# Fox Now For Everything Fox Was Against Last Week



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

:rollin:

Did any of you see the Jon Stewart show on Friday?

:rollin:

Oh, Fox News, you're so cute when you suddenly advocate the exact opposite of what you were advocating a week ago.

Highlights are when Bill O'Reilly says that we sometimes should compromise our values to protect ourselves, and Rush Limbaugh admits to a strong desire to see the President of the United States fail.

Watch this clip:

*http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=216561&title=fox-news-fear-imbalance*

There's definitely more hypocrisy on the right, as evidenced by these clips compiled by Jon Stewart.

The sad thing about this clip here, is that it is obvious that some _here _are getting their same opinions spoon fed to them from these 2 sources in particular, and they seem to be more than willing to reguritate the same messages themselves.

I must confess that I have not watched FauxNews as much in the past few weeks. Had I done so, I would have been laughing my azz off much sooner at the psycho babble being spewed from Rush's and O'Reilly's mouths. It would be a lot funnier if millions of Americans weren't themselves being brainwashed by these morons.

I am truly surprised that more of you cannot see the network induced conspiracy theories and hysteria that these shows need to stir up for ratings.

Obama has only been in office for 48 hours when this was compiled, yet somehow FauxNews finds ways to make it seem like Rome is burning and it is completely due to the actions of the new President. :eyeroll: :eyeroll:

C'mon folks let's give the guy 100 days and see the results then. The insecurity of the Republicans is shameful. I laugh everytime I see Jim Theune get on TV for the R's and give some speech about how the R's don't like this or that, or waaahhh wahhhh wahhhh...

Don't they get that the vast majority of the American public doesn't give a damn what those Republican politicians think at the moment? The Republicans need to get it thru their heads that they didn't lose more of their current ranks. If all Republicans head been up for re-elections, the election carnage would have been even worse for the party. America wanted to send a message of total rejection to the Republican party. The current party leadership would be wise to give Obama a chance to do the will of the People. They have spoken. Obama still has a 89% approval rating, second highest ever save for JFK. Now is not the time to stand in his way.

Theune and others would be wise to place a few strategic calls to Rush and Bill and let them know to shut the hell up and crawl in a hole for a few months.

America could give a **** what they think at the moment.

My :2cents:


----------



## KurtR (May 3, 2008)

Both parties suck right now. The major problem is the country is full of peope who expect the govt to take care of them. And that is just what BHO has promised. his support will stay high as long as he keeps promiseing handouts for the fat lazy worthless people. Wish they would do a honest survey of the military and see where they stand? Those are the people who really count. not the people who live on welfare.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

KurtR said:


> Both parties suck right now. The major problem is the country is full of peope who expect the govt to take care of them. And that is just what BHO has promised. his support will stay high as long as he keeps promiseing handouts for the fat lazy worthless people. Wish they would do a honest survey of the military and see where they stand? Those are the people who really count. not the people who live on welfare.


This is a typical response I see from Republicans. All things that Democrats do is only to benefit "fat lazy worthless welfare recipients" blah blah blah..

It gets old hearing the same rhetoric post after post on this forum.

Barack has to try to bring this nation out from the worst economic conditions since the Depression 70 years ago. These conditions were put in place and/or allowed to fester under a Republican President. If you have any beef with holding one individual responsible, then please make sure you direct your frustration or anger at the one person at the helm when this happened.

I think quite a few of you need to go brush up on economics a bit better to understand that all of us are in this together. This isn't limited to the poor, the lower class, the middle classes, the upper echelons. This is all of us.

And no Kurt, the military servicemen/women do not have a better grasp on all of this. If anything they have less of a grasp, as many of them have never studied macro/micro economics. Why do they "really count"? What do they know that the rest of us mere civilians dont?

The people who "really count" is all the American people who voted in this past election. They overwhelming voted Obama into office in a landslide election, that likely would have even been more of a landslide if many voters hadn't stayed home confident that he would win handily.

The major problem isn't that people want the government to take care of them. They want the government to function and do its job and regulate the economy in a consistent fashion, so that market volatitlity is under control, and ordinary hard working people can participate in a financial system that has defined strict rules.

We've had many crooks both in the government and financial sector who have figured out ways to cheat the system to their advantage. We need to clean house of these vermin, prosecute them, make them examples to the remaining ones, and implement strict regulations that rein in big business to play fairly and transparently.

We need to tighten up the banking industry, its rules, and its policies. We also need to tighten up the mortgage industry and simplify how the industry works. The government needs to force banks to open/free up lending and get the credit markets working again. Once the housing market gets back on its feet, and banks start lending, companies can start getting loans and getting the gears on the economy turning again.

So no Kurt, it isn't about the 'guvment giving handouts to bums. That is an illusion that Republican pundits like to promote, and deceive those who don't fully appreciate the full issue.

It is time for a change to politics on both sides. As I've said before, I think the new President will clean house and start the train on a different track. The Republicans need to understand that the American people want this new track and to quit *****in' and get out of the way.... lest they risk looking like obstructionist fools trying to step in front of a moving train.


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

Well said Comrade!


----------



## Bgunit68 (Dec 26, 2006)

R y a n said:


> KurtR said:
> 
> 
> > Both parties suck right now. The major problem is the country is full of peope who expect the govt to take care of them. And that is just what BHO has promised. his support will stay high as long as he keeps promiseing handouts for the fat lazy worthless people. Wish they would do a honest survey of the military and see where they stand? Those are the people who really count. not the people who live on welfare.
> ...


Oh thank God. I read the other thread first where you didn't blame Bush for everything. I'm glad to see you're back on track. LOL. What's up Ryan?


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

Read above, I ain't going to post the whole BS again.

You call yourself and your moronic liberal friends Americans, but what you in fact are is a Socialist. Obama wants this nation to "change" to socialism. Deny it all you like, but if you take off your rose colored glasses and really bother to look at what he wants to do you will see that it is plain and simple socialism.

I'm willing to give the guy a chance and see if he is really going to push this "change" to socialism, or if his words are as hollow as he is.

huntin1


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> It gets old hearing the same rhetoric post after post on this forum.


And somehow that's different than the rhetoric you keep spouting? That comment is simply indicative of the level of your bias. Your not saying your tired of the fair opportunity to speak are you? Sorry Ryan, but I don't think it will stop because you want it to. Also, the republicans are far to left. The people that vote them in don't want them moving closer to Obama's policies, they want them to move further from Obama's policies, much further. 
I see Obama is hung up on Rush Limbaugh. So far the liberal attack on the first amendment hasn't worked, so it's back to demonizing Rush like they do the NRA. The funny thing is the more they do it the more they polarize the nation. Just like you do on this form. 
I might hear 15 minutes of Rush a week, but I have listened to him for many years. I noticed he has matured a lot as a serious thinker, and will try listen to him more often. As a matter of fact I am headed out to the shop to do some work and think I will turn him on. Most of the time I have to do some intricate work, and music is better than Rush. If you listen to Rush it requires that your brain works and then it take me longer to do what I am doing.


----------



## KurtR (May 3, 2008)

Ryan the deal is that to many people spent outside of there means that is it. And the govt prrmoted it with the freddie and fanny. I am doing better than ever and that is because i dont go and spend a bunch of money on credit simple as that. It sucks seeing this country go in a direction of promoting lazyness and thinking that just because I have something that they deserve it to without doing any had work. And the reason i wanted to know what the men and women in the military think is because they are the reason you have the right to sit on here and be able to go cash your govt check on the1st and 15th. Its time for people to start taking responsibility for thier own actions and not count on the govt to bail them out. Get rid of all the worthless people on the coast and then maybe we will start getting some where. You say we need to get banks handing out money agin is that not the reason we are in this position all ready the banks gave out money to people who can not pay.


----------



## omegax (Oct 25, 2006)

huntin1 said:


> {poisoning the well}
> 
> {absurd, tired, inane diatribe about socialism... again}
> 
> huntin1


That about sum it up?

That socialism spiel sounds just as absurd as when Joe McCarthy used it in the 50's, and it's no more true now. The weird thing is that in the 50's there was an actual threat from Russia, but now who are we supposed to be scared of? Venezuela? Bolivia? Cuba? China? Please...

