liberal progressive elites look here!!!!

[sealbhach]

Re: liberal progressive elites look here!!!!

Yep, I agree with those too!

Hmmmmm. I wonder what category I fit into? (besides "agreeable")

That would make you a Classical Liberal, what they call nowadays a Libertarian.


.

[SteveRiley]

Re: liberal progressive elites look here!!!!

Basically, let the states decide.

Then, if I may ask, what would be your responses to these now nine slightly amended assertions:

1. Leave me alone.
2. Leave my family alone.
3. I know what's best for my kids, not the state government.
4. I'm responsible for the upbringing of my family, not the state government.
5. If I screw up, it's solely my fault, not the state government.
6. I, not the state government, can decide what I may put into my own body.
7. I, not the state government, can decide what I may do with other consenting adults.
8. I, not the state government, can decide with whom I wish to spend the rest of my life.
9. I, not the state government, can decide which forms of entertainment are appropriate for me.

I just don't like a federal “one size fits all” legislature that mandates all 50 states will say/do/act a certain way.

Is is not unreasonable, then, that state "one size fits all" legislation is similarly over-reaching?

Let the people of San Francisco have their lifestyle, it doesn't affect me.

Ah, so now that we're at level of the city, why should the citizens of San Francisco be deprived of something they wish because the the citizens of cities elsewhere in California don't like it? If, as you admit, it doesn't affect you personally, why then should states be permitted to enact legislation against those behaviors?

so leave us to do our thing like drill for oil

Alas, your analogy doesn't hold. Drilling for oil isn't just a local behavior with just a local scope, as we saw in the Gulf spill.

Kuddo to all for not immediately jumping down my throat for speaking out on what I believe.

That's not our style here.

[Qqmike]

Re: liberal progressive elites look here!!!!

Wording needs shaping up, but the idea is here. I'm under no illusion that it will make any difference in any one's thinking -->
Some things are obvious. No room, no time for stubbornness or desire to return to the old days of a big small country. USA population has grown, will grow, a large, varied, diverse bunch of people. Life getting complicated, globalization advancing hourly, instantaneous information-sharing via Internet social sites, & the redundancy of et cetera's. Facing serious competitive and military threats to the country. We must have a strong, efficient, responsive central government that helps determine issues of daily life--educational standards, infrastructure, energy, health, legal, and general welfare of the people. There is no other survivable choice. Can't leave things to small, segmented, random subgroups of the population to do as they damn well choose. And it doesn't mean we have to lose fundamental, individual freedoms. It doesn't mean socialism. Other countries will get their act together "against" [in competition with] us. We better get ours together as a group that at some critical, focused level of organization is cohesive and purposeful. Ideology is fine, fun, loaded with soothing words and thoughts. But survival as a leading nation is necessary. This is not the rugged-independent, Wild Wild West any longer. It's a little more complicated than that.

[woodsmoke]

Re: liberal progressive elites look here!!!!

Qqmike wrote:

Ideology is fine, fun, loaded with soothing words and thoughts. But survival as a leading nation is necessary. This is not the rugged-independent, Wild Wild West any longer. It's a little more complicated than that.

a) I see that you are an author in the vein of either Finnigan's Wake or Jack Kerouac's stream of consciousness!

b) VERY pithily put!

woodsmoke

[DoYouKubuntu]

Re: liberal progressive elites look here!!!!

I've been encouraged [by a member I very much respect] to jump back into the fray. I told him I just wanted to keep my big mouth shut and, therefore, had chosen to stay out of this thread, but I said I'd ponder it. Well, I pondered it...and here I am!

Some of you are saying that you disagree with my post (reply #25). To refresh your memory, here it is in its entirety:

What, in your mind then, makes President Obama unqualified to be President? He is Constitutional qualified (35+ years in age, citizen, in the country for at least 14 years, etc.), but what else is necessary?

