kbordson

According to some, I've been described as "paranoid," "Seppo" and even "racist." But I don't think that I've heard "ignorant" or "apathetic". . . . yet.

Nope - to find who qualifies for governmental aid. And - surprise - this is not different from any other governmental aid program. Actually, according to the bill (and yes, last night I did print it and read through bits of it) source This isn't to see who "qualifies." It's to calculate your new tax if you chose not to get insurance on their own.

In the other thread about the same topic, I typed in my notes from a class that I took in the 90's about Rhetoric of Campaigns and Revolutions. I can now say for a FACT. Yes, I did have a problem with President Bush giving that speech. I have notes in my hand writing questioning the motives and the rhetoric. So... about what others might think/feel, I can't and won't judge. About what I feel. Nope, not being biased just because it's President Obama.

Look above - This country has rarely been "United." There are conflicting thoughts. But with that, we GROW. We challenge. We resist. We follow. Some question. Some accept. Why be so worried about it just now? Is it because you don't want to hear the dissent against the President that you "like" or the one that you "picked." Is it that you didn't hear it in the 90's (although re-reading my notes... the distrust was even there) So, is the country coming apart at the seams? Not anymore than it was in the 50's or the 1860's. (ok... in the 1860's it actually almost did come apart) Dug through some more old books (I am a bit of a bibliophile and it takes some time to find the exact book that I was looking for) Hell Bent for ElectionPaul Warburg c 1935 -if you read through the text of that book... sounds quite similar to complaints being cited today. So, with writing this book, was Mr. Warburg being "racist" when he wrote that because of FDR's skin tone? Was Mr. Warburg being "just paranoid" by voicing objection? Even though there are even still debates/discussions regarding FDR and "communism." (note: I am aware of Mr. Warburgs flip/flopping in his support/opposition of FDR) Questioning the President is not new nor is it just because it's President Obama.

If you actually wanted to learn anyhting from participating in these forums you would have learned that 'cunt' is not a gender specific term, go back and read the thread instead if being a short sighted post whore, and you may actualy learn something for a change. In my opinion, if someone is interacting with a group and PURPOSELY and REPETITIVELY uses words with questionable/offensive meanings to that audience, then he/she is either baiting or doesn't care. If you know something is offensive to someone... EVEN IF it isn't to you... the RESPECTFUL discourse would not include that term. Find a different word - there are plenty out there. If you feel you HAVE to use THAT SPECIFIC one.... why? On this site, we have MANY different nations and MANY different beliefs. And although it's difficulty to be "PC" to all of them, at attempt at "respectful" would be a nice change. Now... I'm sure that my opinion, as just a "Seppo" probably doesn't mean much of anything to you, so I'm not really laying a bet on that change. Back to the original topic. The picture of the Presidents. Not funny, in my opinion. It is racist. But I ALSO think the baboon caricatures are wrong. Which is "more wrong"? Probably this one, but that SHOULD not excuse the others. I might not agree with President Obama on certain topics. Nor did I always agree with President Bush. But BOTH are/were Presidents of the United States. Political satire as always been part of history... since the court jesters .... but that doesn't mean what the jester says is "right." You also have to look at the INTENT of the satire - is it to simply point out a bad decision or a policy or is it just a personal attack. This picture is just a personal attack. It was TRULY wrong that a Republican legislative aide sent it out in a mass email. She SHOULD be fired. She is allowed to have her opinions, but when that opinion interferes with her ability to work, then she needs a new job.

