard deduction, rather than filing itemized deductions, are prevented from deducting charitable donations.

In offering the legislation to change this law, the Bush Administration suggests that allowing all taxpayers to claim charitable contributions will encourage billions of dollars in new donations to local public service organizations, thus reducing dependence on the federal government.

The new legislation will also create state tax credit to be extended to charities that directly address poverty. The tax credit will also extend to private corporations making efforts to fight poverty.

The faith-based initiatives announced this week are part of Bush's promised administration of "compassionate conservatism," dedicated to continuing and extending social service programs through local, rather than federal government involvement.

Opposition to Bush's faith-based initiatives has come from organizations including the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Both organizations have stated that the initiative represents an unconstitutional merging of church and state.

The First Amendment to the Constitution states, in full: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." (Emphasis added to the establishment clause.)

Many times in the past, the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the meaning and intent of the establishment clause of the the 1st Amendment and the separation of church and state.

It's really for this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsxgZb4bTMw

The church and government have a good working relationship. Money buys a lot of things, look up the "world council of churches".

[steel71]

Don't be a hater, Kevin. President Bush is retired. BDS should be over.

Take a few deep cleansing breaths, stop drinking the Kool-Aid, and turn off Air America for a minute.

I hope that our country survives the next eight years as well as it did the past eight. I really have doubts, given the events since 13 Jan.

If you cannot articulate your positions on why you think the leftist path is the correct one, then you are starting your fight without any ammo. What are you trying to say (that you are not getting from the MSM and far-leftist whackos) is so great about the current situation and the actions of our Congress and President? Make good arguments, use good credible sources, avoid ad hominem attacks (as you are already starting to make) and stay on topic. What is your specific issue? How about starting by explaining what a fascist is and why you think Limbaugh is one? My experience is that the broadcasters you have named are much more tolerant of dissenting viewpoints than any on the left (or on the major broadcast networks, for that matter).

I have argued with almost everyone on this board, at one point or another. Virtually all of them are still here to argue, unless they violated the rules. I even learned a few things along the way.

Best of luck.

TR

I haven't seen him take the leftist path, just not a rightist path. Explain how someone who doesn't subscribe to the right is a leftist? Is the world really that black and white? How about the left and right are wrong, and the Constitution is king? I'll vote for that any day.

[Box]

I haven't seen him take the leftist path, just not a rightist path. Explain how someone who doesn't subscribe to the right is a leftist?


...just out of curiosity, would you then describe the POTUS as a moderate?

He is a politician so yes, when you address his base affiliation it is more of a left vs right comparison with a space right in the middle for 'moderates.
So respectfully, I ask, are you saying you consider the current POTUS to be a moderate?

[The Reaper]

I haven't seen him take the leftist path, just not a rightist path. Explain how someone who doesn't subscribe to the right is a leftist? Is the world really that black and white? How about the left and right are wrong, and the Constitution is king? I'll vote for that any day.


I must have missed a few of my Poli Sci classes.

Where does the Constitution allow for the federal government to take over and become the primary shareholder of failed businesses? Where is written that the government is reponsible for universal health care?

What about all of those promises of working together in a bipartisan manner? What about the transparency he promised? Then he lets the Dem leadership write the bills without any Repub input, they pass a 1,000 page bill with less than 24 hours to review it, then he signs it into law.

I thought we lived in a representational republic, with laws based on the Constitution. Looks like we are headed into a significant course change.

TR

[Richard]

Y'all do realize you're trying to argue logic with an LCPC, don't you. :confused:

"So tell me, Matisse, how does that make you feel?"* [loud chuckle]

Richard's $.02 :munchin

* Down and Out in Beverly Hills

[Sigaba]

* Down and Out in Beverly Hills
Now that was a weird but interesting movie. ¡Elizabeth Pena!

