www.DeadSkirts.com

[random]

[Britney Girl]

Yea let me ask you, what happens when the democrast get their way and charge everyone who worked hard for thier money to support those who dont work and dont care to work and have to pay for them too.

That makes less people interested in trying because they rely on the rich and middle class taxes to give them everything they need, then we have no middle class in a few years and the country just turns into a big homeless shelter til it runs out of many, then what? The Democrats borrow more money we dont have.
_________________
"Please!! Dont Shoot Me!!!" BANG... Ugh...

[Britney Girl]

Amen random, the only people they are interested in controlling and taxing the hell out of are the American's who do things the right way.
_________________
"Please!! Dont Shoot Me!!!" BANG... Ugh...

[Foxx]

And i'll just stay here in Canada and be eternally ammused by American's notions of helping each other out when it comes to their health. Since we resolved that debate long, long ago (early 60s) where we desided that people shouldn't have to chose between paying rent, or paying for an operation. Imagine that, citizens helping each other out, my gods, what an awsome concept. Is it a perfect system? f**k no, of course not, the wait time is pathetic (mostly due to funding cuts inacted in the 90s) but i'll keep it over dealing with the vultures that are private health companies.

[Mort DeAgne]

[Britney Girl]

I read listen and "THINK" too, and i think this country was better off before the Democrats decided to try and give the American people things they don't need or want, and they are doing it by ramming it down our throats regardless of what public opinion is telling them, its the Democrats who aren't thinking here. Has anyone looked at Greece? and other countries with this dang Health Care crap? Do we want to be a third world country? Are we trying to throw away everything that has made the US stand out as a superpower and a powerful nation both economically and militarily? I guess so, and its Obama and the Democrats who are leading thew way into poverty for all of us, us hard working people cant hold up the lower class forever. People will see a few years down the road when its too late.
_________________
"Please!! Dont Shoot Me!!!" BANG... Ugh...

[Spidak]

[Spidak]

[Dick Hertz]

[Spidak]

[Mort DeAgne]

[Spidak]

[Zebra]

Sorry for being late to this but this part of the original post has me scratching my head.

[Foxx]

[Sandi]

Random....ignoring personal 'shots'.....lol....let me remind that the Principle of a two-term limit was an unwritten 'assumption' from the time of Thomas Jefferson until FDR. Yes, true, Washington himself was more concerned, I believe, with retirement rather than 'principle', though he did fear the 'king for life' syndrome.
But Jefferson to follow was the one who clearly established the precedent and his belief in that principle, indicating that certainly 'term limits' of some type were the desire of the Founding Fathers.

I'm not taking my beliefs and making their words fit them; rather I'm basing my desires on their clear prescience as to the evils of entrenched power, i.e. 'career politicians'.

And how right they were. Not Sandi, but the Founding Fathers. As with most things, Random, my ideas are not my own; I just view History and see what has worked....and what has not worked.

Until someone shows me a better way.......

Sandi

[Britney Girl]

Anyone notice the media? I mean they worship the democrats, so don't tell me the people polled are fed Republican lies, I'm not even going to get into that one, last time i check Obama is a mere man, not Jesus Christ returned like the media seems to think.

I'm not going to argue this anymore because I'm here to write, but I'm afraid sooner than later all of you people will realize the mistakes this horrible president and his super majority are forcing us to pay for, and if you don't realize, then I'm sorry you don't have common sense.
_________________
"Please!! Dont Shoot Me!!!" BANG... Ugh...

[Mort DeAgne]

[Sandi]

As with any experiment or analysis or survey or opinion poll, the Poll Taker cannot prejudice his/her initial assumptions.

She called for cooperation, and for those not interested in cooperation to stand forward and please explain why they refused the concept of cooperation and compromise.

It was not 'argument' I sought, but discussion as to why some favor cooperation and compromise and Others do not.

I did not receive the Input I desired to the Question asked, but I did receive the Answer as to why there is no cooperation!

Marvelous what one can learn just from listening. Sometimes I have to scratch my head to understand someone's comments, but if I try real real hard I usually can figure out where that person is coming from.

And often that leads to help in determining where the problems lie in solving a Problem...or in generating Cooperation.

I guess what I'm saying is that through all the high-level reasoning I've heard from those not interested in anything other than 'everything that is anti-Obama', I now understand far better where the problems lie.

DS provides a mini-survey, but a broad cross-section of people. So even a few responses....on whatever levels they are written.......can show a lot about the thinking of those in various 'camps' of thought regarding Washington....and...

cooperation.

When the entire mindset is "Them or Us"......that is not cooperation....that much I know...but then I knew that much at the start.

Again, I am not a Democrat nor a Republican, but when all I hear from the Republicans is "anything Democrat-favored must be bad", then I know where the lack of cooperative desire even comes from; it blows me away, but it's true.

I was looking for reasons why people refuse to cooperate; I still have not heard one.

The attitude of non-cooperation stinks, I also know that. And it's wrong. And obviously non-productive.

Sandi

[Dick Hertz]

[Spidak]

[Mort DeAgne]

[Spidak]

[Sandi]

Spidak....

YES! I agree with both your conclusions as to 'why people do not cooperate!!

It is JUST the people in each of those two categories that I DO want identified, clearly, for all America to see.

The Haters.....and the "Bought" ones.

My point exactly, Spidak, that there ARE elements who WILL not compromise....NOT who can not, but who will not, by conscious choice.

Idealist? Sure, Spidak, with sound footing as to what I believe IS 'ideal' in terms of how we were meant to be.

Idealism is not to be equated to naivete, however, Spidak.