I said earlier that I didn't want to start a flame war over politics, so my gut instinct is to not respond to this...but what the hell?! (Mods, feel free to delete this if it's deemed too flame-war-starting-ish.)

Seriously, if you think the attributes you mentioned are the ONLY "qualifications" necessary to be POTUS, you're very misguided. How about political experience? Or military experience? Or leadership experience? Or not having a history of being a liar? How about not lying about your religion? Take a look at this unadulterated photograph of Obama's Indonesian school registration, taking particular note of his religion: Islam. How about not lying about who you've known during your lifetime--like terrorist William Ayers? Obama's Chicago Annenberg Challenge and William Ayers' Small Schools Workshop shared an office for three years--that can be proven by tax returns--yet Obama lies about it. He lied about various votes he supposedly made as an Illinois senator--lies that can be proven on the Illinois Senate's own web site, which has complete records of every vote, or lack thereof, made by every senator. He even lied about having "voted against the war" (Iraq)--something that was impossible since he wasn't in office at the time. Then there's his lie about how "the March on Selma got me born”--um, Obama was born 08/04/61, while the march on Selma began 03/07/65. I could go on...and on...but I'll stop now as I think I've made my point.

I'd like to know WHAT you're "disagreeing" with. Everything I said was factual--and I even made it a point to refer to places, such as the Illinois Senate's official web site and its record of votes cast, or missed, by every senator--so I don't get it. You can't disagree with a fact. You can disagree with an OPINION, but not a FACT. (Well, unless you're one of those folks who believes the earth is only a few thousand years old, or that being gay is a choice, or that all pro-choice women have had abortions...) So if you're disagreeing with my OPINION that Obama is an inept, unqualified dolt who should never have been elected POTUS, fine. But disagree with the facts I presented? I don't think so.

And now, since I've probably just thrust myself into a pile of flaming crap, I might as well say a little more! Obama's poll numbers are in the toilet--and they're there for a reason. It's because the American people, including many of those who voted for him, realize just how bad a president he is. Obama himself recently acknowledged that his odds of winning re-election aren't looking good; *HE* stated quite clearly that he's now the underdog. Um, why do you suppose he'd think/say that? President Clinton has recently caused a ruckus by making some less than flattering comments about Obama. That's too bad, as he's simply speaking the truth. Bill Clinton is--far and away--my favorite president (of my conscious memory lifetime), and I hate seeing him get bashed for speaking the truth about Obama. And, despite her claims to the contrary, I'm still hoping to see another President Clinton.

Oh, by the way, I sell a LOT of anti-Obama stuff on my web site, and two of my biggest sellers are I want my vote back! Shame on Obama and I waited my whole life for a black president, and all I got was the partially black, unqualified, racist Obama. I think that speaks volumes.

And, finally, with all that negative stuff said about Obama, here's an observation I've made: Obama supporters are much more tolerant than Bush supporters were! When I first started my site its main focus was anti-Bush gear, then I started expanding it to include pro-gay stuff, pro-choice stuff, computing stuff, and more. Well, I used to get HATE MAIL--as in death threats, condemnation to hell, etc.--for being anti-Bush, pro-gay, pro-choice, etc. I'll duke it out with anyone, anywhere when it comes to the fiasco that is Obama's presidency, but I haven't gotten any death threats as a result. Pretty cool.

[Qqmike]

Re: liberal progressive elites look here!!!!

Hi DYK. You are always welcome imo and encouraged to go at it in these Social matters! I noticed you have been quiet for awhile ;-) Glad you dusted yourself off and jumped back in.

Yes, I disagree with your "... OPINION that Obama is an inept, unqualified dolt who should never have been elected POTUS, fine. " I think he underestimated how dirty the political game is, he may have been too academic at times (whereas George Bush needed to slow down and THINK more and solicit expert opinion more often), and Obama should be a better leader (I think he is capable, but has been thrown off balance). I'm happy to get someone (Obama) in the White House who thinks, but I do agree that we need more than thinking at this point. (The alternative Republican candidates scare the sh* out of me, though.) I do wonder what kind of prez Schwarzenegger could have made had he the citizenship right. I've always like him as actor and gov. I also like Bill Clinton. I also believe Hillary would have made an excellent president, and I somewhat regret switching my support from her to Obama.