Back on topic. I'm of the view that the president, in his determined efforts to break with the past, will find himself unable to make full use of the institutional memory of the Oval Office and various key departments in the executive branch. Also, what is going to happen when (if) he makes a legitimate effort at bipartisanship? His base will howl and he's already done such a good job at alienating his critics that they are hardly going to sing his praises unless he, somehow, hits one out of the ball park.

He's also conflating what is popular with what is practical and with what is proper. I am especially concerned by his emphasis on doing what is popular because he seems intent on pleasing many whose interests are not aligned with those of his country and his countrymen.

[CoLawman]

I haven't seen him take the leftist path, just not a rightist path. Explain how someone who doesn't subscribe to the right is a leftist? Is the world really that black and white? How about the left and right are wrong, and the Constitution is king? I'll vote for that any day.

With all due respect, take a position. The Constitution is king is rhetoric.
Replace left and right with liberal and conservative. Or replace left and right with Democrat and Republican. Please explain where the middle gound is. You obviously believe the Constitution was authored and ratified by a meeting of the minds of the two opposite poles. I happen to believe it was authored and ratified by a conservative majority.

I find it amusing when people become upset that their leftist opinions are the minority on this board. They actually become offended because they are challenged when their agnostic or socialistic views are challenged. Or, their Bush and Republican bashing are not met with adulation and consent.

Go Figure.

[Sigaba]

In downtown L.A. and elsewhere in the L.A. area, many establishments are closed in observance of Armenian Genocide Day (24 April).

Today, the president offered a view of the deliberate slaughter of Armenians.

Source is here (http://www.breitbart.com/print.php?id=D97P040G0&show_article=1).

Obama brands Armenian killings `great atrocities'
Apr 24 02:16 PM US/Eastern
By DESMOND BUTLER and BEN FELLER
Associated Press Writers
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama on Friday refrained from branding the massacre of an estimated 1.5 million Armenians in Turkey a "genocide," breaking a campaign promise while contending his views about the 20th century slaughter had not changed.

The phrasing of Obama's written statement attracted heightened scrutiny because of the sensitivity of the issue and because the two countries are nearing a historic reconciliation after years of tension. The Obama administration is wary of disturbing that settlement.

Marking the grim anniversary of the start of the killings, the president referred to them as "one of the great atrocities of the 20th century."

"I have consistently stated my own view of what occurred in 1915, and my view of that history has not changed," Obama said. "My interest remains the achievement of a full, frank and just acknowledgment of the facts."

"The best way to advance that goal right now," Obama said, "is for the Armenian and Turkish people to address the facts of the past as a part of their efforts to move forward."

For Obama, referring to the killings as genocide could have upended recent pledges of a closer partnership with Turkey, a vital ally in a critical region. Steering around the word, however, put him at odds with his own pledges to recognize the slaughter as genocide.

Obama said the Armenians who were massacred in the final days of the Ottoman Empire "must live on in our memories." He said unresolved history can be a heavy weight. "Reckoning with the past holds out the powerful promise of reconciliation," he said.

"I strongly support efforts by the Turkish and Armenian people to work through this painful history in a way that is honest, open, and constructive," he said.

As a candidate, the president offered a more direct assessment.

Source is here (http://www.barackobama.com/2008/01/19/barack_obama_on_the_importance.php).

Barack Obama on the Importance of US-Armenia Relations
| January 19, 2008

I am proud of my strong record on issues of concern to the one and a half million Americans of Armenian heritage in the United States. I warmly welcome the support of this vibrant and politically active community as we change how our government works here at home, and restore American leadership abroad.

I am a strong supporter of a U.S.-Armenian relationship that advances our common security and strengthens Armenian democracy. As President, I will maintain our assistance to Armenia, which has been a reliable partner in the fight against terrorism and extremism. I will promote Armenian security by seeking an end to the Turkish and Azerbaijani blockades, and by working for a lasting and durable settlement of the Nagorno Karabagh conflict that is agreeable to all parties, and based upon America's founding commitment to the principles of democracy and self determination. And my Administration will help foster Armenia's growth and development through expanded trade and targeted aid, and by strengthening the commercial, political, military, developmental, and cultural relationships between the U.S. and Armenian governments.