To use your perspective, I'm afraid, and this is not a personal 'shot' at you but just a comment on your sad-but-true realities you state, we are stuck with 'them' and there is nothing that can be done to stem the tide and influence of The Haters and The Bought.

I can't believe that, Spidak. It is not 'idealistic' to expect Congressmen in the USA to work together. If we believe it is idealistic to the point of being unrealistic and well nigh impossible, then we've got some very serious fixing to do around here of this 'system' that allows and has perpetuated such evils.

Idealistic to the point I expect massive change in 'how things are done'? Not at all, Spidak, but I do believe 100% in that squeaky wheel reminding everyone that 'this isn't the way it's supposed to be'....and that nothing gets done in this environment.

It's not idealistic to want to identify the Bad Guys. From there, I have to trust that the People can recognize the Bad Guys and do something about it.

And the last Presidential Election IS proof of that, once again, Spidak.

The wisdom of the People's Choices will be judged by History, but the fact is that a historial election was made in a middle-right nation....of an African American with views to the left of middle-right.

We The People demanded change. People who never voted, people who never voted Democratic, and people who never DREAMED they could ever vote for an African American, pulled the Democratic lever in November 2008.

Again, Spidak the wisdom or lunacy of that choice is not my debate here.

But the People demanded 'change', and should be outraged at anyone who stands in the way of change because of your two reasons.

I do not expect Republican right-wing members to endorse some 'government health care reform'. I do expect two sides to sit and talk together.

Instead, all I get is reasons why they will not even attempt to cooperate.

That's abyssmal and unforgivable, so I want all with that attitude to step up and be counted among Those Who Refuse To Cooperate.

Sandi

[Dick Hertz]

I just saw this video about U.S. health care by Paul Hipp & thought I should share it here.

Enjoy!

Or not.

>DH
_________________
Stickin' it to The Man since 1947.

[random]

[Sandi]

Random...I don't know if you saw another thread I began a month or so ago, about 'what I would do' as a Leader, if I was President Obama.

I made the then-laughed at comment that I would go public and say I was ready to negotiate in a bi-partisan fashion with some sort of committee or hearings that would be on public TV.

He did most of that.....and I think that was the sign of a Leader, to recognize that whether he liked it or not, a change of course was necessary or he had zero chance of health care reform or much else.

BUT......since so much of what you say is TRUE, I also went further, which he has NOT done....and said I would take EVERYTHING off the table and start over....together. That would remove the sticky and contentious 'government option' thing as still being crammed down the throats of those who will never back it.

As far as 'change'......to be honest, Random, if you polled the people who did vote for Obama for the reason of 'change', many or most might not be able to specify which plank of the platform or which specific change they favored.......

and I don't even have a problem with that.

No, it was no clear mandate of overwhelming proportions, that's surely true.

But the Message sent....rather clearly, I would think, and inarguably.....is that the way things had been done were not acceptable to the voters, and the lack of concrete things that WERE done was not acceptable to the voters.

That generalized notion of 'change' got him elected...that and their Internet savvy and usage in all they did.

So personally, since I do not have a political agenda of my own, I am not concerned with specifics from any platform even, or non-specifics given then. But I DO want to see change happening....I want to see Washington somehow working together better, and I want to see specific and very needed attention to the problems that beset us, including health care, yes, but also energy independence and many other hot issues.

So far, his ability to MAKE things happen as a Leader are still suspect. We just all have to hope that changes, or we're headed for a 4 year additional hiatus from Progress toward things that need to be done, and then we're nowhere in 4 years either.

There have to be some specific National Goals, including for energy installations and usage and such.

At least Obama is begging all TO come to the Table. It's not enough, and if all that takes place there is politcalese, it's worthless. But someone has to still be able to twist arms in Washington.

We just cannot find him/her among 300 million citizens.

You won't agree with this, but that Leader could come from either Party. The Parties are much the same, as we've detailed elsewhere, it's not like one desires socialism. I don't care where the Leader comes from. This Leader promised change.

First, he has to prove he's a Leader. We're still waiting. But to be stonewalled because of the hatred factor is inexcusable.

Sandi

[Spidak]

[Spidak]

[random]

[BellaMorte]

"Rolling up sleaves" Ok here is my two cents for what it's worth. I have not read everyones detailed responce so if this is overly played let me apologize from the onset.

Having said that, I am a Democrat that lives in Oregon that thinks that while historically Congress was initially established to slow down the legislative process so that bad legislation had a more difficult time in getting thru, it seems to me that it has become a roadblock to all legislationgood and bad unless it has been conceived in some back room deal with a huge bank roll traded for favors and promises that are usually not in the countries best interest but rather the interest of a specific well off few.

As to the Health Bill, I can no longer keep my silence. IT IS A BAD IDEA. I know most are shocked to hear those words coming from a die hard Democrat but it is. It will end up screwing this country up even more than it already is. What really needs to be done is a reigning in of the cart blanc attitude of the insurance corporations and I say corporations rather than companies on purpose. There are some situations where is is actually cheaper to go see a doctor and pay for it out of pocket rather than bill the insurance. Having worked in the past at 2 large hospitals in Oregon, I know there are various fee plans the hospital uses. If the person has insurance, they often get charged a higher rate. (I know ask any one that works for a hospital that this doesn't happen, OF COURSE IT DOESN'T WINK WINK). So you have a person with say a $5000 annual deductable, becasue that was the only plan they could afford. They rack up $600 in charges which ends up being applied to their deductable and they have to pay that amount anyhow. Add to that their monthly insurance premium of $350 a month and that one visit is close to $1000. Take another person without insurance. Same $600 in charges. The hospital takes a minimum of a 10 to 15 percent allowance for the person having to pay out of pocket. That $600 is now around $530. A major difference. With the health reform, everyone will have insurance and everyone will pay the premium fees charged by the medical institution in this country.