When someone express their own opinion, I'd like to understand what they based their opinion upon. Especially when I have relevant personal experience myself. In this case I ate those cookies, so it doesn't really make any sense to discuss the taste with the person who just read about them. i know quite a lot about the moon and the planets as well

I don't have actual data handy, but the last time I saw it (it's been about 10 years) it indicated that bachelor's degree holders were more likely to vote for Republican candidates, while those with both less and more education (high school or lower and graduate degrees) were more likely to vote for Democratic candidates. There was also a startling degree of correlation between area of study and voting preferences for those with graduate degrees (although not nearly as much for those with bachelor's degrees). Things got really interesting when you asked graduate degree holder's to self-identify their politics. If I remember correctly some vast majority of those with Ph.D.'s in sociology and allied fields self-identified as "progressive" rather than "Democrat", while the group most likely to self-identify as "libertarian" (at rates something like 15 times the average) were Ph.D. holders in economics. I find it funny that most Ivy League and high end institutions tend to be in blue areas on the map. So you use that to validate your belief that that means the "blue" is smarter and better. Just like others value their self-identity. Regardless of whether you're Republican OR Democrat, I'm guessing that BOTH value their children and want to protect them. How they choose to do that and regarding what topics varies... but the basic point is that some people feel this "Public Service Announcement" is a threat. You can devalue that opinion by insulting or name calling or you can just accept that others have different views. Your choice.

As opposed to the kindly, gentle natured folks like Democratic Senator Chris "what planet are you living on" Dodd, or Democratic Representative Louise "I'm not giving those people a forum" Slaughter - or maybe even Democratic Representative Pete "Get the fuck out of here or I'll throw you out a window" Stark, perhaps? No no no. Just the "mean-spirited assholes." You know, the ones with an (R).... or is it the ones with the (D).... or is it the ones with stars on thars? I know.... it's "whatever group I don't agree with."

Agreed. Disagree. I dug out some of my papers from that course. (yes, I saved notes from Notes from the very first day: What is Rhetoric? A. Popular Misusage - negative and used by "other party." B. Traditional Usage -two main disciplines in history: Rhetoric and Philosophy -Neither good nor bad. Just there. Everyone uses it. Examples - a pastor to congregation, Bush to the public -The use of language to try to influence the ideas, beliefs or actions of other people. -Kenneth Burke: "The use of words by human agents to form attitudes or induce actions in other human agents." The course proceeded to examine: Part I American Revolution Whigs lead protests and revolutions. This was NOT a large group of men (only approx 10%) actively involved in the revolution, doubtful if even a majority of Colonist were in favor of independence. Stamp Act. Dulany's considerations Townshend Duties. Dickinson's Farmers Letters Tea Act 1773 - Boston Tea Party. "Conspiracy Theory" and "paranoia" culminated in The Coercive Acts/The Intolerable Acts. Thomas Paine's Common Sense Created a reduced ground for compromise. -good v. evil -liberty v. power Part II The Abolitionist Movement and it's impact on the Civil War Part III Civil Rights Movement Speeches/ Rhetoric Other topics of American Rhetoric to consider (not included in that course) Joseph McCarthy and the "Red Scare" War Speeches: World War I and II Rhetoric, Vietnam Rhetoric Medical/ Health care rhetoric Labor Movement rhetoric Look above - This country has rarely been "United." There are conflicting thoughts. But with that, we GROW. We challenge. We resist. We follow. Some question. Some accept. Why be so worried about it just now? Is it because you don't want to hear the dissent against the President that you "like" or the one that you "picked." Is it that you didn't hear it in the 90's (although re-reading my notes... the distrust was even there) So, is the country coming apart at the seams? Not anymore than it was in the 50's or the 1860's. (ok... in the 1860's it actually almost did come apart)

Wouldn't the Prez (or any well spoken adult) speaking to them about the importance of a good education fall under the umbrella of taking personal responsibility, living an effective life, and so on and so forth? Certainly doesn't seem like "indoctrination" to me. Appears to me people are getting their undies in a bundle because of who is doing the talking. That or establishment of a precedent. See what you like. Wasn't the precedent already set by President Bush Sr. back in 1991? Bush Sr. did it first. I was in college then. Being in ROTC, it was EXPECTED that I support the government. But... that wouldn't have meant that I would have been in favor of that speech specifically OR the precedent of government sponsored speeches. If I would have accepted that speech (specifically or as a big picture), it is possible that my opinion might have changed over the past 18 years. I might have become more jaded and less trusting. but... I still don't think that I would have liked it. (I'm speaking in possibilities because I honestly don't remember that speech OR my opinion on it when I was a little otherwise distracted almost 2 decades ago)

Wouldn't the Prez (or any well spoken adult) speaking to them about the importance of a good education fall under the umbrella of taking personal responsibility, living an effective life, and so on and so forth? Certainly doesn't seem like "indoctrination" to me. Appears to me people are getting their undies in a bundle because of who is doing the talking. That or establishment of a precedent. See what you like.