I also share with Armenian Americans – so many of whom are descended from genocide survivors - a principled commitment to commemorating and ending genocide. That starts with acknowledging the tragic instances of genocide in world history. As a U.S. Senator, I have stood with the Armenian American community in calling for Turkey's acknowledgement [sic] of the Armenian Genocide. Two years ago, I criticized the Secretary of State for the firing of U.S. Ambassador to Armenia, John Evans, after he properly used the term "genocide" to describe Turkey's slaughter of thousands of Armenians starting in 1915. I shared with Secretary Rice my firmly held conviction that the Armenian Genocide is not an allegation, a personal opinion, or a point of view, but rather a widely documented fact supported by an overwhelming body of historical evidence. The facts are undeniable. An official policy that calls on diplomats to distort the historical facts is an untenable policy. As a senator, I strongly support passage of the Armenian Genocide Resolution (H.Res.106 and S.Res.106), and as President I will recognize the Armenian Genocide.

Genocide, sadly, persists to this day, and threatens our common security and common humanity. Tragically, we are witnessing in Sudan many of the same brutal tactics - displacement, starvation, and mass slaughter - that were used by the Ottoman authorities against defenseless Armenians back in 1915. I have visited Darfurian refugee camps, pushed for the deployment of a robust multinational force for Darfur, and urged divestment from companies doing business in Sudan. America deserves a leader who speaks truthfully about the Armenian Genocide and responds forcefully to all genocides. I intend to be that President.

I look forward, as President, to continuing my active engagement with Armenian American leaders on the full range of issues of concern to the Armenian American community. Together, we will build, in new and exciting ways, upon the enduring ties and shared values that have bound together the American and Armenian peoples for more than a century.

I think the president's oblique reference to his view of history being unchanged without using the word 'genocide' represents a lost opportunity for him to demonstrate the moral and intellectual courage that he professes to have.

[Richard]

I hope his staff is awake enough to ensure he's not shaking the wrong hand of those non-genocidal ************s whose a**es he's been so busy smooching on lately. :eek: He keeps it up and we'll be seeing ads for feces flavored Chapstik with the Presidential Seal on the package. :rolleyes:

Richard's $.02 :munchin

[ZooKeeper]

I happen to believe it was authored and ratified by a conservative majority.

I mostly agree, but not sure the Republican party is very conservative right now, so it is hard to argue for either side. It makes me lean toward the libertarian side (& not the crazy truther group either).

[The Reaper]

I haven't seen him take the leftist path, just not a rightist path. Explain how someone who doesn't subscribe to the right is a leftist? Is the world really that black and white? How about the left and right are wrong, and the Constitution is king? I'll vote for that any day.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/26/pub-obamas-social-policy-shift/

First 100 Days: Social Policy Takes a Left Turn Under Obama
During his first 100 days as president, Barack Obama's reversal of contentious social regulations has garnered little attention -- leaving many to wonder how much social issues matter to Americans amid two wars and an economic crisis.
By Cristina Corbin

FOXNews.com

Sunday, April 26, 2009

From the conscience clause to stem cell research, President Obama has shifted social policy to the left in his first 100 days in the White House. But the reversal of several of his predecessor's regulations has garnered hardly a whimper -- leaving many to wonder how much social issues matter to Americans amid two wars and an economic crisis.

-- Obama overturned George W. Bush's restriction on embryonic stem cell research last month when he signed an executive order authorizing expanded federal funding -- a decision he described as moral because it pursues research that will "ease human suffering."

-- Obama has proposed reversing additions to the "conscience clause" enacted by the Bush administration that allow physicians and other health care providers to refuse to provide medical services that conflict with their faith or conscience.

-- On Feb. 25, Attorney General Eric Holder said the Obama administration will reinstate the federal ban on assault weapons and impose additional restrictions.