[bsniadajewski]

Re: liberal progressive elites look here!!!!

+1 on both #50 and #47

exactly Qqmike.

We just disagree on your opinion about the President.

[woodsmoke]

Re: liberal progressive elites look here!!!!

Dyk
You are, as we used to say in country. . . . J .... f..off the wall! And that is about as good as it got!

Lol
Woodtoomuchtimeatthburnbarrelssmoke

[SteveRiley]

Re: liberal progressive elites look here!!!!

Obama himself recently acknowledged that his odds of winning re-election aren't looking good; *HE* stated quite clearly that he's now the underdog. Um, why do you suppose he'd think/say that?

This is actually a very important question, and crucial to the future of our democracy. Bill Clinton surged after his "I'm the comeback kid" announcement. Crafting an appearance of running from the sidelines is a staple of political advisors. Affecting ordinary averageness is assumed to be an advantage. All of which apparently is true, if we're to believe that voters prefer to elect candidates with whom they'd prefer to quaff a beer.

I'm sorry, but am I the only one who actually wants someone smarter than me to be running the country? Why in holy hell does anyone elevate being anti-science as a good thing? When the putative (former) "leader of the free world" receives praise for touting his completely average school grades, I am deprived of almost every conceivable mechanism available to encourage my children to excel. When the current holder of that title begins negotiations from positions of pre-compromise, I am robbed of strength to instill a healthy desire to compete in the world of ideas.

I have a pre-teen daughter who displays a delicious aptitude for a successful career as a research scientist. This aptitude is shared with approximately zero percent of her peers (among those whom I know, which admittedly is a subset of all her peers). It is a monumental struggle to encourage a nuanced, statistical, evidence-based outlook when the rewards for that are essentially non-evident. How am I supposed to compete against powerful, narrow-minded morons deceived by the simplicity of "with us or again' us" world views? Especially when these self-same morons routinely issue, as means to advance their careers, half-assed "apologies" for activities they otherwise pretend to rail against?

[DoYouKubuntu]

Re: liberal progressive elites look here!!!!

Hi DYK. You are always welcome imo and encouraged to go at it in these Social matters! I noticed you have been quiet for awhile ;-) Glad you dusted yourself off and jumped back in.

Thanks. I was a little afraid of stepping back in here--not because I'm shy about speaking my mind (OBVIOUSLY!), but because it truly wasn't my intent to incite a riot.

Yes, I disagree with your "... OPINION that Obama is an inept, unqualified dolt who should never have been elected POTUS, fine. " I think he underestimated how dirty the political game is, he may have been too academic at times (whereas George Bush needed to slow down and THINK more

Wait! Using "George Bush" and "think" in the same sentence is some kind of crime, isn't it?! At the very least it's an oxymoron.

and solicit expert opinion more often), and Obama should be a better leader (I think he is capable, but has been thrown off balance). I'm happy to get someone (Obama) in the White House who thinks, but I do agree that we need more than thinking at this point. (The alternative Republican candidates scare the sh* out of me, though.) I do wonder what kind of prez Schwarzenegger could have made had he the citizenship right. I've always like him as actor and gov. I also like Bill Clinton. I also believe Hillary would have made an excellent president, and I somewhat regret switching my support from her to Obama.

I was SO PISSED when people--high profile people--threw Hillary Clinton under the bus in order to jump on the Obama bandwagon. Clinton DESERVED to be president, and while I'm not naive enough to think our country would now have no problems had she become POTUS, I do believe we'd be better off than we are right now.