Sad times a comin.

On the other hand, if you listen to some people, the world will end in a year and a half so it won't matter.
_________________
Bella Morte Productions:

[Sandi]

Random.....

You say that "maybe the President should put his ego in check and listen to the concerns of those who that elected him".

My first reaction, of course, was "Why should this President be any different than the last one?".

He needs time, that has become obvious, to grow into being 'presidential', and to grow into being President. We do not know yet whether he will grow sufficiently in either area for our needs as a Nation.

That 'hatred' factor is most definitely not 'misguided', Random. There is that very strong and loud portion of the political 'Right' that has been convinced from the beginning that Obama represents not just 'a Democrat', but in effect the anti-Christ. I mean it. All the drivel about socialism and Biil Ayers and Rev. Wright and a whole lotta other 'stuff'; all these things created absolutely an attitude that has turned into reality of "we will do nothing to support anything this anti-American wants and we will stonewall every effort he makes to get anything done".

That's the mindset of that 'very large and vocal' portion of the Republican Party, Random. There is no question, no debate about that.

And I'll mostly save 'the race card', because of course Obama acquired many votes from Minority Voters just because he is a Minority himself......no doubt about that. How much that 'cancels out' those who would 'never vote for a black man', I cannot measure.

But that phase of the 'hatred'......namely, the racial prejudice......still exists in this United States and most definitely swayed X% of our voters not to vote Democratic.

I just have to continue to 'remind' the status quo conservative crowd that 'status quo' does not mean 'all is perfect' in this Country. I don't care how many times people get tired of hearing it, Random, but the educational system that is controlled by 'status quo' people continues to ignore totally the 'age of neo-slavery' (the term used in Douglas Blackmon's book "Slavery By Another Name", of a couple years ago) in the USA that continued many of the heinous practices for more than 50 years after the Emancipation.

My point here is not to dredge up specific 'racial problems', but simply to recognize that 'hatred' against Obama comes from the racial-prejudice area in addition to hard-line right-wing Republicans who are convinced he will ruin our Nation.

He has not been perfect. He has been unable or incapable of leading efforts in many areas.

There are, however, still more positive initiatives out of his first 14 months, re energy and international affairs and our economy, that were NOT seen for the 8 prior years.

But all the focus is on the 'negatives', Random. Cripes, if the Bush Admin had either the positive growth in International Relations seen under Obama, or the new billions for nuclear-energy plants allocated 2 weeks ago, or the improving economy....if the Bush Admin had even ONE positive accomplishment, Random, we might not have Barack Obama as President today.

But there were no positive accomplishments, and the American people said 'we demand change'.

So we are 'stuck' with the warts of the one we voted in to 'lead' that change, yes.

Those of you who swore 'death' to anything he represents or wanted, focus on his personal warts.

Those of us concerned with our nation, focus on what hopefully he grows into, because at least his is a VOICE for THINKING and not keeping our darn head in the sand, as Washington had theirs for the 8 prior years.

Bella Morte......actually, you are agreeing that reform is needed! I don't care in what form we call it 'reform', Bella Morte, I just know what any of us know who DO have to 'utilize' our system here; I know that I pay too much for drugs, I know that there are many inconsistencies about payments and insurance and such, I know the cost of medical malpractice insurance has driven costs up insanely, and I know that all the paperwork for all the insurance corporations (I LIKE your distinction, there, Bella Morte!....calling them 'corporations' instead of 'companies'.....same thing, but 'corp' has that 'evil' connotation in the sense you mean it....LOL....I'm surely on board with you on that one) leads to massive cost increases.

So if all of those 'things' are bad or need improvement, Bella Morte, than we do need 'reform'.

I'm not fixed on any single option, but what the insurance companies and pharm companies control while making their mega-billions and yet the richest nation on Earth is 37th in the world in health care.....something is wrong with that picture.

So if Random or anyone else can justify how the USA can be rated 37th in the world in Health Care, then I'll agree that maybe this President's initiative at 'reform' in the area is misguided or wrong.

But none of you can justify it. There are serious flaws in our health care system here, only a few of which were touched on above here.

So if something is wrong, by definition it needs to be improved! Even a Blonde understands that logic.

And that's why the very attitude of 'we will stonewall EVERYTHING regarding health care reform' IS a horrible, inexcusable attitude, and FAR worse to this NATION that all the flaws in any one President....this one, the last one, or the 40-whatever before them.

Get away from the Man and focus on the Problems that need Solution. The Problems still remain, whether you 'hate' the man or his ideals or not.

It's all about ATTITUDE, Random.

One attitude says 'cooperate and compromise', and the other attitude gloats and chortles that 'we won't work with those people at all'.

That problem is not and never has been caused by Barack Obama nor any one person.

That problem is caused by the attitude of entitlement that a particular hard-line group here, which IS every bit as DANGEROUS to a country as any OTHER fanatical group is to other nations, has circled its wagons and is determined to destroy a Presidency while a Nation twists in the wind waiting for its Congress to do something.

That isn't the way it's supposed to be, Random.

Anything that BLAMES Obama is hilariously misguided; he's the poor schlub left to pick up the messes, and with NO progress in any area for the 8 prior years, his team had and has one heck of a mountain of work to do.

And it cannot be done if those who caused the problems for the past 8 years still insist on 'staying their course'.