-- And although Obama has said he opposes gay marriage, he has made clear that he supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples.

"It's cultural aggression," former Bush adviser Karl Rove told FOXNews.com, adding that policy changes that "inject government" into moral matters -- like the conscience clause -- will have "enormous consequences."

But conservatives like Rove acknowledge that little attention has been given to Obama's agenda shift since he took office -- largely because lawmakers are more concerned with the economic downturn and national security.

"They're not getting attention because the defenders of these policies haven't grabbed the stage," Rove said.

Sen. Kit Bond of Missouri, the top Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said matters of national and international security -- like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and North Korea's recent missile launch -- have taken precedence in the first 100 days.

"That trumps the social issues," Bond told FOXNews.com.

The financial crisis, which mushroomed one month before Obama won election in November, determined the government's chief focus, lawmakers say.

"The focus of the president's first 100 days has been the economy and getting it turned around," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md. "As a result, people are more focused on the pocketbook issues at the moment"

"The economic problems of the country have overwhelmed the rest of the issue terrain," said Tad Devine, former adviser to presidential candidates Al Gore and John Kerry. "People are worried about their jobs, their savings, their homes, their retirement. There's just no daylight for other things to rise to the surface."

Devine also cited what he believes is a change in the country's attitudes, saying issues that were once "hot button" topics have lost much of the public's attention.

"It's just a different country now. These issues don't have the power that they used to have a decade ago -- even five years ago," Devine said, adding that funding for public education and patients' bill of rights were among the top polling issues when Gore ran in 2000.

Devine said the change in cultural attitudes is most clearly seen through the issue of gay marriage. "This was something that, just a few years ago, you didn't have serious discussion of it. There might have been some discussion of it, but it wasn't manifested in legislatures." he said.

Stephen Wayne, professor of government at Georgetown University, said, "Things that are expected don't receive a lot of news coverage. He made his positions clear during the campaign. It's something we come to expect when we get a president with a different view."

[Richard]

First 100 Days: Social Policy Takes a Left Turn

And America's economic V-8 is being run way above the red-line...but for how long before it throws a rod and we really crash. :(

Richard's $.02 :munchin

[kevinlcpc]

I particularly like the response about whether I am right-wing or liberal. The truth is both. My position, and my Phd disertation was on working with people of differing political position in therapy. I comes up constantly and is at times a roadblock. But it never was a problem during my time in SF. I met many dogmatic individuals and then I met many very open-minded people. I have since attempted to follow that path myself. I really only wanted to say that I enjoy your discussion and agree/disagree and that is a benefit. Thanks.

I did state that in 1971 I went to Ft. Gulick as an MP. I went through jump school and paper-flash while there. Sorry I did not have the opportunity to go through Benning and Bragg. There were many there during my time who did the same as I did. If that negates my ability to contribute to this forum, I will not do so. Vett me however you may, as I have not had the ability to stay in contact with my friends from that part of my life.

[wet dog]

With only 26 posts let the thoughts about editing rest with us.

Pete

[Peregrino]

Even the Russians are commenting! :munchin

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/27-04-2009/107459-american_capitalism-0

[Sigaba]

Source is here (http://www.reuters.com/articlePrint?articleId=USTRE54920M20090510).

Obama more popular than U.S. among Arabs: survey
Sun May 10, 2009 7:02pm EDT

By Paul Eckert

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama's popularity in leading Arab countries far outstrips that of the United States, suggesting he could be able to boost goodwill in the region toward his country, a survey showed on Sunday.

Obama, set to give a major speech to the Muslim world in Egypt next month, "currently enjoys widespread optimism among citizens of that region that he will have a positive effect on their own country, the Middle East, the United States and indeed the world," the polling outfit Ipsos said.

Ipsos said its poll, conducted in March, involved 7,000 adults in Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Lebanon, Egypt and Jordan.

