Recreating America under Obama.

[Buffy]

It was early voting where my concerns drew from, where little control was present and most the stories came from.

Um, what stories? Not even Drudge seems to have published any, and even if it had been anecdotal I'm sure Fox would have been non-stop with it.

 

Conversely, we've got months worth of major newspaper coverage of the US Attorney's scandal.

 

No doubt what you claim might have happened in a place or two. Those black folks--especially the ones that go to the trouble of voting early--certainly are scary looking!

Also thought you might argue back, what we did to blacks in the past, which we did, but neither acceptable.

Sure, and I'm actually not at all calling you racist here!

 

The relevant Right Wing Talking Point is that Obama being elected is proof that there is no racism any more. I would hope that's true, and apparently so do you. Unfortunately, if this point you're making about White people being scared of getting in the polling booth lines simply because there were Black people in them is a *counter proof* to this argument!

 

Moreover, it does not take much demographic data to show that the only counties--early voting typically takes place in county offices--that are integrated enough to actually have mixed lines are actually quite liberal already (Alameda County in California is a great example, and we had oodles of well integrated lines, including old White folks voting alongside young Black folks).

 

The only logical conclusions here are that either lots of folks still harbor unconscious racism, or your claims are false.

If you really want to continue taking statements taken out of contents or made to amplify some point, I'll look up a few and we can spend months concluding nothing. I would start with Reverend Wright, who would seem to have nothing good to say about Obama, Clinton or even the country he lives in...

As I said in my last post, folks like Reverend Wright hold no sway on the Democratic Party. Conversely, Dick Cheney has given relatively few interviews, but has made special time for folks like Rush Limbaugh.

 

Its a matter of closeness and scale that's important, not just "did-did not" have any point of contact. Same with that Big Boogieman Bill Ayers that Sarah is *still* bringing up.

 

Sure we could do tit for tat on this, but the examples on the right are so feeble as to be absurd.

 

Go ahead. Make my day. Just do it in another thread.

 

Since you do seem to have some knowledge in American History, you might note our founders really got along quite well socially, but had very different ideas on policy.

Absolutely! And that's what we have to do to Recreate America!

 

We have got to stop the Gingrich's and Delay's and Cheney's that insist on political polarization.

 

When even centrist Republican's like Schwarzenegger get tarred as "not real Republicans" like you did in an earlier post, where is there room for *any* accommodation or compromise?

 

The hallmark of the Bush administration was to get elected on a soft "Compassionate Conservatism" sound bite which immediately morphed into the "overwhelming mandate" of the 2000 election while now some of the same conservative pundits that proclaimed it so are saying that Obama "has no mandate."

 

That's just polarizing, politically-motivated hate, not even friendly social discourse.

 

I have said this before, but there is a commonality here of like minded posters and/or management. Also as said before this is understandable. My only argument with policy is some apparent reprimand made to some not understanding this and the relative high number of banning toward those disagreed with.

That's certainly a matter of perception.

 

What's certainly a truism is that those that spend time in their posts claiming unfair persecution rather than actually backing up their assertions are usually busy claiming that Einstein was wrong or that gravity doesn't exist, and I think you're a much more logical fellow than that.

 

No, recreating America is anything but complex. America is our law and Constitutional foundation, which is firmly established in our laws today, Federal and all States. It is what it is and change has to come slow or what is America will be something entirely different.

So you'd agree that inventing new branches of government that are beyond the purview of the Constitution, or suspending whole sections of it, or abrogating treaties that are "inconvenient" without the approval of Congress like the outgoing administration has done is a bad thing? Great!

 

We're then in complete agreement as to how to move forward!

 

All we have to do is move away from this notion that we can declare that suspending our hard won freedoms and Constitutional rights is necessary because we're "at War" and go back to actually defending those freedoms and responsibilities!

 

And most importantly, stop accusing the other half of the citizens of this country as being anti-American simply on the basis of who they vote for.