Why should We The People believe in EIGHT years of utter failure, Random?

We should not. And we must not.

But somehow those disparate viewpoints must work together and anyone who says 'no' to that concept.....I WILL repeat, is un-American.

IF we assume and postulate that we MUST work together in order to be our 'strongest', then ALL efforts should and must be concentrated on 'so how do reach those goals?' rather than on "He's so bad he's the Devil incarnate" about any one individual.

Show me the desire to work together, or a person labels himself as un-American, in addition to selfish and egotistical, especially in light of the failures of the most-prior policies here in the USA.

Below average minds focus on people; average minds focus on events; great minds focus on ideas.

As a Nation, we really need to be past the infantile stage of focusing on people. No one person is 'the problem'. Anyone who believes that any one person IS the problem, is a hatemonger....or idiot....or fool.

No one person can change this Country. But an entire dangerous, narrow, fascist-type zealot mindset certainly can.

And look where that's led us, after the past 8 years, Random.

Smack into Barack Obama's lap, cuz We the People surely knew the other guys weren't about to get it right after ruining so much and doing so little.

So we're stuck where we are, and there is only one way to solve it, and that is to work together.

Instead, here even another discussion has gotten lost in all the periphery.....the language, the rhetoric......which shows that one group has no desire to cooperate.

And that is unacceptable, Random.

I do know that. So while I'm frustrated on the same levels that you are, that other mindset of 'no cooperation' must be eradicated.

A mindset creates policies and enforces them. One person does not have that effect, even as President. We need policies that do something, instead of no policies that do nothing.

My point? He gets credit for trying, so that at least is a 'score' on the positive side of the ledger, small or negligible as that may have been so far. The other side that stonewalls progress and cooperation, continues to get negative points.

So at least we're ahead of where we were, because for the past 8 years we had NO chance of getting anything done....hopefully the last 3 years of this 4 year stint will have a better overall record than the last two.

Of course, that will not be difficult; it's very easy to beat a score of 'zero'.

And...WAIT, Random....I mean..I mean....the world has not ended yet, we have not been horribly attacked because the 'soft' Democrats were easy on 'terrorists', we actually are making progress in Afghanistan, we're putting some money where our mouth is for alternate energy...I mean, there are POSITIVE signs at least in this past year, or first year.

Actually, I should feel good about that. Again, anything above absolute ZERO is an improved track record over the past 8 years.

I seek Progress and cooperation. Not hatred and further regression.


Sandi

[Spidak]

Sandi , you took the words right out of my mouth , lol .

[Dick Hertz]

Just some various points I feel compelled to make.



It should be noted that both Senate & House Health Care Bills have some cost saving measures in them. The CBO figures mentioned earlier was a preliminary report & dealt ONLY with costs. When the full report came out, it showed that it would decrease the deficit in the next decade. While, I'm not particularly thrilled with what's been passed so far, some items will likely be changed during Reconciliation. Things like the "Cornhusker Kickback" for example. Hopefully, there may even be the beginning of a Public Option that will help control premium costs. So, I'm basically still in favor of an imperfect bill over no bill whatsoever.
If we can pass an initial HC Bill, then altering & finessing & perfecting it will be possible. Otherwise, it could be years before there's another chance. Once a bill is passed, Obama's numbers will likely be better & the Republicans will be in trouble in November for their recalcitrance & unwillingness to serve their constituents.

While there is some "tort reform" in the HC Bill, the CBO estimates that there would be a savings of 0.5%. That's not likely to have drastic reductions on premiums, I'm afraid, but will help somewhat with the deficit. It could be problematic for those who actually suffer from the effects of malpractice & there are plenty.

My point, essentially, is that there is a lot more reporting on the process of health care legislation than on the actual policy concerns of it. It does seem quite distasteful, I admit. But then I'll admit to eating & enjoying sausage & I've toured a slaughterhouse.

* * *

I had actually thought that President Obama was a fairly decent leader, but apparently I'm in a distinct minority on this. Well, I've never taken any "Leadership" classes or any of that. Nevertheless, he is the president & while I disagree with some of the things he's done, I can accept that. One of the things that he HAS done, that hasn't been mentioned here or even in "the Media" is the tax cut for people who make less than $250,000/year. I happen to fall into that category & I suspect some others here do as well.


I don't know if FDR was a great leader or not, but I do know he was very popular, recent Revisionism notwithstanding. It took him over a year to get his programs enacted. One thing he did have going for him is that the country was even more desperate economically than it is today-chiefly because of the Bush Bailout bill & the Stimulus package kept us from going "over the cliff". If the situation was as bad as it was back in the 30s when people, in general, had difficulty finding enough food & clothing, then I think they might get the change they would seem to demand.

At least Obama has a template that he can follow to a certain extent; FDR was pioneering his way through the depression.

>DH
_________________
Stickin' it to The Man since 1947.

[random]

Regardless of the opinions of those who demonize Republicans for their lack of co-operation towards reforming health-care, crap like this (as noted by J. Taranto, WSJ columnist) has a very real impact on the public's perception of Congress's reality:

[Sandi]

And the bottom line, Random, is still that they are trying to enact legislation that will be beneficial to most people in terms of health care in terms of costs and the other areas.

They are trying, get it?

I demonize always those who refuse to try, whether on my basketball teams, in my classrooms, in my family, or anywhere else.

And I will continue to demonize those who work directly against the spirit of cooperation.

I never said Nancy Pelosi nor any Democrat was 'perfect'.

When you demons stop focusing on the specific people and will finally discuss the issues, then we can achieve some progress. But you will not allow that to happen.

So I demonize those who think that way.