I went to a Clinton fundraiser in April, 2008 at the Wilshire Theatre in LA. Here's a pic I took (click for larger):

[img width=400 height=266]http://www.smartassproducts.com/images/kubuntuforums/HillaryClinton_040308_086_small.jpg[/img]

She was MAGNIFICENT. I was in awe of her knowledge of every imaginable topic. One of the best things that night was Clinton answering questions from the audience, at random out of a bowl, so without any chance of preparing ahead of time or picking and choosing. And her responses to all the questions were articulate, informed, and intelligent. No teleprompter needed!

[Qqmike]

Re: liberal progressive elites look here!!!!

Kind of related, esp to SteveRiley's Reply #53 ...

Thought I had a PDG (Pretty Damn Good) education growing up in the no-nonsense public schools of IL and IN, graduating from a public but somewhat elite high school in 1967, science and math, top straight A's. Ready to hit college and make my mark. Started for a B.S. in Math at Rose Polytechnic Institute of Technology (now Rose-Hulman), a small, private eng/math/science college.
http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandre...g-no-doctorate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose%E2..._of_Technology

I couldn't wait to learn calculus! I had mastered everything below that level. Shock of shocks upon arriving at Rose Poly: The foreign students in their high schools already had courses in calculus and even some courses/topics covered beyond calc (e.g., advanced algebra, advanced calc, numerical analysis, integration theory, and such). This included a friend from India, Dinish, and my roommate Pierre (dual French-British). We were all the same age, 18, out of high school. The guy from India had an ego to match his extensive course training, and he rubbed it in with snide comedic remarks about how backward we Americans were in our public schools.

Pierre, my good buddy was more diplomatic, understanding and helpful, but made it real clear that he was as shocked as I was at him that I had no college-prep math at the calculus level. I learned enough French to read math at that level and he gave me a couple of his French texts to work through on algebra and calculus. And there was something else about Pierre's French training in his public schools. Not only did he know the subjects in calculus (and more), but it was the quality of HOW his subjects were presented. His algebra and calculus were developed and presented in a most sophisticated, clean, elegant fashion, respecting even "philosophy of mathematics" issues; not just a wham-bang here's-the-integration-formulas approach. He was taught the fine points of foundations and mathematical proof.

Needless to say, I was motivated to learn the stuff and excel, and I did just that. But I never forgot that humbling experience. While, of course, I was still proud to be an American, the experience did cause me to cool my jets somewhat and realize that WE were quite a ways "behind" others around the globe in some ways. Both Dinish and Pierre made it real clear to me that they were surprised the USA had no uniform standards and requirements for high school math and science graduation. They wondered how I was going to survive at a private engineering college without proper math training! Of course, I was not alone--almost none of the American students had any high school training in calculus (or, needless to say, beyond). As I say, this was 1967 (high school graduation). My story ditto-s regarding courses in physics: Dinish and Pierre had some college-level topics, I had the standard high school physics course. Of course, without calculus or even advanced algebra (which those two guys also had), it's kind of difficult treating physics beyond a certain basic level.

When I hear the problems American schools have NOW, I am shocked. Back in 1967 I thought we had problems THEN.

[dibl]

Re: liberal progressive elites look here!!!!

Wow -- I'm some kind of liberal! That's what all the cool people are, right?

OK, seriously, I spent almost 12 years working for the U.S. military, in both field and headquarters positions, so I do have a view, informed by experience, of how the federal bureaucracy functions to get its work done. Like many philosophical questions, there are more than a single truthful characterizations that apply:

1. There are some undertakings, such as the national defense, that only a federal bureaucracy can accomplish, due to the scale of the endeavor. Therefore it is necessary to have a national governmental organization to perform such functions.

2. It is the most wasteful, slow, inefficient, and incompetent way to get anything done, so if there is any possibility of having a function performed at a more local level, then that would be preferable from society's viewpoint.