 

But as long as there are folks think that nothing the President does can be considered illegal or can even be stopped (only if it's a Republican President of course!), and that anyone who disagrees with a particular party's platform is a "Marxist" then unfortunately, I disagree: it is going to be hard.

 

Fortunately, I don't think there are actually that many of those people, although they are all the leaders of the Conservative movement, and they've hijacked true Conservatism in America.

 

When even Barry Goldwater disagrees with this trend, you know that the party is indeed too radical:

The big thing is to make this country, along with every other country in the world with a few exceptions, quit discriminating against people just because they're gay. You don't have to agree with it, but they have a constitutional right to be gay. And that's what brings me into it.

 

The oldest philosophy in the world is conservatism, and I go clear back to the first Greeks. ... When you say 'radical right' today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party away from the Republican Party, and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye.

Oh, but I'm sure Barry Goldwater had no right to call himself a Republican either....

 

 

I think every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the ***, ;)

Buffy

[Galapagos]

If yall' are like me and you enjoy shocking humor, check out the Conservapedia(wiki page) on Barack Obama:

Barack Obama - Conservapedia

 

For those who don't know, Conservapedia is like a wiki where creationist, Republican, Conservative Christians can post blatantly hateful, pseudoscientific, or false wikipedia articles without having to meet wikipedia standards.

I want to quote or post some highlights, but the entire thing is just so insane. It almost reads like a satire or parody.

[jackson33]

If yall' are like me and you enjoy shocking humor, check out the Conservapedia(wiki page) on Barack Obama:

Barack Obama - Conservapedia

 

For those who don't know, Conservapedia is like a wiki where creationist, Republican, Conservative Christians can post blatantly hateful, pseudoscientific, or false wikipedia articles without having to meet wikipedia standards.

I want to quote or post some highlights, but the entire thing is just so insane. It almost reads like a satire or parody.

 

Since I am still a somewhat politically active Republican, I follow several sites and a member of a couple 'Political Conservative'. Nothing in that one article is new to many members of the opposition. Well over a year ago in more than one article and well before Obama gained the nomination, I suggested those arguments if anything would get him the nomination. It played right into the Anti-Bush, American and Intrernation Mainstream press, giving them the 'Story of the Century', in their minds and my opinioin.

 

Insane; I don't think so and you should note the very same attacks (in many cases) have been used against Ms. Palin....There are a good many contradictions to his history, which is pretty much from his own books and short political history. This would really be off topic, but I have and may continue to question his understanding of the US Constitution and/or the History of the US, from a Harvard Graduate in Constitutional Law and the required knowledge of US History...

[jackson33]

Buffy; I don't recall 'Race' ("those scary black folks"), being mentioned by any pundit for the Republican Party or candidate yet recall several comments by blacks, the Democrats and Obama himself (Grandmother). Even post election, where up to 97% of black voter voted for Obama has been excused as votes for cultural reason.

 

Exactly what is it, you think needs recreating and why? It can't be the system, its set up for change and been active since the beginning. No one is advocating a return to the 1960's, 1930's, 1860's or any period in time, but do argue what change may be best for the future of this country. Think Nitack, also posted a similar thread ob 'change' but from the conservative angle and he also never offered a specific change.

 

Wright, as Obama stated in his book was his mentor and reason for turning toward Christianity, its not a minor issue for Americans and that mentor has much to question. Back to Chaney, well he is the VP and very few VP's played to the public media. Bush himself has been on the Limbaugh show, Reagan passed his mantle to Limbaugh (letter years ago) and Limbaugh is an inspiration to millions of people, with a particular slant on traditional, cultural changes that have occurred. Ayers, whatever you think was a BAD person and has been rewarded for some very bad comments over the years. Ms. Palin, is welcome to her opinions, as are you.

 

Of course, under some name (sexism/racism/envy) many people harbor ill thoughts toward others. We are people and people are products of their living to some point in life. As a Nation, I think we are the best their is in understanding and accepting all differences, political correctness only slowing the process.