I have said and continue to state, as fact, that the prior 8 years yielded nothing, so the American people mandated change.

Change means 'trying to change', at the first level.

Those I demonize never changed for 8 years, stayed the course everywhere, and accomplished nothing but a disintegration of international relations plus burgeoning problems at home, including their absolute refusal to act on any alternate energy ideas that every President has been guilty of not pursuing strongly enough since the first gas crisis nearly 40 years ago now.

And they are the ones who left the economy where it got to.

I will not criticize those who are trying to change things; I will criticize specific things said and positions taken, of course, but the mandate was for Change.

And I demonize ALL those who oppose working together.

And I always will, because that attitude is the most dangerous thing to our security in this nation of all, when we stop being...UNITED.

So, yes, Random, I love your word. I demonize all who work against the Common Causes.

And will continue to lay them out there for all to see, for exactly who and what they are, and where their mindset has led us.

And I am not...a Democrat.

I am, however, a Realist. I don't see what I 'want to see', Random, I see what IS.

Reality.

And reality bites when the demons hold up progress just because they refuse to work with a Party they called 'traitors' just 2 years ago.

And reality bites when one realizes how far our stock has fallen internationally, in terms of 'trust' in the United States.

Blame one man? He inherited your crap, Random....and, yes, with no cooperation it is indeed HELL to accept that inheritance and do the best one can with it. Inheritances that are crap are......well....yes, they stink.

The current crew is trying to affect change. At least that's a start.

And I am not a Democrat, just a Realist, Random.

Do you wish to ignore also the rest of the world and their opinions of the U.S.? I do not. Those opinions are very critical to how we operate; no, they cannot make us alter our principles, but the world is not what it was, the dynamics are more complex, and there are more players now commanding respect and attention than ever before.

We need to adjust to that, and to understand all these other peoples and influences.

Your crew, Random....the crew from the Crap House (you introduced the word, remember...lol)....

gives no respect to any ideas other than their own, and that attitude never did and never will play well with Others, because the attitude comes across as smug and superior.

Ask the World, don't ask Sandi. They'll tell you.

Realists see that, Random. I demonize those who refuse to see that.

It's not about what Nancy Pelosi said today or yesterday or last week. Nor anyone else.

It's about the overall attitude.....and mostly, how that is reflected in what things get accomplished.

Nothing gets accomplished when one group refuses to participate.

Any such group deserves being demonized.

At least we have a group who is trying. Imagine what these 'rookies' might be able to accomplish if some of the more veteran members of our Congress actually provided help from their experience, rather than preventing anything from being enacted.

Leadership and respect are really quite simple concepts, Random.

At least this guy is trying; the last one's crew never attempted to tackle health care, energy, nor any of the other major problems. Yes, they led an illegal invasion that created terrorist forces in Iraq that were never present before, and yes, Iraq just held its 'democratic' elections. With no history of democracy and the suspicions against it, we shall see what bodes for the future there. I hope for the best; my vested interest in being there only 3 months is very small, but I do care about their future.

Of course, I care about those in Myanmar, too, and...and....and.....all the Others in this world not living under Freedom. I just realize I cannot invade each of their countries for false reasons. The few days I spent in Sudan were the most eye-opening of my life in seeing what life is like there; but I know we cannot invade every nation that kills its own people, even.

He's trying to do the impossible, Random, because I cannot think of another incoming President who has had to deal with absolute disasters on the number of fronts that Obama has. All disasters created by the prior Admin.

So that 'other party' should damn well want to right the wrongs they caused for 8 years, by cooperating. If they don't, I'll demonize them today, tomorrow, and next week and next year.

This is not a dictatorship. This is not 'white America' only (though one would not have known that if one looked at the Republican National Convention floor in 2008, would one?). This is not one-way only, this is not 'status quo' only.

I love my country, Random. I love what it stands for, by its original documents. I speak every year to over 1000 at a major military base on Memorial Day. Does a General invite a person back 5 years in a row if that person does not speak to our principles? Obviously not, Random.

I stand for the documents that created us.

But the realities of slavery, and neo-slavery, and the ills perpetrated sometimes by our actions over our 240 years, NEED to be taught in the U.S. schools. Instead, the 'status quo' mentality of "America is GOOD and right" has created an educational system that glosses over our mistakes over history.
That's wrong, also.

Status quo in many areas is good; when it means 'head in the sand' re a changing world, it's disastrous.

Sandi

[Sandi]

This post is in two parts.

First, the decision today in a Mississippi School District to CANCEL the senior prom because one girl, a lesbian, wanted to come with her girlfiend and wear a tuxedo.

The school said 'no', that the rules require a date to be of the opposite sex.

The ACLU got involved, saying a school district has no right to deny the girl HER Constitutional Rights.

YOUR people, Random, your mindset, the status quo there that has always 'ruled' the Bible Belt, are the ones denying that girl and the rest of her classmates, a once-in-a-lifetime event, the Senior Prom, because that mindset says, and believves they have the RIGHT to say "Because WE do not believe in homosexuality, we have the right to trample everyone else's rights, even though their rights are GUARANTEED under the...Constitution".

The document I revere, Random. The Document that defines the United States of America.

When We the People allow a school district's right-wing zealots to deny a Constitutional Right, then we are WRONG. It canNOT be tolerated to allow that to happen, Random!!!

WHY????

Fascism. Big Brother. Spying on 'us' in our homes. Believing THEY have a right to peruse our phone and bank records with NO legal justification (AS was done DURING the last Administration, I remind you).....all the DANGERS of Big Brother are inherrent in allowing that Mississippi School District, that ONE WAY mindset....to do what it did.