There's quite a leap between Keynesian economics and "socialism". Any attempt to link the two is an active attempt to use the old "straw-man fallacy" whereby you argue against a caricatured version of your opponent's argument. It's completely transparent to anyone who can actually name more than a couple of economists.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Ryan.....one thing that you are missing when you mentioned to blame the man in office comment....is



> We need to tighten up the banking industry, its rules, and its policies. We also need to tighten up the mortgage industry and simplify how the industry works. The government needs to force banks to open/free up lending and get the credit markets working again. Once the housing market gets back on its feet, and banks start lending, companies can start getting loans and getting the gears on the economy turning again.


All of this "Lose banking system" was installed by Clinton administration. The loose lending laws is what the Clinton administration pushed to have implemented. Then it was the Dem. congress that helped make the loan standards get even more lower. It was the Dem congress that pushed the banking industry to give out more loans to less qualified people. Then all of this pushed or made housing prices soar because it introduced a new wave of buyers (unqualified buyers). People were buying $500,000 homes with out putting any money down. You see a huge problem???? 0% down loans, Arm Loans, First Time homebuyer programs, Fanny and Freddy lowering loan requirements, etc....all were installed or envisioned by the Clinton Administration (Some was even during Carter). I could go on and on.

Here is a little story....when I graduated High School (96) I was looking at buying a home and then renting it to others while I was in college. They told me I needed a 650 credit score and I needed 10% down. When I graduated college i was looking at buying a home (00) the mortgage lender told me I needed a 600 credit score and I could qualify for many first time home buyer programs where I needed 0% down or I could get the down payment financed....80/20 loans.

While trying to get people into homes (my job).....the lenders needed a 500 credit score with 0% down or 80/20 loans to get people into homes.....was around $150,000 homes or less.

A family with a combined income of $50,000 a year could get qualified for a $250,000 home. Now that is a $1450 a month payment.....that is 35% of their income goes towards a house payment! Earlier the rule of thumb was 28% of your income.

Again could go on and on.

Yes Bush was the leader at the time....but it was not all his fault.

I will agree he did not do the greatest of job. But he was or is not the villain in all of this either.

One thing I am afraid of is people are looking at Obama as the "savior" to all of this. He can't get our economy out of this in his one 4 year term. The depression lasted 10 years and it took many forms of legislation and a war to bring us out of this. Obama will have a very hard time to get the US out of it in 4 years. No matter who was elected....they would not be able to get us out of this in 4 years.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

A bit of history on this moment to provide some perspective on what we did in the past to "right the ship" of this country can be found in Rolling Stone's Paul Krugman's letter to Obama where he offers *this picture of the past:*



> About those successes: The way FDR dealt with his own era's financial mess offers a very good model. Then, as now, the government had to deploy taxpayer money in order to rescue the financial system. In particular, the Reconstruction Finance Corporation initially played a role similar to that of the Bush administration's Troubled Assets Relief Program (the $700 billion program everyone knows about). Like the TARP, the RFC bulked up the cash position of troubled banks by using public funds to buy up stock in those banks.
> 
> There was, however, a big difference between FDR's approach to taxpayer-subsidized financial rescue and that of the Bush administration:
> 
> Namely, FDR wasn't shy about demanding that the public's money be used to serve the public good. *By 1935 the U.S. government owned about a third of the banking system, and the Roosevelt administration used that ownership stake to insist that banks actually help the economy, pressuring them to lend out the money they were getting from Washington.*


Now, contrast that with what the WSJ offers as a *picture of the present:*



> Lending at many of the nation's largest banks fell in recent months, even after they received $148 billion in taxpayer capital that was intended to help the economy by making loans more readily available.
> 
> Ten of the 13 big beneficiaries of the Treasury Department's Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, saw their outstanding loan balances decline by a total of about $46 billion, or 1.4%, between the third and fourth quarters of 2008, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of banks that recently announced their quarterly results.
> 
> Those 13 banks have collected the lion's share of the roughly $200 ...


The government must not only loan banks money, it needs to help in running them since it seems they can't (or won't) do it themselves. There may be no other option but partial nationalization of certain big banks.

And no that isn't socialist. That is being a "realist" to the current economic conditions. The US Congress can ensure they are only in the banking business for a limited time by setting a benchmark or sunset clause that only makes the idea possible for a definitive limited amount of time and/or provided the economy gets to "X" health. (X being some quanitative measure of health)

The "old" ideas of the past couple decades have gotten us down a hell of a rathole. The same old faulty ideas and a continuation of the same rules of the game will no longer work to bring us out of this mess...The problem with the nationalization idea, is that the solution is subject to the political whims of whoever is in power which is always very dangerous....

This whole crisis was created by the banks giving out crappy loans in the first place, as someone mentioned earlier... I agree.

Those loans sustained a bubble economy--that is an unrealistic one. Why do we want the banks to make more crappy loans? It is more than "if the banks would just start lending again" that asset prices will rise back to their bubble levels? Even if the banks wanted to lend, who wants to take out a mortgage and buy a house right now? Who wants to start a business? There is something deeper that needs fixing first.

What should be happening is that the government should let any remaining banks that are insolvent fail and prop up the solvent banks until the economy recovers. The solvent banks should use the money to buy whatever viable assets the failing banks have. _They should be getting their balance sheets in order. They should not be lending until they have first finished this crucial first step_ (Nor should they be giving out bonuses, obviously)

Next we should:
1. Nationalize all fed-chartered banks; 
2. immediately apply FASB standards; 
3. write down all bad assets thus uncovered; 
4. force mergers, bankruptcies and liquidations, 
5. injecting Treasury capital as needed; 
6. set healthy banks free again to romp capitalistically, under tight supervision; and 
7. DEMAND hard-*** Congressional investigations of bad practices.

The goal is to restore enough confidence in investors around the world to get them to invest in the debt required to float a sufficient stimulus, roughly two to three times that suggested by Dems so far.

Otherwise what we think of as stimulus is just money down a rathole.
You can't reinflate the bubble, unscramble the egg, or whatever cliche you want to use. Housing prices and asset prices fell because they were way too high.

Bankers aren't lending because borrowers were (or are) way overleveraged. Banks were taking way too much risk.

We lent our way into this problem, but we *can't* lend our way out.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

omegax said:


> That socialism spiel sounds just as absurd as when Joe McCarthy used it in the 50's, and it's no more true now.


Time will tell.



omegax said:


> The weird thing is that in the 50's there was an actual threat from Russia, but now who are we supposed to be scared of? Venezuela? Bolivia? Cuba? China? Please...


Obama, and his policies

huntin1


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

First off FDR was a dismal failure.

Read some of William Ayers publications. He described this perfectly. His idea was to drive the nation into such economic peril that the nation would gladly accept socialism. That's what your accepting.

Bush may have been president, but when it comes to the economy he was far from in charge. Obama would be far from in charge too if Nancy and Harry opposed him. But what Obama wants Obama gets.

What we need is no bail out. Let the losers lose. People who know how to produce will pick up their assets for pennies on the dollar and the economy will pick up again. Right now Obama is doing little more than prolonging things by nursing a patient that needs hospice care.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Maybe a better analogy is to think of our economic system as a young person who has suffered a stroke. Right now the patient is incapacitated, you can put that person in a hospital bed and give them food, but they're not in a position to rehabilitate themselves. They need outside attention and help to become self-sufficient again. _They also need to examine what behaviors lead to the stroke in the first place and determine the best ways to change their habits._

Nationalizing the banks may be a bad idea, but having the US Government buy preferred stock to prop them up and then using the power of a commanding share or stock agreement to ensure that until banks can payback the federal dollars they are lending (and lending responsibly) under the direct oversight of a government agency may be the only way to ensure our financial industry will heal properly and that the vicious cycle of diminishing capital on main street is reversed.

For those of you who are resistant to a nationalized bank idea, you might want to go read *Paul Krugman's recent op-ed, "Wall Street Voodoo".* 

In it, Krugman argues that while many people fear nationalization of the banks, many of those banks are already wards of the state, and that we need to face the facts and implement the obvious solution: *an explicit, though temporary*, government takeover.

He describes a hypothetical bank with $2 trillion in assets and $1.9 trillion in liabilities, so that it has a net worth of $100 billion, but with $400 billion of those assets in mortgage-backed securities that can't be sold for more than $200 billion. He calls this a zombie bank: one that is operating but has already gone bust. Any value of its stock is based on the hope that shareholders will be rescued by government bailout.

Letting such banks fail would send _disastrous _shock waves through the global economy. Giving them a handout would encourage similar mismanagement in the future.