 

My goodness, if we don't have some federal department already in existence for any social need it would surprise me. But IMO, the Federal has already gone well beyond its Constitutional Authority in circumventing (not creating) rights of individuals and/or those delegated to States for reason. Then there is the method for change, though the Congress and Amendments, which has taken on a change by judicial action.

 

Goldwater also said, "Any government that can give you everything you want, can then also take everything you have" or something like that and yes in his day, very much represented his party. I agree with him, the inherent right to practice any sexual practice you want, with another consenting person (including prostitution) and I think the Evangelical Movement has been slow to change, no different than the Catholic, Muslim and many others and the most important, his right to say whatever he wanted. No one agrees with every issue to any other person. For the record thought he was 85 yo or so in 1994, suffering some form of 'said' dementia.

 

Buffy, I have no problem with this forum, or any other. As I just told another Administrator (arrogantly dismissing a moderator), I post three or four per day and there are plenty of sites to argue my points. It just so happens, there are some intelligent people here, usually meaning they have established opinions and lack tolerance to those that disagree. You are well versed on some subjects and from California, in the heart of where activism is thriving and of interest to my work. I do feel you are a bit too sarcastic to those trying to state their opinions or argue their points, but then thats who you are.

 

Do you ever sleep...looks like you posted 2-3AM your time....

[Buffy]

Buffy; I don't recall 'Race' ("those scary black folks"), being mentioned by any pundit for the Republican Party or candidate yet recall several comments by blacks....

Hmmm. I have a vague recollection of race being brought up in this thread by some poster, but, well, it probably wasn't important.

 

So anyway, back to the topic at hand:

Exactly what is it, you think needs recreating and why? It can't be the system, its set up for change and been active since the beginning. No one is advocating a return to the 1960's, 1930's, 1860's or any period in time, but do argue what change may be best for the future of this country.

The principal things that I think need recreating are:

• Respect for the rule of law by the Office of the President: I would like to go back to the days when a President was not allowed to do anything he wanted with impunity and using every means to circumvent the restrictions placed on him by the other two branches of government. They are supposed to be co-equal according to the Constitution, but the President has not operated that way for the last 8 years.
  
• Elimination of the "fourth branch" of government, allowing the Vice President to declare that he is above all the other three (official) branches of government and is not obligated to obey any laws governing record keeping, procedures for maintaining the security of top secret documents, engaging in exposing the identities of government agents purely for political purposes and other activities of highly uh, "questionable" legality.
  
• A return to the civility of debate between people of opposing political viewpoints without being labeled as "against the troops," "wanting to destroy America," "anti-American," "Marxist," or other hate filled epithets that are intended only for political gain.
  

Differences on tax policy, government spending, and what to do about abortion or civil unions are all absolutely things that fair minded people can disagree about, but should instead of screaming "communist!" or "baby killers!" and insisting that no compromise is possible, be areas where these differences are discussed and compromises studied and hopefully agreed upon.

 

That sort of thing has been going on among the common folk pretty much non-stop, however our so-called leaders have not much cooperated, caring more about re-election than formulating the right political policies.

 

But that's just my opinion, and I think T-bird would like to hear more than just us two blowhards! :confused:

 

So for once, maybe you can maybe look at some of your own words an apply some of this. Please take some time to learn from the wisdom that comes with age and not be so insistent on the notion that your view is the only possible correct view, and if people disagree they must be Liberals or suffering from dementia:

For the record thought he was 85 yo or so in 1994, suffering some form of 'said' dementia.

That's not very polite, and although I know you are not religious, its still unseemly to make self-serving and slanderous statements about the dead.

You are well versed on some subjects and from California, in the heart of where activism is thriving and of interest to my work. I do feel you are a bit too sarcastic to those trying to state their opinions or argue their points, but then thats who you are.