NO one mindset should nor can ever be permitted to rule this country, Random! We both know that. We both love the Constitution.

But please, please see that I am not being 'anti-American' or 'liberal' or anything else about any of this. I'm not trying to be as acerbic as I've been, but, yes, I'm frustrated.

It's GOOD, not bad, to recognize errors we've made, for cryin out loud! As the British did, over hundreds of years, and where are they now? Well, about THE best and most helpful and with the best track record DIPLOMATICALLY of any nation in the world, probably.

The British learned from the things they did wrong during 'colonization' and all of that.

The right-wing mindset does not want to listen to that, Random, and if we...WE...do not critique ourselves through a crystal clear mirror or prism, then we only fool whom? Surely not those who watch us, because they 'know'. So we only fool ourselves, and do NOT then make the changes which are a natural result of the natural process of....

f..king up.....making mistakes. We all do it, every country does it.....but the ones I demonize are the ones that feel their way is the only way, because that leads to fascism and is not what our Constitution is all about.

So that's where my anger comes from.

And that leads into the 2nd phase, Random. I am NOT sure how accurate this is, and just because someone wrote it in a book does not make it true, of course (!!!!), but if this is true about how Moderate Republicans have been forced out of Congress or forced (by the Party) to change to more right-wing if they wanted to continue to be supported by the Party, then it's a very logical place we have left ourselves in as a country.

If the only Republican influence in Congress is the right-wing one, the extreme right-wing one, well, first, that is not representative of the Whole of the Republican Party which also contains liberal Republicans and Moderate Replicans....and, second, the whole point is that that can lead, as many believe was happening under the Bush Admin., to blatantly illegal actions that were taken simply because those in power decided THEY wanted to do them....damn what the Supreme Court tells them about Legality or our Constitution, they trampled rights of individuals for 8 years. OH, it was minor compared to what it could have been, of course.....and I am not saying there WAS any sinister plot, Random....I'm sure those Americans believed they WERE doing the right thing.....

but the key is, what they were doing...was not legal under our Constitution.

If we allow that to happen, we have.....big trouble. We have fascism and Big Brother.

Neither of us want that. And that's the irony of 'amount of government control' either Party represents. The Bush Admin represented THE most government control ever, in the most important ways.....over our Freedoms.

Now we're 'only' arguing about economic things and such.

But government control and Big Brother are real dangerous, and we all saw why in the past 8 years. They did what they chose, laws be damned....and not only were they illegal, but they were wrong in every choice they made.

One mindset cannot rule the United States, Random.

So it takes....working together.

The 2nd part here is about Obama. This quotation is from an online Yahoo article today, and I think the quoted portion shows my problem with the mindset that I 'demonize'. Note the very direct and planned movement by the real forces in the GOP who have forced Moderate Republicans either out, or to at least abandon their moderate stance.

They did this, as the article notes by quoting from a book referenced there, with very clear purpose, which was to eliminate all BUT the extreme right-wing point of view from the Party's people who were in Congress.

I don't find that very 'American'. Yes, it's called 'politics' the way they have come to be played. But this just demonstrates that the narrow mindset that does control the Party is interested in nothing the public wants, and nothing but....continued power.

I have not read the referenced book, and have not taken time to analyze if the part about the GOP forcing out its own Moderates through its Primary campaign strategies, is true. But if it IS true, that's exactly the problem about which I complain.

And, Random, since you seem to like the WSJ, or at least quoted from it, let me suggest again that you and any who have not, read the book by the then (and maybe still, I do not know) Atlanta Bureau Chief for the WSJ, the book I've mentioned before, the book the status quo people will not read...

Slavery by Another Name, by Douglas Blackmon.

Status Quo people allowed the ills detailed factually in Blackmon's book to continue for more than 50 years after the emancipation. U.S. Steel and J.P. Morgan were two of the major offenders in terms of 'big corporations'. Those corps are controlled by whom? Or were?

By Big Money...by status quo people...by rich whites who want the USA to be as it was, and they have no concern for the thousands and thousands who DIED in that neo-slavery era in the mines.....still SLAVES, Random....brought to Court on trumped up charges, sentenced to work off their 'debt' in the mines....and many died right there, as 'magically' they were never able to 'work off their debts'.

That is a STAIN, Random, on OUR country, and one still shoved under the rug and not taught in schools and not detailed publicly, as it should be, because it IS part of OUR History.

So there are reasons some out here 'demonize' those who insist on....status quo.....especially when that means 'right-wing WHITE people's rules for the UNITED States, and 'ignore or gloss over any mistakes or failures in our 240 years'.

here's the brief quotation from part of the article. I include the author's name at the end, with his 'resume', so I'm sure some right-wing zealot will do some research and attack the PERSON who wrote the article instead of what the article purports to be factual. I have included the portions that discuss the true, fundamental differences between an 'average' Republican and an 'average' Democrat regarding the role of government. That is a fair issue to discuss, and one at the core of some of the problems now, of course, and should not and cannot be ignored. But each Party, to BE 'representative' of its OWN base, surely needs to have 'liberal Republicans', 'moderate Republicans', and 'conservative Republicans'....same with the Democrats. To make either party all one way is NOT representative of We The People in either case. The article:


"His whole career has been based on the idea of transcending partisanship. But lately, by confronting Republicans rather than courting them, Obama has Democrats fired up.