Of those surveyed, 33 percent had a favorable view of the United States, 43 percent had a negative view, 14 percent were neutral and 10 percent said they did not know, Ipsos said.

In contrast, Obama received favorable ratings averaging 48 percent in the region as a whole. Approval ran as high as 58 percent in Jordan and was lowest among Egyptians, who gave Obama favorable ratings of 35 percent, Ipsos said.

Only 22 percent of Egyptians expressed a favorable view of the United States, the lowest of the six countries surveyed.

Regionwide, only one in 10 residents thought Obama would have a negative effect on their country, the poll showed.

The gulf between Obama's popularity and that of the United States indicated "there is an opportunity for the president to literally 'bridge the gap' where his reposit goodwill lifts the goodwill toward America," Ipsos said in statement.

The White House announced on Friday that Obama would deliver a much-anticipated speech to the Muslim world in Egypt on June 4, seeking to repair ties that were damaged under his predecessor George W. Bush.

Many Arab and Muslim nations were angered by the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, harsh interrogation of terrorism suspects at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, abuse of prisoners in Iraq and Bush's initial reluctance to pursue Israeli-Palestinian peace.

Ipsos said the survey had a margin of error ranging from 2.6 to 3 percentage points depending on the country.
It would be interesting to know which countries and which international figures of note are the most respected among the respondents. Then again, it simply wouldn't be right for small details to get in the way of the international appeal of the American president.

[Richard]

Obama more popular than U.S. among Arabs: survey

Pic caption: Supporters of a Pakistani religious group burned an effigy of President Obama at a rally on Sunday in Lahore, Pakistan.

Wellllll...maybe not as popular as some would like us to think. I wonder how a narcassistic community organizer like O-bee reacts to such news. :confused:

Richard's $.02 :munchin

[The Reaper]

Pic caption: Supporters of a Pakistani religious group burned an effigy of President Obama at a rally on Sunday in Lahore, Pakistan.

Wellllll...maybe not as popular as some would like us to think. I wonder how a narcassistic community organizer like O-bee reacts to such news. :confused:

Richard's $.02 :munchin


Probably blames the vast right wing conspiracy and Christian, gun loving vets who are plotting against him to uphold the Constitution.

TR

[Richard]

I always get a kick out of how no matter where these things take place, the signs are always in English and never in their native tongue(s). Sure makes one think about which audience these photo-ops are really aimed at. ;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

[Pete]

I always get a kick out of how no matter where these things take place, the signs are always in English and never in their native tongue(s). Sure makes one think about which audience these photo-ops are really aimed at. ;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Kill the Juice

:D

[Peregrino]

It can always get worse. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,25361297-7583,00.html?from=public_rss :munchin

[Defender968]

It can always get worse. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,25361297-7583,00.html?from=public_rss :munchin

Unfortunately I think we're on the same road, just a few miles behind the Brits in some ways. :mad:

[SF0]

It can always get worse. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,25361297-7583,00.html?from=public_rss :munchin


Aside from the police action, it reminds me of some of the school systems after the Columbine incident. Talking about, possessing pictures of (even drawings) any type of firearm was forbidden. Even in some rural schools in the southwest where hunting and firearms were a huge part of every child's life.

[rltipton]

That Jonestown style of FlavorAid (Factoid - it wasn't KoolAid) must be mighty tasty to some - and they seem to have rather strong immunities to its more obvious side-effects.

Oh some of them are switching to coffee brother. BHO has pissed off the liberal press several times lately and the ACLU as well. He's a moron biting the hands that feed. The libs are not only turning on Barry, but they are turning on each other. Check out some lib forums...it is pretty funny to read posts from the different camps. They're all misled, ignorant morons IMHO, but some are beginning to come around. Fortunately (hopefully) all of this insane radical left bullshit is going to further unravel the hardline lib movement, promoting a more conservative outcome in the next congressionals and ensuring this dip$#!+ won't get re-elected in 2012.