Thank you! And you're well versed in a subject or two as well! I certainly enjoy our witty repartee! Honestly, whether its sarcasm or faux sincerity laden with backhanded compliments, we all have our rhetorical techniques for emphasizing our points, and sometimes it's hard to resist when the target is the side of a barn! :confused:

Do you ever sleep...looks like you posted 2-3AM your time....

Through the magic of physics, geology and technology, I am capable of becoming unstuck in time, so I can assure you that the time stamps are quite misleading.

 

If they perceive dissension in our looks and that within ourselves we disagree, how will their grudging stomachs be provoked to wilful disobedience, and rebel! :confused:

Buffy

[jackson33]

The principal things that I think need recreating are:

• Respect for the rule of law by the Office of the President: I would like to go back to the days when a President was not allowed to do anything he wanted with impunity and using every means to circumvent the restrictions placed on him by the other two branches of government. They are supposed to be co-equal according to the Constitution, but the President has not operated that way for the last 8 years.
  
• Elimination of the "fourth branch" of government, allowing the Vice President to declare that he is above all the other three (official) branches of government and is not obligated to obey any laws governing record keeping, procedures for maintaining the security of top secret documents, engaging in exposing the identities of government agents purely for political purposes and other activities of highly uh, "questionable" legality.
  
• A return to the civility of debate between people of opposing political viewpoints without being labeled as "against the troops," "wanting to destroy America," "anti-American," "Marxist," or other hate filled epithets that are intended only for political gain.
  

Differences on tax policy, government spending, and what to do about abortion or civil unions are all absolutely things that fair minded people can disagree about, but should instead of screaming "communist!" or "baby killers!" and insisting that no compromise is possible, be areas where these differences are discussed and compromises studied and hopefully agreed upon.

 

That sort of thing has been going on among the common folk pretty much non-stop, however our so-called leaders have not much cooperated, caring more about re-election than formulating the right political policies.

 

Obama, his advisor's and those that are going to lead this country, IMO are now learning the reason our leaders have always been given special treatment or consideration, while in office or after leaving office. Most of your complaints are in fact complaints against the current administration, no less than I heard from my own party when Clinton was in office, Bush/Reagan before him and so on back through history, including from what read, back to Washington. Personally, I don't want to know all they knew/know or do I feel the general public could handle that knowledge. The yet born historians that will explore the Bush years are going to find out some interesting things and his efforts will be argued probably for many generations.

 

What you read on most blogs, hear from advocates of some agenda or politicians say during a campaign or even via media, is not what actually happens in Government. In short, no the Branches are not equal, but have separate and distinct duties under the Constitution, with minor adjustments made through amendment or laws. What gives them any equality is the 'checks/balances' each has over the other by the use of independent authority. The VP for instance, does have some authority in the Senate and if practiced could set procedure. Adams, as VP, most certainly did do this and the deciding vote in hundreds of decisions over 8 years. IMO, mentioning the 'deciding vote' was to take the VP out of meaningless effort, not a limitation to his/her power.

 

As I addressed Nitack's thread, one recreation of our Government could be in a realistic 4th branch, similar to the Judicial or independent from the others with specific duties. Functionally bringing minorities or special interest into government and along the lines of the Judicial 9 districts. Say 2 or 4 from each representing those area needs or interest. I would suggest these people are picked by an alternating system of State Legislatures, for 2-4 year terms with 2 term limits or the true intent of the founders. I would further suggest they serve as close to voluntary as possible, if not totally, or sponsored by State Legislatures as they see fit. These people, could be from any profession, but should have one. Teachers, lawyers, social workers, with no limits on their agenda. I will leave 'specific purpose' (power/authority/oversight) open, has this could go in several directions, giving voices to many who have no voice, including all 14 other than major parties or the hundreds of special interest groups.