Instead, he suggests handling them like we did the S&L's of the late 1980s: seize the defunct banks, transfer their bad assets to a special institution, pay off enough of the debts to make the banks solvent, then sell the banks to new owners.

Not perfect, but a far better idea than anything I've seen or read.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Plainsman said:


> First off FDR was a dismal failure.
> 
> Read some of William Ayers publications. He described this perfectly. His idea was to drive the nation into such economic peril that the nation would gladly accept socialism. That's what your accepting.


I agree that comparing our current predicament to the Great Depression when it comes to solutions is perhaps not the most effective idea. While the causes between our current downturn and the Depression may be similar (buying on the margin and debt monetization both created an avalanche of toxic assets) we have changed too much as a society to assume the same solutions will work.

Whether FDR's New Deal got us out of the Depression or not, it got the USA some basic social services that every other industrialized nation was moving toward during that time. Sure, we didn't get socialized health care, but before Social Security the elderly were the poorest segment of our population. SS also provided a safety net for children whose parents are killed/maimed, the handicapped, etc.

So, I think some FDR "worship" isn't so much crediting him with single-handedly ending the depression but rather looking around at the socialized world of W. Europe, Canada, Japan, etc and realizing that what little bit of that the USA does have is thanks to the New Deal.

I'm just trying to think out of the box, and not let myself get too far down a path by depending on the same old solutions that have the same disastrous ending. Learning from the successes and mistakes from the past, and weaving the successes into a new policy, while taking precautions to not go down the road of the mistakes of the past, seems like a good starting point to come to some kind of viable solution.

Or so it seems to me....


----------



## omegax (Oct 25, 2006)

Plainsman said:


> What we need is no bail out. Let the losers lose. People who know how to produce will pick up their assets for pennies on the dollar and the economy will pick up again.


Hoover tried that under the advice of Mellon... he fiddled while Rome burned.


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

omegax said:


> [ The weird thing is that in the 50's there was an actual threat from Russia, but now who are we supposed to be scared of? Venezuela? Bolivia? Cuba? China?


Since when do we have to have another countries fiscal policy to be scared of to be concerned about the status of our nation as a capitalist stronghold? Socialism is bad, and its not coming from some foreign country. Its comming from our friendly democratic party.

Funny thing is the democrats legislate goodwill, undoubtedly to many who dont deserve it, while our conservative brothers donate far greater numbers of their own free will.


----------



## omegax (Oct 25, 2006)

I'm saying that the socialism talk is misplaced.

It's just too easy to misrepresent fiscal policy as "socialism" rather than to argue against it on it's own merit. Ryan posts an article by Nobel Prize-winner Paul Krugman, but the other side of the argument consists of just screaming "SOCIALISM!!". Dig me up some old Friedman papers or something!


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

First off, Rush never said he wants the president to fail, he wants his socialist AGENDA to fail and his "big government" mentality.

Second, getting your news from the freakin Daily Show now Ryan???? :eyeroll: 
Honestly, your far to smart to take that show seriously, arent you?

His show was funny for about the first two episodes. One can only hear the same jokes so many times.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> > First off, Rush never said he wants the president to fail, he wants his socialist AGENDA to fail and his "big government" mentality.


That's exactly right, and if you frequent the far left sites you will always find conservative ideas taken out of context. I guess that's just a polite way to say they are lying scum suckers. They know what Rush said, and if they expect me to believe their "interpretation" they are insulting my intelligence.



> an explicit, though temporary, government takeover.


First off you had a very good analogy in that post. Second we are trying to do what FDR did. Third your idea isn't all bad, it's just that we don't trust the liberals not to make it permanent. Look at the post where it says Rush wants Obama to fail. Will you ever trust that site to tell you the truth again? Not me. Nor will I trust the liars in Washington. As a matter of fact I would nearly place my life on the line that Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid would love to make this nation permanently socialist. No doubt in my mind. We can't let them get a toe hold.

One only needs to look at what will shortly be happening to the second amendment to know if these people are trustworthy. Obama says he respects the second amendment, but he doesn't want anyone to be able to carry concealed weapons. What do you think will happen to being able to carry concealed in National Parks? Trust him???? What do you think will happen to the production of AR15's? Trust him???? What do you think will happen to the old assault weapons ban? Trust him???? Obama is not a trustworthy man.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> 1. Nationalize all fed-chartered banks;
> 2. immediately apply FASB standards;
> 3. write down all bad assets thus uncovered;
> 4. force mergers, bankruptcies and liquidations,
> ...


First off this is a good plan but has problems....

The Fed's are doing a lot of this right now but they are talking out of both sides of their mouths. I have talked with my local banks in my hometown. They are saying one week they get a call from the Fed's saying to tighten up the loan requirements. Then the next week they get a call that they need to produce more loans. How can both of these be accomplished???

Is that any economic recovery plan will take more than 4 years to take effect. And most elected officials have 2-4 year terms. So all the elected officials are wanting quick fixes because then it makes them look good and they can get re-elected. Think about all the bailout legislation....it is just a band aid on a huge problem. Think of it this way.....the "housing boom" was going on for about 12 years or so. Now all of this "boom" put the united states in this situation it is in right now. So it will take at least 6 years for a plan to get implimented and see some effect. We as a nation need long term not short term. This is what is the problem no matter what side you are on...dem or rep.

Now the last thing that kind of Chaps my A$$ is that on CNN this morning all i kept hear about is how the Dems can sway the Rep vote on some bill (not sure what it was because they did not talk about that). All they talked about is how the dems need to sway. Maybe the bill is not that good or maybe the Rep are being bull headed just to prove a point. All of this should boil down to is what is right for the country. I just feel that too many polititicans now a days worry about making money. look at the election.....one of the main this in the news was how much money Obama made for his campaign.....WHO CARES. Both sides are guilty of this. They are worried about money or re-election.

I know this was a little off topic but just needed to vent.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

The dems don't need the republicans to pass the bill, they just need them on board so when everything goes to pot the republicans don't sweep the next election.  Share the blame and stupidity so to speak.

"We all thought it was the thing to do" "You can't just blame us, the republicans wanted it too" etc etc ad nauseam.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Plainsman said:


> The dems don't need the republicans to pass the bill, they just need them on board so when everything goes to pot the republicans don't sweep the next election.  Share the blame and stupidity so to speak.
> 
> "We all thought it was the thing to do" "You can't just blame us, the republicans wanted it too" etc etc ad nauseam.


If the GOP knows that opposing Obama's stimulus package will result in the media reporting that_ Obama _is failing-failing to reach out effectively, failing to lead in a bipartisan fashion-what incentive does the GOP have to do anything other than lie and obstruct *and jerk Obama around?*



> House Republican leaders are urging their rank and file to oppose the economic stimulus bill heading for a vote on Wednesday, delivering their appeal hours before President Obama heads to the Capitol to seek bipartisan support.


Obama shouldn't be faulted for "failing" to work with people who won't work with him. He will be, of course, but he shouldn't be.

Hopefully, he does just enough to impress upon the voting public exactly which side of the congressional aisle is the one doing the foot-dragging.

Clearly, the GOP hasn't learned the lesson of both the 2006 and 2008 elections: the public expects RESULTS. Any attempt on their part to impede getting things done is not going to be viewed as positive, and they're going to suffer the consequences if they don't get that through their thick heads.

We tried it their way for nearly eight years, and given those results, their continued intransigence is not only the height of arrogance, but borders on a political death-wish.

Let's not forget that when Republicans took over, they didn't do it this way. They _shut the Democrats out of the drafting process completely _so there was nothing they could criticise. A completed bill as thick as a phone book would be handed to the Dems for a vote the next day, and its title would be something like "Defend America Act".

I'm still looking at this thinking that many are still misreading Obama's intentions.

I think he would truly like to reach across the aisle and offer an attempt at bi-partisan input. I think the R's are using this opportunity to play politics at a time we need to do SOMETHING.

The Republican leadership is great at B!tching about this stimulus plan. I haven't heard their solution? Have you?

What is their counter solution? Put up or shut up I say..

The answer is they don't. They have nothing.

And you know this is absolutely true.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Ryan......you say they are not working with the President elect......well welcome to the last four years for G.W. Bush. That is what he encountered in every good bill he backed.....the dems added fluff and junk so it would not pass or was a shell of the original bill.

That is the problem with politics today. But now the news is reporting that the Rep are being difficult when just last year the Dem were difficult in passing a very good farm bill. But that got hardly any media attention.