[Dozer523]

Oh some of them are switching to coffee brother. BHO has pissed off the liberal press several times lately and the ACLU as well. He's a moron biting the hands that feed. The libs are not only turning on Barry, but they are turning on each other. Check out some lib forums...it is pretty funny to read posts from the different camps. They're all misled, ignorant morons IMHO, but some are beginning to come around. Fortunately (hopefully) all of this insane radical left bullshit is going to further unravel the hardline lib movement, promoting a more conservative outcome in the next congressionals and ensuring this dip$#!+ won't get re-elected in 2012. Maybe. Then again maybe the President is his own man and a "Centerist" at that. The Conservative should be pleased with the decision to not release the torture pictures (and fly in the face of the ACLU). Keeping SecDef Gates on and following his and the military leadership advice on Iraq, Afghanistan is not the About Face that organizations like MoveOn appear to have desired. His economic policy seems to at least be of the "do no harm" variety and might be working. He seems to be at least thoughtful and aware of the whole and not catering to those who would like him to be "beholden".

[Sigaba]

When the president and his supporters talk about 'restoring' America's 'standing in the world,' I wonder how desirable a goal that objective actually is.

While the poll discussed in the article below centers around Arabs living in Israel, it is chilling to think what the level of denial may be in the larger Arab world where the Holocaust may not be discussed at all.

Source is here (http://www.breitbart.com/print.php?id=D988OVAO1&show_article=1).

Holocaust denial widespread among Israeli Arabs
May 18 12:41 PM US/Eastern
By ARON HELLER
Associated Press Writer
JERUSALEM (AP) - More than 40 percent of Israel's Arab citizens say the Holocaust never happened, and barely one half think Israel has a right to exist, according to a survey published Monday. But the academic who directed it said the results were likely more statements of protest than belief.

Sammy Smooha believes the numbers, which have shown a significant shift in the past few years, signal a rising frustration among minority Arabs in the Jewish state. He said the growing Holocaust denial is fueled by a belief that recognizing the World War II genocide, in which German Nazis and their collaborators murdered 6 million Jews, gives justification to Israeli policies.

"When they say 'there was no Holocaust,' they are protesting. They are saying 'I am not giving legitimacy to the Jewish state,'" said Smooha, a Haifa University sociologist. "It's an index of despair, frustration and protest."

The survey found that 41 percent of respondents say the Holocaust never happened, up from 28 percent who said so in 2006 when the question was first asked.

Holocaust denial is rampant among Palestinians and in Arab countries neighboring Israel. But Arabs in Israel have frequent contact with Jews and learn about the Holocaust in school.

Smooha said the growing radicalization among Israeli Arabs is a result of the 2006 Lebanon War, the stalemate in peace negotiations with the Palestinians and the continued divide between Israel's Jewish and Arab populations. This has made it hard for Arabs to view Israeli Jews as victims.

The survey also found that the portion of the Israeli Arab public that believes Israel has a right to exist as an independent country has fallen from 81 percent in 2003 when the study was first conducted to 54 percent today.

Arabs make up about 20 percent of Israel's 7 million residents. Unlike their ethnic brethren in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, they hold Israeli citizenship. However, they have suffered decades of discrimination in jobs, housing and education budgets.

Tensions between Israeli Jews and Arabs recently flared after elections here brought to power an ultranationalist foreign minister who has proposed a loyalty test that is widely seen as anti-Arab.

Israeli Arab lawmaker Hana Sweid said he doubted the extent of Holocaust denial in Arab society in Israel was as great as the survey suggested. Regardless, he said he could understand how some would make the connection between the Holocaust and their own alienation from the state.

"I don't think that the Holocaust takes up a central part of Arab life in Israel," he said. "But if the figures are correct, this is a failure of the state to connect to its Arab citizens and it has to make great efforts to deal with this and reconnect."

The survey questioned 700 Arab men and women this year and had a margin of error of 3.7 percentage points.