 

Thunderbird; Since this your thread, it might be interesting to hear what you had in mind when offering it. To every administration, there is a very minor recreation, with the known knowledge any changes are subject to change in 4 or 8 years by the next. Add in the House can change every two years, there is not much time to change anything. Good ideas from past administration even some bad are still around and Bush's 'Faith Based Initiative' policy likely to be a good one.

[Cedars]

Not trying to hijack the thread but the Lizard People have appeared in the MN Senate Race Recount.

 

MPR: Slideshow: Challenged ballots

 

I couldnt help but laugh when my aunt told me about this, so I looked it up today.

 

More here:

MPR: Challenged ballots: You be the judge

 

I think the Franken vote intent is clear. This voter did not fill in the circle next to lizard people in the senate portion of the ballot, and clearly filled in the Lizard people oval in the presidential portion above.

 

Thoughts anyone?

;)

[Thunderbird]

Thunderbird; Since this your thread, it might be interesting to hear what you had in mind when offering it. To every administration, there is a very minor recreation, with the known knowledge any changes are subject to change in 4 or 8 years by the next. Add in the House can change every two years, there is not much time to change anything. Good ideas from past administration even some bad are still around and Bush's 'Faith Based Initiative' policy likely to be a good one.

I believe the directional compass for real change comes from the people. History has shown that American society only progress from listening to the needs of the community. Policy makers that are in touch with this, or better yet lifted into power by these community based organizations are more apt to steer the country in directions that creates a conscious consensus for a positive direction and hope for the future. Powerful stuff.

On the opposite end of that scale is the worst case scenario for American society is for the leaders to create divisions between the needs of the community and the agendas of the powerful.

The Bush administration main agenda was not about the being in touch with the community, although the faith based initiatives I’ll have to admit worked much better than I expected, and should be expanded. However Bush’s neoconic paradigm of secrecy, torture, partisanship at home, unilateralism abroad, unrestricted free market based on pure greed aligned with tax breaks for the rich have been an utter disaster. The most offensive to me however is the deliberate trickling down of misinformation on an Orwellian scale in order to keep the public under control.

 

This type of government control has always existed to some extent but under Bush it has reached a level that could have tipped the power balance so for toward what can only be described as neo fascism.

I think we came very very close to a precipice that would have left America a third world economy with a police state mentality. All it would have taken is McCain to have been elected followed by a complete economic meltdown, or Palin taking office, and the inevitable terrorist attack that would have followed . Imagine Palin as president and 60% unemployment food riots, marshal law imposed , dogs and cats living together. He were heading down that road “My friends” Now however we can change coarse away from what would have been the dark age of division.

 

The election of Barak Obama...............hold..20 min later. Ok I’m back, Good example, I just got a call that an elderly lady needed a box spring and mattress so her husband could be released from the hospital. The woman had tried though Disabled Citizens they were not able to help her. She called *****, here at the Community Partnership. ***** is a Pentecostal pastor , ****** called My boss A liberal community coordinator. She called the a local Church, that stores donated items for the needy. My boss called me, I am the local Reentry coordinator that assist felons, but I happen to have a truck, I just got back after picking it up and deliver it to the very grateful nice lady. This cost the tax payer....well...nothing . Community and faith based organizations work well because they have little bureaucracy and address immediate needs directly . As a side project for the employees here at the office we have raised enough money though projects and charity auctions to buy Christmas presents for about 800 needy children. Obama chose to work in the Chicago community to learn how to address the needs of people. He could have easily taken a job in cooperate law but he chose instead to work in grass roots organizations. My kind of fellow.

 

America Needs Obama To Recreate Our National Narrative

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-rember/america-needs-obama-to-re_b_133340.html

[jackson33]

Thunderbird; Your little oration on assisting a person in need, is done everyday through out this country and yes Obama, did much the same work in Chicago. It points out the reasons and qualifications for the Federal Government and frankly State Governments to stay out of the way of the private sector. I personally don't think Obama, did his work for anything close to the reasons you do, or do I think it qualifies any person for serving in government....By the way, you are the person from the Farmington Missouri area, definitely a rural area and probably as depressed an area found anyplace in this country.