It goes both ways.......but yes I have not heard of any Rep bill for stimulus.


----------



## swampbuck (Sep 19, 2007)

:lol: :lol: :lol: you guys are funny bush started socializing our economy
and obama will only further this movement and for all you small govt republicans.... the biggest expansion of govt power and beurocracy _*ever*_ happened under bush start viewing this clip at about 14 minutes


both parties are big govt big spending socialists they all share the same economic philosophy remember when mccain and obama urged americans to put polotics aside so they could pass a bailout to "save" the economy

forget your party and join the campaign for liberty


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

No one is arguing that the republicans have not also moved to far left. However, Bush was the only one to admit it. That's kind of funny considering the democrats were way left of Bush. I think he said he abandoned his capitolist values to save the economy. I don't think it will save the economy, but that was what he said. 
Telling us the republicans are to far left is preaching to the choir with most of us who are conservative.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

What, is there maybe 3-4 conservatives left in office????

This government is so tainted it smells worse than a rendering plant.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I agree 4curl, we need term limits bad.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

we have term limits, they are called elections. 

The executive branch has a limit to keep one person from getting too much power, the reps are supposed to be representing us. The real change needs to be made in campaign finance, length of campaigning, and a set of laws, not rules, about advertising.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

Glad someone still has faith in the squeaky clean workings of govt.

Myself, I've heard this constant flushing sound for nearly 20 years. Morality, honor and justice are the faces on the turds in the bowl.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

then someone better should run for office. Term limits are bad because the next two candidates may not be better than the incumbent. If the playing field was leveled maybe a rookie could get in the game. Take a look at minnesota, what if some idiot celebrity ran against 100 time loser duane sand? Those would be our choices, talk about turds in the bowl. At least in minnesota the incumbent is an idiot too.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

Supposed to, may not and the famous what if. Experience and maturity will teach you more on absolution.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

Okay????????


----------



## Dak (Feb 28, 2005)

Ryan,



> This is a typical response I see from Republicans. All things that Democrats do is only to benefit "fat lazy worthless welfare recipients" blah blah blah..
> 
> It gets old hearing the same rhetoric post after post on this forum.


I agree it gets old hearing the same old spoon fed opinions from both sides.

However, I agree that it is time to give the President a chance and see what happens. I can't agree with the idea of hoping a president fails from either party. When the president fails...the country fails. We can't afford a lot of failure right now.

Cheers.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

> The major problem isn't that people want the government to take care of them.


Sorry, but yes it is!!! That is the major problem with America right now. People want something for nothing. From all the gov't programs to the no account housing loans (that were started under Clinton by the way)!! Goes all the way down to the fiber of how litigious this country has become. Everyone sees a free meal ticket if they are too stupid to realize that coffee may be hot!!! DUHHHHH!!! :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll:


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

djleye said:


> > The major problem isn't that people want the government to take care of them.
> 
> 
> Sorry, but yes it is!!! That is the major problem with America right now. People want something for nothing. From all the gov't programs to the no account housing loans (that were started under Clinton by the way)!! Goes all the way down to the fiber of how litigious this country has become. Everyone sees a free meal ticket if they are too stupid to realize that coffee may be hot!!! DUHHHHH!!! :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll:


 :beer: :beer: :beer:

I FIRMLY believe our problem ISNT our govt. Our problems are traceable down to our PEOPLE, of which I have little faith in. The American people as a whole are lazy, complacant, and stupid. Our govt only augments the TRUE problem.


----------



## Bowstring (Nov 27, 2006)

TK33, said;
" At least in minnesota the incumbent is an idiot too."

OK, I vote in Minnesota, give me some real data to back up your statement.


----------



## Bowstring (Nov 27, 2006)

Ryan said;

America could give a &$#* what they think at the moment.

My 2 Cents

I'm an American and ask why your 2 cents represents what America thinks?

I have seen this in a lot of statements from the left and want you to know that you don't represent me.


----------



## willythekid (Jan 21, 2008)

bowstring... you should get that you don't represent most of America then too


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Bowstring said:


> Ryan said;
> 
> America could give a &$#* what they think at the moment.
> 
> ...





willythekid said:


> bowstring... you should get that you don't represent most of America then too


Bowstring I'll second what Willy said above.

I am fairly confident in how America "thinks" at present due to the landslide elections that just happened, The Presidents soaring approval rating, and the widespread worldwise hatred for Bush and vis a vis the Republican party he (used to) represent.

Like I said earlier above, The Republicans need to understand that the American people want this new track and to quit *****in' and get out of the way.... lest they risk looking like obstructionist fools trying to step in front of a moving train.

They have been in power for so long I don't think they quite realize what has hit them yet. One only needs to look at how they spent their face time with President Obama *****ing about how their egos were being poorly treated by the Democratic majority, instead of trying to sit down and negotiate specific bullet points of the stimulus plan they don't like. Obama tries to be inclusive, drives over in poor weather to meet with them in their offices at the Capital, and instead of working together and building a cohesive bi-partisan that includes some of their wishes, they *****!

Fools every single one...

So yes Bowstring I am confident in saying that given the current climate my personal views currently reflect mainstream views of the public based on the above..

You might want to do a little internet surfing on how the political winds are shifting in America for the long term Bowstring. Put that newfound knowledge to use determining where your political views sit amongst the population. Are they the majority? If yes, which view(s) in which way? Who is the majority of America now? Who will be the majority of America in 8 years? Have you looked at who will be gaining legislative seats in the next election? Where are those located? What "population" do they represent?

Things you should go chew on and consider...


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I am fairly confident in how America "thinks


I have noticed that your fairly confident about a lot of things you know very little about.



> When the president fails...the country fails.


That's not true, and none of you liberals spoke that way when Bush was in office. Very naive, or you also think the average American is stupid. I'll agree with that.



> it is time to give the President a chance


I don't think so. I see the stimulus package has $240 million that ACORN can access. I guess that's a reward for screwing with the election.



> I FIRMLY believe our problem ISNT our govt. Our problems are traceable down to our PEOPLE, of which I have little faith in. The American people as a whole are lazy, complacent, and stupid. Our govt only augments the TRUE problem.


Amen. I also agree with djleye that people want the government to take care of them. We have a whole generation coming up that wants replace their mother with government. They lack confidence or ability, or both. That and not only are they looking for a free lunch, but they are terribly jealous of anyone who make more than them.



> instead of working together and building a cohesive bi-partisan that includes some of their wishes, they b#tch!


Bipartisan is stupid if the other side is wrong. Today I listened to Obama talk about our business being the heart of the American economy. He knows what the American people want to hear, but that's not who the stimulus plan rewards. There is nothing in tax breaks for business, just pork barrel for people including his beloved ACORN. Obama isn't looking for bipartisanship, he is looking for someone to share the blame with the democrats. If he is right about the stimulus package the republicans will never recover. If the republicans don't sign on and the stimulus fails the democrats may never recover. Evidently that's what you liberals are worried about.

I think the democrats are in a rush to pass this stimulus package. I think they are in a rush to get it done before the economy recovers on it's own. Of course it isn't going to recover with this free meal for everyone approach that Obama is taking.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Plainsman said:


> > I am fairly confident in how America "thinks
> 
> 
> I have noticed that your fairly confident about a lot of things you know very little about.


:lol:

Plainsman you really don't want to start down that path.

What a joke.


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

Anyone that gets their news and views or even thinks the Daily Show has anything worthwhile is a joke.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Ryan.......yes the world "hated" bush. But before "bush" the world hated "Americans" in general. Because the world envisions the US people as fat & lazy.

Now you see now American Citizens are seeing that we as a country are "fat & lazy". Why do you think the illegal immigrants are taking all of our jobs (so to speak). Because other Americans would rather get a hand out than work these jobs. Why do you think that many US college grads think that they should be making $50,000 right out of college instead of working the way up the ladder.

This is also why you could say the poor get poorer and the rich get richer. Because the people that are considered "rich" are trying to climb up the ladder so to speak.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

The daily show is a parody show. It is for entertainment. But it also has been known to make spot on accurate points.

Jon Stewart _does_ make very good points. His cynacism is often spot on accurate to the BS that politicians, news shows, and celebrities try to pass off on the American public. I think he ranks right up there with Bill Maher in that respect.

His analysis he did on the first week of the Obama administration, and FauxNews's and Rush's moral outrage were spot on accurate also. There is no way you can justify why they were freaking out so soon into his Presidency. It shows just how ridiculous their credibility is as a news source themselves.