The civil service has very strong protections in place to prevent abusive employment practices by politically-influenced or personally-biased managers and executives. These strong protections operate to make it extraordinarily difficult to remove unproductive workers. There are also extremely rigid hiring regulations, with preferences for "disadvantaged" classes of humanity (@Qqmike, Dinesh is disadvantaged, btw, -- you may have missed that), which operate to make it extraordinarily difficult to cast a wide recruiting net and select for demonstrated productivity and leadership traits. Taken together, the recruitment rules and the disciplinary restrictions make the civil service most attractive to a class of people who are less ambitious, less self-motivated, less confident of their abilities, more fearful of discipline -- basically more in need of a protection regime to hang onto their jobs*. And the disciplinary restrictions operate to keep everyone who gets hired on the payroll until they are eligible for retirement, regardless of their productivity. Sorry to put it so bluntly, but there you have it -- based strictly on up-close observation.

So while I agree with much of what I see written above, regarding the need of our (U.S.A) nation to pull together a national survival and competitive strategy, I would respectfully suggest that putting any such strategy into the hands of the GS-12s and 13s in Washington D.C. would be less productive than pissing upwind. In the latter project, you would at least get a cooling effect.

In my "classical liberal" view, any undertaking that seeks to serve individual citizens, or their local communities, is far better executed at the local level. Leave the feds to build battleships.

* I fully appreciate what this generalization implies, with regard to myself -- it is true, nevertheless.


BTW, it makes little difference who is President, wrt the ability of the bureaucracy to perform competently - he can push around the top of the hierarchy, but they can't push around the line working level very much, due to the aforementioned rules of employee management.

[SteveRiley]

Re: liberal progressive elites look here!!!!

Clinton DESERVED to be president

I'll admit it took me a long time to decide. Hillary doubtless would have been a stronger executive. Ultimately, though what swayed my vote toward Obama was the desire to break what I perceived to be an emerging Bush-Clinton dynasty. I felt the nation urgently required a break from the past. I have, since then, come to regret my earlier conclusion.

[DoYouKubuntu]

Re: liberal progressive elites look here!!!!

Clinton DESERVED to be president

I'll admit it took me a long time to decide. Hillary doubtless would have been a stronger executive. Ultimately, though what swayed my vote toward Obama was the desire to break what I perceived to be an emerging Bush-Clinton dynasty. I felt the nation urgently required a break from the past. I have, since then, come to regret my earlier conclusion.

Thanks for your honesty. As with Bush before him, many people are reluctant to admit they voted for Obama.

I still get phone calls from the Republican National Committee soliciting support [because I voted for and contributed to McCain after Clinton didn't get the Democratic nomination], and I always chuckle at the caller's reaction when I say, "well...actually...I'm a registered Democrat..." I haven't bothered being removed from their call list because, at this point, I have no idea what the 2012 elections hold for me. Unless the Democrats come up with a viable alternative to Obama, I won't be voting Democrat. But, on the other hand, if the Republicans come up with some ultra-conservative wingnut (anti-choice, anti-gay, wanting religion to be used in making laws, etc.), I won't vote Republican either. I guess time will tell.

Just in case anyone's wondering how I could have voted for McCain, considering Palin was his running mate and I've stated unequivocally that I would not vote for her for president, it's simple: McCain was much more qualified to be president than Obama and he's a war hero, so it was an easy choice; I figured I had to take my chances on him not dying while in office and then having the awful consequence of Palin becoming president.

[Qqmike]

Re: liberal progressive elites look here!!!!

"... it's simple: McCain was much more qualified to be president than Obama ..."

Yeah, DYK, right, and look how he displayed his bad judgment skills right off the bat: he picked Palin as a running mate! Only someone totally out of touch with any reasonable sense of reality could have done that.


dibl: As for leaving important decisions up to local governments ... boy, golly, gee .. Have you been to ALL the states? How about a certain SW state. To leave key education issues up to our local clowns here would be a disaster for the kids and for the future of our nation. These people are clueless from any academic point of view.