 

I suppose, Obama will reflect on his days in South Chicago, the needs of that society based on 30-40 years of government assistance and to some degree the power of the Chicago Political Structure. I suppose, Bush reflected on his years in Texas, the hard work required in the oil fields by workers and the Capitalistic Society that allows achievement based on that work. I'll also suppose these two completely different understandings of what best for the majority of the population in all States has and will show up in the history books a century from now. What I do feel is sure, is the American Public is interested in the positive approach and desire achievement and the rewards for those achievements.

 

Your complaints are also against the Bush Administration and your perceived understanding of what government or the Executive Branch should be allowed to do during certain periods of War (Wartime) or the THREAT of war. We have American Citizens all around this globe, doing business, visiting, diplomats, religious work or any number of reason. He and/or any Administration is also required to maintain their safety but obliged to work with in other National Laws. In short, no one is tapping your phone, concerned with who you deal with on the phone or frankly what your political affiliation may be. Mr. Obama, will have the same responsibility or if you prefer obligation and has little choice but to address in the same manner or suffer the consequences, if wrong.

 

No, Bush actions have been mild, when compared to others and with now 300 million American's with the greatest diversity in our history. Going backward, Johnson, JFK, Truman, FDR and Lincoln all were strong armed leaders. IMO, J. Edgar Hoover probably was one individual who violated more rights than any President, especially toward American in America. What you have been watching and concerned with is the power struggle between the three branches in Government, which has also always existed and has changed over the years.

 

For the record, I read your 'John Rember' article, finding nothing new from the campaign rhetoric and again the usual complaints against Bush. If Obama can achieve more through diplomacy, more power to him. He would not be the first with these ideas, Clinton, Carter, Truman, T. Roosevelt and Jefferson being the first all tried and each having some success. That success usually ended up in prolonging failure which was later address with force. War of

1812, Iran and North Korea a couple examples.

 

Think about my Forth Branch or sub-Branch of Government, which could change the transparency of Government, I feel your real problem in understanding...

[Thunderbird]

Typical conservative view. Nothing new because you’re always comparing the world in pieces and parts that have varying degrees of value and never see the whole system. A system works best when all parts work together for the good of the whole. Competing for wealth and Comparing wealth to are fellows as the measure of successes leads to class systems, inequality, poverty lack of opportunity, You my think this is the American way but that is bull **** illusionary fantasy that’s packaged and sold to you. Its backward destructive and way out of date for the times we find ourselves in today. It is wasteful and squanders our heritage built by all not a few and the well being of future generations. Hey, but screw them to right, grab all you can. The one with the most toys wins.

 

The point of the above post was that a cooperative systems works much better than one that is divided and just concerns itself with its own little world. I do work for the community but financed by the federal government. A volunteer program started by Bill Clinton that’s purpose is to build coalitions in the community to help ex-offenders reintegrate as productive law abiding citizens. The reason Clinton backed these programs was because they were not encumbered by Government bureaucracy. You should read his book “Giving” you might educate yourself on how government programs can work really well.

 

This reentry initiative became necessary to counter the boondoggle of the get tough on crime laws pushed by conservatives in the last 20yrs. Its seems the idea of punishment and out of sight out of mind, not my problem without considering the well being of these people have created the largest population of prisoners the world has ever seen. Guess what ! scholars where shocked to find the courts and corrections where actually creating larger and larger offender populations. One in fifteen people under the age of 40 in Georgia currently have a record. In the real world that I live and work change is coming. The era of dark division is over, the age of cooperative networks is here to stay. It’s a natural paradigm shift that’s been coming for a long time. The current problems can all be traced to the election of 2000 Gore understood this more than any one and should have be the one to lead the country into the 21 century, but instead we got a throw back mentality of Bush Cheney.