----------



## willythekid (Jan 21, 2008)

On that same thought, anyone who get their views from O'Reilly and that pill-popper Limbaugh is also a joke.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

You know RYAN, perhaps you should take your own advise and do a little internet surfing other than your same old liberal sites. You keep spouting "landslide" and this is what you use to base your knowledge of how America thinks.

Here's some figures for you, Percentage of popular vote: Source

Obama; 52.9% McCain; 45.7%

This is what you call a landslide?

Or are you refering to the Electoral College vote:

Obama; 365 McCain; 173

If this is what you are using as a basis for saying that you "know" how America thinks, then I would submit that you know next to nothing.

The Electoral College is out of sync with what America wants and has been for years.



willythekid said:


> On that same thought, anyone who get their views from O'Reilly and that pill-popper Limbaugh is also a joke.


Anyone who believes the news as put forth by mainsteam media is a joke.

huntin1


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Chuck Smith said:


> But before "bush" the world hated "Americans" in general. Because the world envisions the US people as fat & lazy.


Umm.. _No_ they did not. How do you think that? Have you spoken, socialized, or worked with folks from other countries prior to or during Bush being in office? How many friends do you currently have from other countries?

The reason I ask, is that I've had alot of interactions over the last 8 years with folks who are not American. I've worked and socialized in 4 different countries during that time period, comprising around 250 people who know me on a first name basis to this day. In fact many of them are still IM contacts right now, and I speak with many still for work/social reasons on a fairly frequent basis). I also blog on an invite only international blog comprising around 300 young adults from 30 countries around the world. These folks (especially the intl blog ones) speak with me freely about their impressions of Americans. Ohh did I mention that my wife and her entire family are from Canada also?

Therefore I think I have a pretty good "feel" for how others from other countries feel about us.

They don't hate Americans. They hate the American Bush government. The Europeans loved Clinton. In fact they envy us in many regards. Many would love to have a work stint here for awhile. When a group came out from England and Germany, they bought 20 pairs of American blue jeans to take back for friends.

I had a friend from Adelaide Australia (from the blog)chat with me on Skype phone ask me what us Americans in general think of President Bush, as he is hated over there. He wondered how it was possible that the President could have any support amongst his own people? I asked him what he thought of American citizens in general, and he said for the most part the ones that travel are normal and fun, but he thought many had to high a standard of living for their education levels.

I could go on and on, but suffice to say, that the majority gist of the sentiment was that Americans are lucky to be living in a wealthy country, and although it would be nice to visit, few actually would want to live there.

I'm not sure where you draw your conclusion... but I'd offer that it isn't what I have learned from my friends from other places.



Chuck Smith said:


> Now you see now American Citizens are seeing that we as a country are "fat & lazy".


I'm not sure who you are generalizing with this sweeping statement, but who are these "American citizens" you speak of? Republicans living in small upper plains/midwestern states? Those Americans?

I'm not sure what you qualify as fat & lazy, but given the rest job cuts across the nation, a LOT of Americans will soon be needing benefits to provide for their families. Hard working honest Americans who used to work at respected companies like Melroe Bobcat, Boeing, Microsoft, Starbucks, American Express Travel, etc all thought "they" were hard working deserving folks.



Chuck Smith said:


> Why do you think the illegal immigrants are taking all of our jobs (so to speak). Because other Americans would rather get a hand out than work these jobs.


Which illegal immigrants are taking jobs? The jobs they by and large "take" are dirty disgusting manual labor jobs that either "pay to little" (read: $3/5/hr), or are minimum wage jobs working odd hours. Americans ARE TOO GOOD for those jobs we are told. Who would want them right? So instead they are fulfilled by those willing to work for anything at all costs.

I think you and I are in agreement on this to a degree. I just don't want to lump all illegals together. They can't all be categorized the same way.

If instead you are talking about H1B visa immigrants, that is another complex scenario onto itsself. We DON'T have qualified Americans smart enough to fulfill the requirements of the jobs that are going filled by H1B visa holders. There are always exclusions of course. But as a whole, our nation is DUMB. Flat DUMB when it comes to having advanced math skills, engineering skills, and logic skills necessary to hold a high $$ technology job at a top technology company. I know this for a fact because I see it every day at work here at MS.

We have a nation full of kids that have been babied and coddled and told they can do no wrong, and that a 79% on a test was "pretty good Billy". They take lower level math and science just enough to "pass" out of high school, and then enter in to college woefully prepared for the rigors of college life, demanding classes with no leniency, and complex subjects that all need to be mastered. Conversely we have Indian students that have taken those same classes in the 9th grade, aced them, and are able to come in to their college curriculum having mastered algebra, Calculus, and Trig. They don't need to spend the extra time on those subjects, and thus are able to completely dive in to topics that require extra attention.

The difference in quality is ASTOUNDING... but I digress...



Chuck Smith said:


> Why do you think that many US college grads think that they should be making $50,000 right out of college instead of working the way up the ladder.


It depends on the field of work Chuck, and it depends on the cost of living for a given city, combined with the prevailing wage and # of applicants who are qualifed and available to fulfill a position properly.

I think we are on the same page agreeing on this too.. American kids have grown up with an entitlement mentality to a large degree. Others have parents who have provided their kids with a certain "lifestyle" growing up, and the kids expect to continue forward with that lifestyle. This is largely the fault of the parents not making their children grow into responsible adults. This isn't the guvment's fault.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

huntin1 said:


> You know RYAN, perhaps you should take your own advise and do a little internet surfing other than your same old liberal sites. You keep spouting "landslide" and this is what you use to base your knowledge of how America thinks.
> 
> Here's some figures for you, Percentage of popular vote: Source
> 
> ...


A great point huntin1.

Yes Obama; 52.9% McCain; 45.7% is a landslide. The fact of the matter is, that MANY Obama voters didn't come out to the election, and he STILL won that handily.

7% points is a huge margin in this day, especially when you consider who normally votes in an election year.

We were told "Ohhh don't worry about those election polls you idiot Non-Republicans" "Come election day we'll see how much you ACTUALLY get... you know due to the Bradley effect and all"

Right.

I'm curious how many millions of votes he didn't receive from Western States who saw the early election landslides and didn't even bother coming out?


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

well, ryan, it is not surprising your international "friends" are Bush haters, birds of a feather.......well, you know......i suppose they got a good dose of Bush hating from you, no doubt......anyway, your herculean effort to impress folks due to your worldly contacts.....250 Bush haters, wow, yeah, i believe that crap.....anyway, hurry back to your private Intl blog group...they are undoubtedly missing you terribly, right about now.......  :lol: :lol:


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

R y a n said:


> I'm curious how many millions of votes he didn't receive from Western States who saw the early election landslides and didn't even bother coming out?


That goes both ways Ryan. Stop thinking left so hard the other side of your brain may die off!


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> How do you think that? Have you spoken, socialized, or worked with folks from other countries prior to or during Bush being in office? How many friends do you currently have from other countries?


I too over the past 15 years have visited, socialized, communicated, and worked with people from over seas and abroad. My buddy who is the head of major league operations in England has been hearing this crap for 12 years. My friend who lived in Japan for 2 years and taught over there. Then moved back 8 years ago told me the same things back then. His kids would get picked on, spit on, pushed around. Now this was not just bullying on the play ground but from adults. My friends stationed over seas told me the same things. Yes the view on the united states has been poor for many years. Many american citizens think it is because of jealousy....maybe it was. But the view is was there.



> I'm not sure who you are generalizing with this sweeping statement, but who are these "American citizens" you speak of? Republicans living in small upper plains/midwestern states? Those Americans?


I say anyone who has both eyes open to the situation at hand. I see this in all of my travels.

The America i speak of is across the board.....if you don't see how people are lazy you are turning a blind eye. I know of 4 people who don't have jobs. No they did not get let go they quit. Only one of them right now is trying to better himself. The others are sitting there *****ing and moaning. To let you know two are dem and two are Rep.



> Which illegal immigrants are taking jobs? The jobs they by and large "take" are dirty disgusting manual labor jobs that either "pay to little" (read: $3/5/hr), or are minimum wage jobs working odd hours. Americans ARE TOO GOOD for those jobs we are told. Who would want them right? So instead they are fulfilled by those willing to work for anything at all costs.