Amidst the speculation over whether David Axelrod hates Rahm Emanuel or Rahm Emanuel hates David Axelrod or Lawrence Summers hates them both, the punditocracy has glossed over something significant: Team Obama has had one hell of a month. In late January, health care reform was widely considered dead. Now it’s considered a better than even bet. It could all still end in tears, of course. But for the moment, Barack Obama has his mojo back. And he has it back for one basic reason: He’s given up the dream that he could transcend the partisan divide.


When Obama showed that he wasn’t afraid of enraging Republicans by passing health care through “reconciliation,” a lot of congressional Democrats decided that they weren’t afraid either.

That dream has been central to Obama’s political career. The most famous line in his 2004 Democratic convention speech was “there’s not a liberal America and a conservative America; there’s the United States of America.” He defeated Hillary Clinton in part because Democrats believed she would usher in four more years of partisan blood sport while he was someone Republicans did not hate. But this post-partisan dream, it turns out, rested on two fallacies. The first is that because average Americans want less polarized politics, politicians will listen. In truth, as political scientists Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson illustrated in their 2006 book, Off Center, the GOP now responds to a set of incentives that has little to do with the public’s desire for kumbaya. For roughly a decade, the Club for Growth has run primary challengers against Republican moderates, and party activists have threatened to deny those moderates committee chairmanships, and as a result, centrist congressional Republicans have either abandoned their centrism or abandoned Congress. In the 1980s, the Senate contained about a dozen blue-state Republican moderates. Today, there are two or three, which means there is no safety in numbers. So on health care, when Obama went looking for the GOP partners to help him usher in his post-polarized age, he found that they simply weren’t there.

The other fallacy was that the red-blue divide was all about the culture war. From E.J. Dionne’s Why Americans Hate Politics to Thomas Frank’s What’s the Matter with Kansas? liberals have often argued that were it not for dastardly culture warriors like Lee Atwater and Karl Rove dividing the country over “symbolic” issues like god, guns, gays, Americans would come together on behalf of more government intervention in the economy. Team Obama seems to have been particularly enamored of the idea that since he is a post-baby boomer who neither imbibed at Woodstock nor cursed it, he could lead the country beyond the cultural fights of the 1960s.

To some degree, those fights are indeed fading. When was the last time you heard a pundit screaming about affirmative action or gun control or the death penalty or school prayer? But what the Obama Democrats forgot is that liberals and conservatives are also genuinely, profoundly divided over the role of government. That division, which dates back to the progressive era, is just as intense as the division over culture. The belief that liberals are closet socialists, which is to say, closet totalitarians, is not a fringe view on the right. It is what the conservative movement has always believed. The White House didn’t forcefully respond to these charges because they seem to have believed they were marginal; that particularly after the financial crisis, there was a mainstream, bipartisan consensus in favor of more government spending and regulation. They were wrong.

But all that has now changed. Since the special election in Massachusetts, the White House has clearly realized that the only bipartisanship Barack Obama is likely to achieve is the kind Bill Clinton achieved after 1994: a bipartisanship that eviscerates hope for fundamental liberal change. In response, Obama has stopped compromising with Republicans and began confronting them. It started with the health care summit, which Obama used to expose the GOP’s lack of interest in covering the uninsured. And it has continued on the stump, where Obama has given a series of scalding, Truman-esque speeches that lump congressional Republicans with insurance companies as defenders of an immoral status quo. The effect has been to lift some of the malaise that was afflicting the Democratic base and counter the image of Obama as bloodless and aloof. And the effect has been contagious. When Obama showed that he wasn’t afraid of enraging Republicans by passing health care through “reconciliation,” a lot of congressional Democrats decided that they weren’t afraid either. If the White House shows the same fortitude on financial regulatory reform, and exposes Republicans as defenders of the status quo there as well, Obama’s political momentum could continue to build.

Health care reform may still fail, of course, and with unemployment at nearly ten percent, the Democrats will get shellacked this fall no matter what. But Barack Obama is coming to terms with American politics as it is, not as he might like it to be. Partisan street-fighter may not be the part he envisioned himself playing, but he’s starting to warm to the role."

(Peter Beinart, senior political writer for The Daily Beast, is associate professor of journalism and political science at City University of New York and a senior fellow at the New America Foundation. His new book, The Icarus Syndrome: A History of American Hubris, will be published by HarperCollins in June.)

[Mort DeAgne]

Sandi, surely you're not saying "God d@mn America for denying rights to gays and lesbians. God d@mn America for its racist past, which it STILL refuses to acknowledge [1]. God d@mn America for becoming the Corporate States of Money."

Haven't you learned the lesson that "uppity" Rev Wright was supposed have learned: only the right-wing are allowed to say bad things about America and Americans. Women (like the Dixie Chicks) and Blacks (like Wright) aren't allowed to criticize the President (especially when he's a white Republican).

[1] Look up "sunset towns" and the Topeka Massacre. Neither was taught in school when I was a kid.
_________________
Gentlemen prefer blondes. But I'm no gentleman!

[Sandi]

Mort,

In case anyone else (which I am sure is 'many people', due to our lack of teaching such things here) does not know what the term 'sunset town', or 'sundown' town means, it means that people of color were required to be 'out of town' by sunset, or sundown. This is epitomized by the following sign mentioned in James Loewen's book entitled "Sundown Towns":

"In some cases, signs were placed at the town's borders with statements similar to the one posted in Hawthorne, California which read "nig*er, Don't Let The Sun Set On YOU In Hawthorne" in the 1930s."

I read tales of NBA basketball players, when traveling in Kentucky in the 1950s (FIFTIES...NINETEEN fifties, NOT 1850s!!!), encountering signs such as "Whites Only" and "Negro Entrance" and such things, and of course we all know that many establishments, particularly in our South, prohibitied 'Negroes' from eating or sleeping there.