I dislike rules as well. If someone says I can't do something, I'll probably do it anyway on general principle. But you have to wonder, if I make a choice that only affects myself, that's one thing. But if I make a choice that negatively affects someone else, should that be allowed? If a parent makes a wrong choice regarding their kids, at what point does the wrongness of that choice become child abuse? That's a completely different discussion. The only way it would relate to this topic is if you feel that pulling the child from this program would be considered "abuse." If you want to open up that discussion on parental rights and government involvement - then we would discuss spankings, religious (Amish, Jehovah Witnesses - medical implications),

So you'd let your kids drop out of school because they dared to teach an abridged version of history? Nobody said a national curriculum was perfect and there's nothing to stop you supplementing public education with extra tutoring, but I think it would be a dumb judgment call to extract your children from public education unless you are damn sure you can do a better job. Not just think you can, but actually know your stuff and can teach it to the required standards. Would I "let my child drop out"? Probably not. Would I suppliment that education? Probably. In fact, I have kept my notes and teaching materials from that Rhetoric class. I would likely discuss those papers with my child(ren).... IF I had children. But do I want to see the government stepping in and controlling the choices that parents have? No. I want my friends to have the right to home school. EVEN IF I wouldn't do it myself. I want to parents to have the right to pull their child from classes or events that they aren't comfortable with - my mother pulled me and my sisters from the "mandatory" IQ test when we were in middle school; parents pull children from holiday programs; some object to teachings of contraception in health class. As a parent, it's their right. Are they decisions that I personally agree with? No, but I don't have to. If I were to have children, then I can decide the exposures. Until then, I will defend the rights of those that do have children.... even if it means they make the "wrong" choice.

Thank you for phrasing that better than I have been able.

You're kidding, right? So the fact that YOU threw up your silly definition last night (and then deleted it) wasn't doing EXACTLY the same thing? First of all, what Obama is going to talk about isn't my "opinion". It's what has been published and I linked to it. If you choose to ignore that and rant about it. I can't help you. You started your insults in post 3. Your link was post ? I knew what the speech is "supposed" to be about. My comments are not about one script, rather the precedent that it would set about Government sponsored presentations to children. I've mentioned that MANY times over. Please catch up, m'kay.

Good thing that you're not in psych. You can't give anyone that doesn't think like you a DSM diagnosis of 297.1. You've demonstrated in this thread that, according to you, the only "correct" opinion or belief is one that you hold. And that if someone doesn't hold the same opinion, all she/he needs is "a little education." So... basically, I'm reading that I'm more tolerant than you. I'm willing to see your beliefs and those of my friends (and that I hold as well) regarding suspicion with respect to this Governement sponsored news broadcast to children. As a parent, if you want your child to have that experience - it's available. If you don't - it's your right to exclude them. You can have whatever level of trust that you want. I should be allowed the same respect without getting a psych diagnosis.

It becomes my business when -I'd rather pay for the prevention. Others would rather pay for the cure. Others would rather simply punish. The one constant is that as long as there are irresponsible people out there, they are not going to pick up their fair share, and their children (and the rest of us) are going to suffer for it. Wendy P. But... we don't truly "prevent." You know that and I know that and we both know that to suggest "preventing" the irresponsible parents from having children would NEVER and SHOULD never fly. You mean that you prefer "limited" prevention via governent controls. But those controls also interfere with those that might be responsible parents. It's a trade off. Do you allow the government to control or do you expect personal responsibility for personal decisions? I know it's not "realistic." But... it's still my hope.