Ryan this comment right here that you stated above is exactly what I mean people are thinking. I know if I would not have my job....I would take any job that could pay the bills even if it is two or three of them.

And the "americans ARE TOO GOOD for those jobs we are told" is exactly why other country's citizens have a disdain for american citizens and view them as fat and lazy. You just made my point with that comment right there.

But again you and I are on the same wave length to a certain extent.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

hunter9494 said:


> well, ryan, it is not surprising your international "friends" are Bush haters, birds of a feather.......well, you know......i suppose they got a good dose of Bush hating from you, no doubt......anyway, your herculean effort to impress folks due to your worldly contacts.....250 Bush haters, wow, yeah, i believe that crap.....anyway, hurry back to your private Intl blog group...they are undoubtedly missing you terribly, right about now.......  :lol: :lol:


Not at all H94. The world is allowed to form its own opinions of Bush. I could care less what theirs are...it is their opinion.. and it is only an opinion.

Many here have questioned how I arrived at my blanket statements about world and/or country opinions. Well.. I just pre-empted some ridiculous charge that "How do you know what others outside the US think Ryan?".. because you know that was coming with this crowd. Therefore I just wanted to set the understanding that I actually do have a unique perspective regarding input from some folks outside this country. It does happen you know.. you know.. some people sometimes do have more perspective due to unique training, travel, or education. Though it would seem that some who are envious, lacking, or unqualified would want to discredit such criteria, in order to minimize anything I might try to share. I guess when it comes to me though.. there is a double standard right? Since we have moderators who push such an agenda themselves?

Ohh and H94.. for the record... I don't blog on that site anymore. Though fun it took up too much time trying to keep up with ...

But thanks for the encouraging words.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

R y a n said:


> A great point huntin1.
> 
> Yes Obama; 52.9% McCain; 45.7% is a landslide. The fact of the matter is, that MANY Obama voters didn't come out to the election, and he STILL won that handily.
> 
> ...


Well, then you and I see things differently. (big surprise)

As I recall a landslide in the Electoral College is =>100 votes, no question that Obama recieved a landslide in the Electoral College. But as far as popular vote, I learned that to have a landslide in the pv the winner needs 55% of the popular vote, so Obama's win falls short of a landslide.

So how many voters on the left coast realized that their states Electoral votes were going for Obama and decided, why bother? Voter apathy is a problem in any election and one never knows which candidate those uncast ballots would be for.

huntin1


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> 'm curious how many millions of votes he didn't receive from Western States who saw the early election landslides and didn't even bother coming out?


This works both ways....because in MN obama was declared the winner right about one hour after the polls closed. So that left 1 hour on the west coast. Then you have AK and HI......yes not that huge of a vote but what if the race was tighter.

That is one thing that just chaps my a$$ is why do they have to report it so tightly.....wait until the next day and then give the results. That would make it 100% fair. Think about it......wait until the polls are closed in HI....that is a 5 hour difference than NY. That would mean they could start to report 1 am EST. sorry to get off topic....but i just can't stand that.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

huntin1 said:


> So how many voters on the left coast realized that their states Electoral votes were going for Obama and decided, why bother? Voter apathy is a problem in any election and one never knows which candidate those uncast ballots would be for.
> 
> huntin1


I'm assuming you mean how many R's didn't go vote due to the same logic correct? Exactly what Longshot was saying right?

I think that the number would be skewed anyways. Meaning, that I think that Kalifornia, WA, OR and UT voters are overwhelming Democrat in nature, and by a higher percentage than other regions. Let's say WA for example. If WA is normally 65% D and 35% R, and you carried those rates of voting forward, and then added in the extra voters on both sides, that would effectively widen the % gap of the overall election Total % too..

Before might have been 53 to 47... would effectively be widened to 54.5 to 45.5, thereby giving you the landslide gap you were looking for in the popular vote count.

It would not take that much of a stretch to figure that those 4 states had enough voters that stayed home that would have covered that gap.

We actually had quite a few articles and discussion about that very fact out here post election...


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Chuck Smith said:


> That is one thing that just chaps my a$$ is why do they have to report it so tightly.....wait until the next day and then give the results. That would make it 100% fair. Think about it......wait until the polls are closed in HI....that is a 5 hour difference than NY. That would mean they could start to report 1 am EST. sorry to get off topic....but i just can't stand that.


I'm totally agreed with you there...

I wish that they wouldn't be able to start declaring states, until after polls close on the left coast.

Then you wouldn't have this discrepancy of voters turning out...


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> But as a whole, our nation is DUMB. Flat DUMB when it comes to having advanced math skills, engineering skills, and logic skills necessary to hold a high $$ technology job at a top technology company. I know this for a fact because I see it every day at work here at MS.
> 
> We have a nation full of kids that have been babied and coddled and told they can do no wrong, and that a 79% on a test was "pretty good Billy". They take lower level math and science just enough to "pass" out of high school, and then enter in to college woefully prepared for the rigors of college life, demanding classes with no leniency, and complex subjects that all need to be mastered. Conversely we have Indian students that have taken those same classes in the 9th grade, aced them, and are able to come in to their college curriculum having mastered algebra, Calculus, and Trig. They don't need to spend the extra time on those subjects, and thus are able to completely dive in to topics that require extra attention.


Ryan.....this is spot on accurate!

This is one of the things I didn't agree with Bush ....the NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND law. This makes teachers push along kids so the school can get $$ it needs to function. It does not help the advance kid stay advanced...it brings them down. It does not help the slow kids because it does not force them to get it together or seek help. It lowers the rest of the class to that students level. Then the people in the middle are screwed because they could take a little more advanced but instead they are stuck at the lower level not getting challenged.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Chuck Smith said:


> > But as a whole, our nation is DUMB. Flat DUMB when it comes to having advanced math skills, engineering skills, and logic skills necessary to hold a high $$ technology job at a top technology company. I know this for a fact because I see it every day at work here at MS.
> >
> > We have a nation full of kids that have been babied and coddled and told they can do no wrong, and that a 79% on a test was "pretty good Billy". They take lower level math and science just enough to "pass" out of high school, and then enter in to college woefully prepared for the rigors of college life, demanding classes with no leniency, and complex subjects that all need to be mastered. Conversely we have Indian students that have taken those same classes in the 9th grade, aced them, and are able to come in to their college curriculum having mastered algebra, Calculus, and Trig. They don't need to spend the extra time on those subjects, and thus are able to completely dive in to topics that require extra attention.
> 
> ...


:thumb: I'm not as "liberal" in all areas as some would like to portray me to be...


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Chuck Smith said:


> > But as a whole, our nation is DUMB. Flat DUMB when it comes to having advanced math skills, engineering skills, and logic skills necessary to hold a high $$ technology job at a top technology company. I know this for a fact because I see it every day at work here at MS.
> >
> > We have a nation full of kids that have been babied and coddled and told they can do no wrong, and that a 79% on a test was "pretty good Billy". They take lower level math and science just enough to "pass" out of high school, and then enter in to college woefully prepared for the rigors of college life, demanding classes with no leniency, and complex subjects that all need to be mastered. Conversely we have Indian students that have taken those same classes in the 9th grade, aced them, and are able to come in to their college curriculum having mastered algebra, Calculus, and Trig. They don't need to spend the extra time on those subjects, and thus are able to completely dive in to topics that require extra attention.
> 
> ...


Although I agree that our nation is full of idiots. I will tend to disagree with this statement, at least at the college level.

I work in science, and work with ALOT of foreign grad students. Ive had many many MANY of them tell me that our undergraduate college courses are on par with their graduate courses they take at the University of Timbuktu, or wherever they attended. Which makes me wonder what their lower education courses are like. This is why we have so few American grad students, its not that their "dumber" when compared to the foreign competition, its just theyve been held to a higher standard, earlier, subsequently, their undergrad grades dont hold up to the foreign competition.

Ill agree 100% that America is full of idiots, our last election results prove that nicely :lol: .


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Though it would seem that some who are envious, lacking, or unqualified would want to discredit such criteria, in order to minimize anything I might try to share. I guess when it comes to me though.. there is a double standard right? Since we have moderators who push such an agenda themselves?