[jackson33]

Thunderbird; I'll just use the three riches Americans over recent years, though many throughout history were the same. Sam Walton, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, all collected quite a few toys. In the process created millions of jobs allowing other to collect more toys or pay less for those toys in the first place. They also created much of the wealth, that allows each of the Governments to operate and many of the benefits you enjoy. Each in their own way has contributed time, energy and that WEALTH to their community and/or the world.

 

The mess, were in today may be a little less than were all being told and frankly I am not very happy with either party or their solutions. However it didn't begin with GWB or even Clinton. I could argue, its a result of previous socialism, welfare or in fact trying to support the non-contributing members of society and that the real problems with these just beginning.

 

The vast majority of people convicted of some crime are from State Actions.

State law enforcements are controlled by its population and people break the law. I don't care what the reason/excuse, if any person knowingly breaks a law they should be punished the same as any other person in that State. We do have the highest percentage of people in prison/jails or had been and we also have the highest safety rate for the citizen.

 

Now, having said this and knowing your beef with society over drugs, I would agree there has been an over reaction to the seriousness of the problem or the sentencing to those convicted. I would also disagree on sending any young person to the same prison systems with older folks or to how little actual effort is made to rehabilitation of any prisoner. None of this or your idea that Obama, can alter public opinion on 'right/wrong' has anything to do with an Elected Officer to 'Defend and protect the Constitution and LAWS of the United States'. He will have no authority, nor does the Congress, to change laws that are under State authority/jurisdiction and any Federal Action to change, comes from Congress not the future president. He can only indirectly ENFORCE those laws.

[Turtle]

We do have the highest percentage of people in prison/jails or had been and we also have the highest safety rate for the citizen. ...

 

not really. :) not for auto injuries: >> International Injury & Fatality Statistics

 

not for murders either: >> List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

not for dog bites: >> Statistics by Country for Dog bite - WrongDiagnosis.com

 

yada, yada, yada, endless other examples counter to your unsupported assertion. :naughty:

 

I recommend this book to President Elect Obama and members of the Legislative & Executive branches of government at all levels, Federal, State, County, City. >> Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Thunderbird]

Thunderbird; I'll just use the three riches Americans over recent years, though many throughout history were the same. Sam Walton, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, all collected quite a few toys. In the process created millions of jobs allowing other to collect more toys or pay less for those toys in the first place. They also created much of the wealth, that allows each of the Governments to operate and many of the benefits you enjoy. Each in their own way has contributed time, energy and that WEALTH to their community and/or the world.

 

.

Two of my favorite people Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. These men get it about "giving" My minister is always bringing up these guy's as how the captains of industry and the super rich should act. I was not referring to men like these but the idea of what it means to be successful. Look how greed in the world of cooperate finance has put us the bind we find ourselves in. I have nothing against the accumulation of wealth. I do believe great wealth comes with great responsibility however.

[jackson33]

not really. :) not for auto injuries: >> International Injury & Fatality Statistics

 

not for murders either: >> List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

not for dog bites: >> Statistics by Country for Dog bite - WrongDiagnosis.com

 

yada, yada, yada, endless other examples counter to your unsupported assertion. :naughty:

 

I recommend this book to President Elect Obama and members of the Legislative & Executive branches of government at all levels, Federal, State, County, City. >> Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Of the 50 US States, we have probably 10-15 with the lowest level of violence in the WORLD and probably 5 near the highest level. Substantiated or not, IT IS MY OPINION, over all the US on average is the safest place. We could argue reporting methods, what are classified crimes in different places, the legal system employed or any number of probable discrepancies in accumulating facts.

 

*Safest US Cities* Honolulu with 288 Felony Crimes per hundred thousand in 2007 and El Paso, Texas with 418. *Worst* Detroit with 2289 and St. Louis with 2298, both indicating a nearly one in four chance for being a victim in any one year to about one chance one in 300. I would concede in both Honolulu and El Paso, those same reason for error could exist or that Detroit and St. Louis, which statistics for Federal Grants are influenced, but would only make my original point.