True. An appalling number don't. But, we are willing to trust them to HAVE the children. Allowing them to reproduce without expecting the responsibility of taking care of those children. There is something wrong with that. If we trust them to get pregnant, if we trust them to have the children... we should TRUST them to raise them. If you can't... then you have to ask... do you trust them to get pregnant? And then opens up the whole can on reproductive rights. With rights come responsibilities. PERIOD. It is the PARENTS responsibility. If they want to name the child "Jesus" or "Hitler." If they want to breast or bottle feed. If they want to home school or public. If they want to send their child to government lectures or not... Those are all independent decisions that THEY get to make. Some of those decisions I would agree with, some I wouldn't. But ultimately it's NONE OF MY BUSINESS.

Unless they are knowledgable enough to teach all the subjects in the national curriculum and are able dedicate the time necessary to educate their child to the required standard, then yes I'd say they are guilty of child abuse. I know of very few people who I would consider to be qualified to home school. I am not one of them. - Granted. That is actually my opinion of MY ability as well. However, I also not so trusting to believe that everything that is in the "national curriculum" is correct either. If you're not qualified to teach the national curriculum, how are you qualified to say whether it is correct? There are subjects I am not qualified to teach nor am I qualified to say whether the national curriculum is correct. But if I refused to allow my kids to learn on an equal footing with all the other kids, I'd be doing them a disservice. It's better to criticise a subject for what it actually is rather than what I might erroneously think it is. Did you skip over the section where I learned that what I learned in high school was wrong?

Unless they are knowledgable enough to teach all the subjects in the national curriculum and are able dedicate the time necessary to educate their child to the required standard, then yes I'd say they are guilty of child abuse. I know of very few people who I would consider to be qualified to home school. I am not one of them. - Granted. That is actually my opinion of MY ability as well. However, I also not so trusting to believe that everything that is in the "national curriculum" is correct either. In college, I took a course called Rhetoric of Campaigns and Revolutions. 372 Rhetoric of Campaigns and Revolutions. 3 cr. Public discourse as it affects and reflects the process of dynamic social change. Historical and contemporary instances of rhetorical processes. P: So st. It actually taught me A LOT about how "simple words" can change the world. It taught me that high school history is "wrong" - meaning a simplified and incomplete version of "real" history. I don't trust every thing that I'm told. Did the UW-Madison make me "paranoid"? Hell no. But it furthered my desire to question what I'm told and not just accept everything at face value. I can't say I'd be too happy about doing that to one of my kids but I will accept there may be mitigating circumstances I don't know about in this case. But as a general principle yes, I'd be looking at a situation like that to see if it was a form of child abuse. So we are agreed. On a microcosm, sometime things can be justified. BUT that doesn't mean that the situation is right.... kinda like another topic that we're discussing.

Wonderful news. Not the accident itself, but the recovery that will be possible.

Yes, it might have even been both. I'll concede that. But why are you so willing to believe that the 44th Administration couldn't possibly do anything like that? If one "side" in these politics can be "evil," isn't the whole system flawed?

Where did your post justifying the "paranoid" comment go? I was actually looking forward to this opportunity to address that remark. Mentioning something like "ah, yes. using a limited definition for an adjective totally erases any insult that was intended with that word. Now post number three in this thread isn't insulting at all." But if I truly believed that, I would either have Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease or the counter-coup injuries from my past did more damage than had thought. -and for the record, no. I'm not suggesting that ALL kids are better off dropping out of school. But I have signed official medical statements for several allowing them not to have to interact in a school environment. And I have a good friend that home schools her five children. I have some personal reservations about that decision, but - GUESS WHAT - they aren't my children. She and her husband have the RIGHT to make that choice. I also have some friends that chose to go the route of private schools... again, same argument. Just because I don't want the Government giving speeches to children, doesn't mean that I want an under-educated population. Making that leap of logic is faulty.

TK, have you read ANY of my posts? was there ANY effort on your part to understand the opposite opinion? Or am I just a moron, an IDIOT? (as I think I see in the post above) (and for the record - I'm not Republican, so don't label me as either 'right' or 'left.')