Since your going to whine publicly let me put it straight to you Ryan. It's not what you say Ryan, it's the talk down attitude you have when you say it. Please don't whine. You talk down to people, then you whine that your picked on. Respect others, man up, or shut up. If that's not acceptable PM me.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Plainsman said:


> > Though it would seem that some who are envious, lacking, or unqualified would want to discredit such criteria, in order to minimize anything I might try to share. I guess when it comes to me though.. there is a double standard right? Since we have moderators who push such an agenda themselves?
> 
> 
> Since your going to whine publicly let me put it straight to you Ryan. It's not what you say Ryan, it's the talk down attitude you have when you say it. Please don't whine. You talk down to people, then you whine that your picked on. Respect others, man up, or shut up. If that's not acceptable PM me.


Whine? :huh:

You must have mistaken my tenor when I stated to not go down that path.

Whining was the last worry on my mind... and picked on? More like singled out and held to a different standard.

I'll PM you Plainsman. We have some things we need to come to an agreement on.

Ryan


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

barebackjack said:


> Chuck Smith said:
> 
> 
> > > But as a whole, our nation is DUMB. Flat DUMB when it comes to having advanced math skills, engineering skills, and logic skills necessary to hold a high $$ technology job at a top technology company. I know this for a fact because I see it every day at work here at MS.
> ...


I lived in europe doing research for my graduate studies and I can tell you that our high school and undergrad is not on par with much of Europes (at least from Germany and northward). Northern European standards are higher than ours.

Many of the grad students in the US are practically from third world countries, hardly what we should be comparing our education system to.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Plainsman said:


> > Though it would seem that some who are envious, lacking, or unqualified would want to discredit such criteria, in order to minimize anything I might try to share. I guess when it comes to me though.. there is a double standard right? Since we have moderators who push such an agenda themselves?
> 
> 
> Since your going to whine publicly let me put it straight to you Ryan. It's not what you say Ryan, it's the talk down attitude you have when you say it. Please don't whine. You talk down to people, then you whine that your picked on. Respect others, man up, or shut up. If that's not acceptable PM me.


Plainsman, the democrats on the board often feel like they get talked down to by the republicans on the board, just as often as vice versa.

It's just that the opposing view point doesn't see it. If it were possible to have a non-politically biased person come to this board and keep score of cheap shots and the like, i'd be a pretty close tie. But we can't ask a person who is to the left or right because they will only see one side.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

seabass said:


> barebackjack said:
> 
> 
> > Chuck Smith said:
> ...


We dont have many from third world countries. Many from "rising" countries. Lots of Indians and Chinese. Ive worked with grad students from MANY countries all over Europe, Asia, and central and S. America (and yes, some were from third world countries, the majority though were not). From a a science standpoint, they all say the same. Their all amazed at the level of our undergraduate courses compared to their home country.

Now on other subjects it may be different, math, engineering, etc. But in the sciences, their comments are all pretty similar.


----------



## Bowstring (Nov 27, 2006)

willythekid wrote:
bowstring... you should get that you don't represent most of America then too

Ryan said
Bowstring I'll second what Willy said above.
*I never stated that I represent most Americans, that was you![/b]

I am fairly confident in how America "thinks" at present due to the landslide elections that just happened, The Presidents soaring approval rating, and the widespread worldwise hatred for Bush and vis a vis the Republican party he (used to) represent.

Now that there is funny, I don't care who you are![/i]

Ryan said
Like I said earlier above, The Republicans need to understand that the American people want this new track and to quit *****in' and get out of the way.... lest they risk looking like obstructionist fools trying to step in front of a moving train.

Sure! And your leaders Pelosi and Reed are going to look like geniuses.

Ryan said
Put that newfound knowledge to use determining where your political views sit amongst the population.

 I put my newfound knowledge to use years ago, I see by your contribution to this discussion you are still trying to find yours.

Ryan said
I'm not as "liberal" in all areas as some would like to portray me to be...

Then there still is hope for you. I was a libercrate before the Carter years. I got it.

Obama tries to be inclusive, drives over in poor weather to meet with them in their offices at the Capital, and instead of working together and building a cohesive bi-partisan that includes some of their wishes, they b#tch!

 Thank God! 

So yes Bowstring I am confident in saying that given the current climate my personal views currently reflect mainstream views of the public based on the above..

Only the uninformed mainstream*


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

barebackjack said:


> seabass said:
> 
> 
> > barebackjack said:
> ...


Well, I'm willing to bet you haven't worked with as MANY grad students as I have, but that's okay. Like I said, I've actually been the grad student in the foreign country and have seen it first hand. Yes, I'm in science. In fact, I have grad students in my lab right now (from Guyana, Nepal, Jordan).

Right, "rising" countries are practically third world countries. A few years ago, we'd have all said that about China and India. I don't think we should compare our education system with Chinas, period. We should be better.

We don't have Americans in grad schoole purely for fiscal reasons. Better offers are to be had in the business world. You can work your butt off to get a Ph.D. in science and pull down 1/3 of what a business major makes just out of undergrad. If we want to have good scientists, mathematicians, etc... we need to start paying them.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

> TK33, said;
> " At least in minnesota the incumbent is an idiot too."
> 
> OK, I vote in Minnesota, give me some real data to back up your statement.


Do you really think that normy was staying in that little apartment, not taking kickbacks from big business, and that he has not been a hypocrite about the whole conceding fiasco?

My personal favorite is the attack ads, it was ok for that jerk to use them against clown franken but when good ole normy fell behind in the polls then he was mr. nice guy. I don't vote in MN but it was enough to make me want to puke.

IMO they are both idiots, but at least franken isn't hiding it. All that money, both public and private wasted on these two baffoons.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

seabass said:


> You can work your butt off to get a Ph.D. in science and pull down 1/3 of what a business major makes just out of undergrad. If we want to have good scientists, mathematicians, etc... we need to start paying them.


No argument here. Its even worse in the engineering disciplines. Cant get any college grad to go on to get a masters or higher as their getting offers of $60K plus right out of the gate from school, and thats the LOWER end of the class!


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

seabass said:


> I don't think we should compare our education system with Chinas, period.


I agree.

But, when they compare our kids to theirs, I think they need to take into account that in some instances, our kids may be held to a different standard than the foreign kids. I happen to think this is especially true at the college level.

I dont think US youth are stupid, I think their incredibly lazy.

Didnt I read somewhere that Geography was the worst subject for US High School students? Kids couldnt even pick out US states on the map!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> IMO they are both idiots, but at least franken isn't hiding it. All that money, both public and private wasted on these two baffoons.


You could be right, I know very little about Coleman. Actually I know very little about either of them. Watching Franken he comes across as a total ***, but I try to ignore that (I have a tough time). Most of my opinion about him has been since the election since it looks like very dirty politics over in Minnesota, and from my point of view Franken looks like the crook. I have a hard time putting up with dishonesty. I don't do real good with people who brag about themselves and at the same time put others down either. Perhaps it's his demeanor that simply offends me.

Coleman???? I have no idea, so I'll consider what the rest of you on here tell me.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Yes, I think you're right. There definiately is some laziness at the core of the problem...

I think geography and world history are both very poor subjects from Americans...


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> We don't have Americans in grad schoole purely for fiscal reasons. Better offers are to be had in the business world. You can work your butt off to get a Ph.D. in science and pull down 1/3 of what a business major makes just out of undergrad. If we want to have good scientists, mathematicians, etc... we need to start paying them.


Isn't that the truth. I remember back about a year before the election between Bush sr. and Clinton. The government had done a study to adjust federal wages. My profession was 36% behind the private sector. I was sure looking forward to that cost of living allowance. When Clinton won I thought for sure we would get it since Bush had the study done to bring federal employees up or down whatever turned out in the study. Well to my surprise Clinton killed the pay raise.
I can't speak for all states, but I know North Dakota people were paid less than federal employees. That has improved vastly since the 1980's, but they are still paid poorly compared to other states. One might think first off that the cost of living is much higher in other states. My oldest son decided to move from Bismarck to Phoenix years ago because his salary doubled while his cost of living went up only 11%. They could live off his salary and save all of his wife's salary. 
We pay our scientists and out teachers poorly in this state. Others to perhaps, but it's the two I know about. Sorry if I missed anyone.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Exactly... I was thinking the same thing about teachers (as you mentioned). If you want good ones, you'll have to start paying for them...


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

seabass, while the topic has turned this direction I would like to make another point along these lines.

While I was still a federal employee I couldn't make this statement without looking like I was trying to feather my own nest. Now that I am retired and just one of the guys maybe -------maybe I can get away with it.