 

As for auto accidents, think you will find per mile driven these statistics are lower than most places, but also note traffic enforcement can vary from county to county with in a State, much less Country to Country.

 

As for your book recommendation, I would probably agree with the author. The point however, IMO its up to the States to enforce Federal Drug Laws and most today go after the traffickers, not the users already. The laws do exist however and if broken the user should be ready to pay the price. By the way we also have some really pathetic Domestic Violence laws and between these two classifications over half our Con and x-Con folks have come from. Seems a waste of money and man power...

[jackson33]

Two of my favorite people Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. These men get it about "giving" My minister is always bringing up these guy's as how the captains of industry and the super rich should act. I was not referring to men like these but the idea of what it means to be successful. Look how greed in the world of cooperate finance has put us the bind we find ourselves in. I have nothing against the accumulation of wealth. I do believe great wealth comes with great responsibility however.

 

Truth be known, these two and HUNDREDS of others involved with 'Charitable Trust Fund's' believe they can do better then the government and I agree. This is also true for Bush by funding Charity's directly will get the biggest bang for the buck, nearly 100% compared to the estimated 2 cents on the dollar for government, or even the Red Cross 78%.

 

Wal Mart's, Sam Walton got his start feeling 'Small Town USA' should get the same benefits larger towns had access to. Although 'Gibson' and other small retailers tried this, the system he offered worked, basically servicing store through warehouses and buying truck loads only to the warehouse (opposed to shipping producer to store) actually worked. Just visited their site today and their claiming near 300 Billion in saving to their customers, in the US, this year. Its called productivity and others like Dell Computer, Apple, Google have made the US the by far the best in efficiency. Think you will find Free Market/Capitalism has befitted society much more then you think and the few bad apples out their who are indeed the rare examples.

[Turtle]

Of the 50 US States, we have probably 10-15 with the lowest level of violence in the WORLD and probably 5 near the highest level. Substantiated or not, IT IS MY OPINION, ...

 

It is de rigueur here to provide a link to your sources, and otherwise opinions are like pie-holes, everybody has one.

 

As for your book recommendation, I would probably agree with the author. The point however, IMO its up to the States to enforce Federal Drug Laws and most today go after the traffickers, not the users already. The laws do exist however and if broken the user should be ready to pay the price. By the way we also have some really pathetic Domestic Violence laws and between these two classifications over half our Con and x-Con folks have come from. Seems a waste of money and man power...

 

I probably recommend you read the book too then. :naughty: Please provide some links to support your further assertions on prison populations, otherwise were just stuffin' the hole. :evil:

 

PS G'donya Mr. Obama for choosing Joe Biden and showing your support for protecting women from violence. :)

[jackson33]

Turtle; Your welcome to 'google' Safest/Worst City, State or Countries and get a variety of OPINIONS, based on one angle or another. I had to do this and picked one that gave details on 'Violent Crime Rates' to offer you a reason, I don't have much faith in those or in fact many 'references'. In my mind El Paso Tx is NOT 5+ times safer than Detroit, then taking auto thefts out 7-8 times safer.

 

As for who and why folks are confined in the US, the best reference I know is

'drugwarfacts.org' which seems to be factual, but is motivated against being criminal in the first place. 'Prison, Jails and Probation, overview' there, will give you all the statistics you want and can be easily manipulated to construct any argument. For instance, first time drug users for some time only receive a probationary sentence, or time served (day to weeks) and probation. With over 7 million (think 2006) at years end listed in one group or another you can configure into anything.

 

My objection to your comments were and remain, the idea the US is the worst on some issue, when in fact there is no comparable legal system between our own States, much less to world communities...If you take the Federal Legal System, inmate cause/count, you would conclude we don't enforce anything.

 

PS; Please list one or more politician who, DOES NOT support protecting women from violence from any party.