And for a couple other examples targeting other minorities:

"In addition to the expulsion of African Americans from some small towns, Chinese Americans and other minorities were also driven out of some of the towns where they lived. One example according to Loewen is that in 1870, Chinese made up one-third of the population of Idaho. Following a wave of violence and an 1886 anti-Chinese convention in Boise, almost none remained by 1910. The town of Gardnerville, Nevada is said to have blown a whistle at 6 p.m. daily alerting Native Americans to leave by sundown. In addition, Jews were excluded from living in some sundown towns, such as Darien, Connecticut."

Thanks for the references, Mort, excellent examples.

And, no, I do not 'g.damn' America for any of it. It's not 'the Country' at fault, it's not our ideals as espoused in our Constitution that are at fault.

I also by no means center only on 'racism' as one of our ills or mistakes that we do not teach our Children.

We've made other mistakes, also. I say 'teach it the way it happened'. Anything else, is nonsense of course.

It's those who feel an entitlement, which historically has of course been 'Caucasian Americans', that concern me, Mort.....an entitlement to make those kinds of decisions and that they have a RIGHT to make those decisions in our Land of Law!

Our nation was basically formed by Caucasian Western Europeans, with their ethics and religions, so I DO, VERY well, understand the conflicts between 'then and now', since this Nation remained that 'melting pot' that welcomed All who wanted to join us.

Now there are multiple cultures in far greater numbers here than ever envisioned. And for the first time, this week, Minority Births in the U.S. were larger than Caucasian births.

That IS cause for DEEP reflection, Mort, because we DO have to 'change' some things, because the definition of 'we' has changed!

Some of those changes will not be pleasing to certain 'groups' within our shores. Some of those groups will fight these changes, even when they are mandated by Law.

That's the Natural Order of Things, Mort. I don't condemn the Country, no, but I do condemn the narrow mindsets that can think only in the 'old, status quo American way'.

It was of course those original Caucasians here who 'brought' from Africa a new race of people, wasn't it? We surely do not teach enough about the 'how that happened' and how slavery developed here.
Nor do we anywhere educate our children that many of these 'Africans' were from very advanced societies for their time, and we raped those societies to bring....'slaves' to the U.S.

And, no, Mort, I don't even 'damn' America for one narrow mindset that controls that Mississippi School District and believes IT has the RIGHT to impose its views and OVERRIDE...the LAW...and the Constitutional Rights of the girls who wanted to go to the Prom together.

I condemn the Mindset, and the Arrogance of those with it, to feel that no MATTER the Law, they will do things their own way.

That's the danger of Big Brother, of course.

But far from damning America, I praise America....the America defined in the Constitution.

And I will always fight when I believe rights guaranteed under that Constitution are being abrogated, in any way, for any person or group in this Nation.

We cannot have anyone, nor any group, attempt to stand above what Unites us, which is that Constitution.

I revere it.

And those who feel they have a right to operate outside that document need to be exposed for the cancers they are at every opportunity.

But, again, Mort, I DO recognize that one OF our major problems, as I've been mentioning for a couple years at these Forums, is that as a collective 'Nation' we have lost our identity and therefore lost our Way.

We don't celebrate what Unites us any more, Mort....those Ties That Bind.

And those ties are not as clearly defined as they were, 'back in the day' where only that Western European ethic ruled this country, wrote its documents, and based its nation on the Western European 'god'...or 'God'.....and based an entire NATION as being....'under God'.

I am NOT being pro-religion or pro-God, Mort, as I hope you understand. I am being clinical and rational and a realist, because we had an ethic, and now it is blurred with all the influx of Hispanic and African American and Russian and Japanese and Indian and Chinese and yada yada yada.

We cannot be all things to all people or peoples, yet we have welcomed 'everyone'.

To what degree 'the newcomers' need to adapt to 'our ways' was never an issue before....the Irish wanted to become 'American', likewise the Italians, Jews, etc. Sure, each had its own enclave in New York after coming through Ellis Island or wherever, but those ethnicities and backgrounds were united THEN by the freedoms of...the UNITED States.

Now we don't permit the word 'God' in our schools. Again, I am not here to judge whether that is good for bad, for the purposes of this conversation, but it IS a fundamental CHANGE in our foundation, if our Nation is no LONGER to be based or claim to be based 'under God', in its principles.

I understand the Fears of the right-wing Caucasians, Mort. I understand them well. And those fears are largely based on 'changes' that all have not and do not accept.

Yet, we cannot stray too far from that original ethic, until or unless we DEFINE what our 'new one' is.....and right now I don't think anyone can give such a definition.

So we wander looking for a new ethic.

While obviously those in Power in the 240 years of the original Ethic will fight against any loss of 'their power'.

I understand. But somehow we all have to fix that...lol.

But nice funny post, Mort...with two great references, thanks!

I DID look them both up, Mort. Both of those things that should and MUST, really, be taught in our schools, because they ARE our history, also...but they are not taught, because of a mindset that somehow feels it is better to withhold information and believe they have the RIGHT to withhold information from our children.

Wow.....how awful. We all know how intensely painful it was when something our Parents TOLD us, with NO doubts, was 'absolutely true' for years and years.....when we find one of those 'things' to be NOT true later in our lives, it shakes the entire foundation of all the rest of what we were 'taught'.....as in 'if they were so wrong about this, how can I trust the rest of my own foundation THEY gave me????'.

Closed mindsets equal trouble. Closed mindsets insistent on their way only are big trouble.

Sandi

[Dick Hertz]

[Mort DeAgne]