I don't think anyone here will debate that I am conservative. That sure made me an odd ball federal employee.  Anyway, like all conservatives (well most anyway), I don't like big government, but perhaps I have a slightly different perspective. The guy who works for the state and is out pushing snow right now is sure giving me bang for my buck, and the teacher who's salaries are a combination of school district, county, state, and federal taxes is sort of a government employee also and gives me bang for my buck. My point is I don't look at big government as how many employees they have, but how much they intrude into my life. In other words if their employees are providing a real service to the taxpayer good, but don't tell me how to run my life.

I respect the position of a senator for example, but I am a little put out if they forget they are our servants and start thinking they are our rulers.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Plainsman said:


> seabass, while the topic has turned this direction I would like to make another point along these lines.
> 
> While I was still a federal employee I couldn't make this statement without looking like I was trying to feather my own nest. Now that I am retired and just one of the guys maybe -------maybe I can get away with it.
> 
> ...


I don't know plainsman, from what you've written here today, you sound an awful lot like a democrat to me. I feel the same way.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I don't know plainsman, from what you've written here today, you sound an awful lot like a democrat to me. I feel the same way.





> you sound an awful lot like a democrat


      

I think there is overlap among many of us in this form, it's just that we get caught up in our priorities. That and some people are to partisan to give a new idea a thought. I bet many think I am a Bush worshiper. He ticked me off on many things, but when someone comes up and say our economy is in the tank because of eight years of Bush I wind up defending him. Blame people for what they have done, and I have no problem, but some forget that it's congress that has the most control and that has been democrat for a few years now. That and if I had to pick number one for this economic screw up it would be Barney Franks. It's not that I am so pro Bush, it's that I am pro blame the right people.

Both parties have good ideas and poor ideas. I don't care which one finally gets it right, but I wish one would. It's a tough balancing act between pure capitalism and social programs.
Grip with the republicans, is spending to much just like the democrats now. Not taking environmental issues serious enough. More pro business than is necessary, act like losers even when they have won an election, etc etc
My grip with democrats is spending to much just like the modern republicans, inventing environmental problems just to pound on republicans, not pro business enough, to pro labor, to pro fringe groups, act like winners even when they lose etc etc.

The republicans don't take old growth forest serious, nor do they give appropriate seriousness to oil spills, while the democrats over emphasis global warming. 
The republicans give business most of the breaks, while the democrats pit labor against business who provide their jobs. 
I believe in live and let live, but what are hate crimes. No one murders people they like. Why is it a hate crime if a white kills a black, but it isn't when a black calls a white guy a mother F and stabs him. Forget pro gay, pro black, pro labor, pro anything other than simply pro people. In reality are we equal or are minorities worth more, are homosexuals worth more than heterosexuals, are women worth more than men? What's wrong with real equal rights, and why do democrats divide us?

Oh, ya, and leave my guns alone. Some say it isn't fair that many of us consider the democrats gun grabbers. Well in the past 20 years who has written most of the restrictive gun laws? Don't even try to bs me.

Oh, and a final thought. It isn't that I like republicans more than democrats, it's that I dislike democrats more than republicans. Actually there is a difference in that view I think.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

> seabass wrote:
> You can work your butt off to get a Ph.D. in science and pull down 1/3 of what a business major makes just out of undergrad. If we want to have good scientists, mathematicians, etc... we need to start paying them.
> 
> No argument here. Its even worse in the engineering disciplines. Cant get any college grad to go on to get a masters or higher as their getting offers of $60K plus right out of the gate from school, and thats the LOWER end of the class!


The one thing to remember about foreigners here is that they are the select few from their respective country. I had several different TA's when I was in college that told me this and it didn't matter whether they were russian, arab, indian, european, or asian they were the exception not the rule. Most of these people have parents who are connected or whatever that have allowed them to come to the US and study. All and all I think that we are still ahead in the per capita race.

I traded in my bachelors of science from college to keep working with the blue collar on. Less stress, more money; less a$$ kissing, more time outside and so on. I see the laziness in these kids every day, I do however think that it is going to get better, it seems that there was a huge push for everyone to get a 4 yr degree and do something in engineering or tech jobs. Now when these kids see what a good equipment operator, welder, and so on makes they are thinking twice about what they are going to school for.

Another issue that has not been touched on here is the problem of industrial espionage. If the gov't doesn't get this under control we will pay a huge price for this in both the private and military sectors.

We do need to pay teachers better, especially in K-12. I have a problem with the whole higher ed pay and work requirements. I had a lot of profs that worked their tails off and did what it took to get the students through, but there are also too many lazy worthless fools who milk the higher ed system for all it is worth. There is also way too much overhead and waste in the higher ed system, I would like too see what would happen if some efficiency experts were brought in, like the Bobs on office space.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

until parents start being parents and looking at schools other than a place to park their kids, the system will never improve. the only quality education available is in private schools. if you can afford to put your child in one, it is the only logical choice. our daughter is light years ahead of kids here own age, that are attending public school....unfortunately, a free education is not a quality education any longer. funding a quality education begins before college, if you want your child to succeed.


----------



## JustAnotherDog (Oct 16, 2005)




----------



## omegax (Oct 25, 2006)

hunter9494 said:


> until parents start being parents and looking at schools other than a place to park their kids, the system will never improve. the only quality education available is in private schools. if you can afford to put your child in one, it is the only logical choice. our daughter is light years ahead of kids here own age, that are attending public school....unfortunately, a free education is not a quality education any longer. funding a quality education begins before college, if you want your child to succeed.


You're kid's way ahead because you care, and you're definitely to be commended! Kids in public schools with parents who are involved and make sure homework is done, etc. do pretty darn well. My wife's an elementary teacher, and it's a total pattern... the parents who don't show up to conferences, don't work with their kids on the subjects in which they need help, and don't follow through on promises to make sure homework is done are the ones with kids who under-perform.

You're definitely right about parents needing to be involved for their children to get the most out of the system. However, I think you're unnecessarily harsh on the public school system.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

depends on where you live........the public system can be good, but in most major cities it is commonly little more than controlled chaos..of course there are exceptions, but there in lies the problem, it is not common to find enough good public schools in the bigger cities in this country.

example.......where we live, we have a system that prides itself in helping the kids achieve acceptable SAT scores, through select memorization of content. there is no learning theory, arts or music available at the grade school level. if your child doesn't learn to read, comprehend and apply what they learn, they shall not be adequately prepared for higher learning.
the rest of the public school scene is all about cliques, gangs, cell phones and text messaging......none of that is allowed in our private school environment, the focus is on scholastics. the parents are very involved as well........


----------



## Bustem36 (Feb 5, 2008)

Just becasue its a private school means nothing. I know plenty of kids that have attend private schools there whole life or until they got to highschool and some that went to private just for high school. The same problems arise with kids being kids. I attended the largest high school in Minnesota (public) and the kids who cared and wanted to learn did and those that didn't care didn't learn. Same with the kids from private schools.

There are the same drug problems, cliques, and general attitude problems in the private schools. I knew many kids that got caught dealing drugs out of lockers at a private schools and I know many kids I grew up with that came from public schools and are graduating from great colleges and getting great jobs. It lies more on the parents than on the schools.

And I can tell you one thing money can't fix this problem. I researched it during college and can't remember exact numbers but it was something like inner cities schools spend/cost considerably more a year than suburban public schools. Yet, those inner city schools have a lower graduation rate.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

I wish everybody would stop bashing public schools. The MAJORITY of public schools are JUST FINE in this country. The problem is lazy kids, and crappy parenting.

School is what you make of it, this goes for public, private, and college. You could send a kid to the best private school there is, if he/she doesnt want to learn, doesnt have a parent at home making sure the homework is done, than that kid isnt going to learn CRAP!

I hated school. But when I got home, I didnt get to park my butt in front of the TV, or the computer, or the Xbox (mostly cuz we didnt have one) until the homework was DONE.


----------



## Bustem36 (Feb 5, 2008)

barebackjack said:


> I wish everybody would stop bashing public schools. The MAJORITY of public schools are JUST FINE in this country. The problem is lazy kids, and crappy parenting.
> 
> School is what you make of it, this goes for public, private, and college. You could send a kid to the best private school there is, if he/she doesnt want to learn, doesnt have a parent at home making sure the homework is done, than that kid isnt going to learn CRAP!
> 
> I hated school. But when I got home, I didnt get to park my butt in front of the TV, or the computer, or the Xbox (mostly cuz we didnt have one) until the homework was DONE.


AMEN!!! Couldn't agree more.


----------

