What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Obama XXII: Occupy the White House

  • Thread starter Thread starter Priceless
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House

gojackets said:
As a teacher of HS freshman, I'm amazed every year at the lack of knowledge kids come to me with on a yearly basis. It gets worse every year. Then to be constantly told by people who have never taught before, that the way you or I was taught doesn't work anymore. I'd say that what we're doing now isn't working and maybe we should go back. I was also reprimanded for pushing my kids too hard, expecting too much out of them, and failing to many kids who couldn't handle that I actually expected them to do work and learn. I don't really know if that fits in with your comment...but felt the need to vent for a minute.
Click to expand...

come now, why would you say it isn't working?...our kids have terrible test scores but high self-esteem...none of them are dumb, some are just less brilliant than others. All those honor roll bumper stickers can't be wrong.

I can't beleive their our peopel out their which think are schools be bad.
 
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House

Kepler said:
The advantage of 2012 over 2008 is while we'll vote for him again (no choice; thanks a lot Republicans) we won't be disappointed this time. :D
Click to expand...
the GOP process is not over. Patience grasshopper.

For your consumption:
"Somewhere around 2004 the Republican Party broke in a new way. The GOP had been riven before -- Taft-Eisenhower, Goldwater-Establishment, Reagan-Ford -- and always healed back. But the split that grew after 2004 was different. Trust broke, and in a time not of peace and prosperity but of crisis. Which made the impact deeper. What is called the tea party is the rightward part of the conservative base. They became angry that they had trusted the Republican establishment during a Republican presidency, only to see that establishment run up huge debt, launch foreign wars, contribute to the surveillance state, and refuse to control America's borders. What made the anger deeper is that they were angry at themselves. They felt complicit: They had not rebelled, they had trusted the party: 'They're the GOP establishment, they must know what they're doing.' What the conservative base had learned by 2008 is: Don't trust the Republican party. Don't trust its establishments. ... The Republicans' challenge now: holding together, and breaking 20th-century stereotypes. They should distance themselves from government even as they prove they can govern, and not only oppose but propose. They should put themselves apart from the rigged, piggish insider life of Washington. And try not to look nuts while they're doing it." --columnist Peggy Noonan
Click to expand...

"[R]ight now, the 'anybody but Mitt' crowd to me looks like a mix of Perry fans who can't believe any conservative could seriously support those jokers Cain and Bachmann, Cain fans who can't believe anybody could back that loser Perry and that loon Bachmann, Bachmann fans who can't believe everybody's jumped off the bandwagon of the one true conservative fighter, Newt fans who can't believe everybody makes such a big deal about his marital difficulties, and so on. I'm not sure anybody has much of a second choice right now, much less a potential consensus choice. I exaggerate slightly, but right now, it doesn't seem as if many primary voters see many of the options as 'pretty good.' The field is simply 'their guy' versus a bunch of laughingstocks who deserve to be booed off the stage." --National Review's Jim Geraghty
Click to expand...

"Economic envy may cloak itself in rhetoric about 'inequality' or 'egalitarianism' or 'redistribution of wealth,' but its oldest name is covetousness. That is the sin enjoined by the last of the Ten Commandments: 'Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house; thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, or his manservant, or his maidservant, or his ox, or his ***, or anything that is thy neighbor's.' At first blush it may seem odd that God would ban a mere desire. After all, the other nine commandments concern behavior: idolatry, theft, perjury, and so on. But as a matter of moral and social hygiene, the Tenth Commandment is indispensable. Covetousness -- particularly when it takes the form of class hatred -- is the root of innumerable other evils. From the belief that you don't have enough because others have too much, it isn't that great a stretch to the belief that those who have too much should be forced to make do with less. It shouldn't be surprising when a movement obsessed with what rich capitalists earn rather than with what they produce starts treating other people's property and persons with contempt. Occupy Wall Street preaches that the '1 percent' got rich by exploiting the '99 percent.' The Tea Party believes that with greater freedom and less government, we could all be more prosperous and productive. One is rooted in envy, the other in self-respect. What distinguishes them, you might say, is the culture of the Tenth Commandment. That distinction is showing up in many ways, not least in the latest police reports." --columnist Jeff Jacoby
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House

joecct said:
"Economic envy may cloak itself in rhetoric about 'inequality' or 'egalitarianism' or 'redistribution of wealth,' but its oldest name is covetousness. That is the sin enjoined by the last of the Ten Commandments: 'Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house; thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, or his manservant, or his maidservant, or his ox, or his ***, or anything that is thy neighbor's.' At first blush it may seem odd that God would ban a mere desire. After all, the other nine commandments concern behavior: idolatry, theft, perjury, and so on. But as a matter of moral and social hygiene, the Tenth Commandment is indispensable. Covetousness -- particularly when it takes the form of class hatred -- is the root of innumerable other evils. From the belief that you don't have enough because others have too much, it isn't that great a stretch to the belief that those who have too much should be forced to make do with less. It shouldn't be surprising when a movement obsessed with what rich capitalists earn rather than with what they produce starts treating other people's property and persons with contempt. Occupy Wall Street preaches that the '1 percent' got rich by exploiting the '99 percent.' The Tea Party believes that with greater freedom and less government, we could all be more prosperous and productive. One is rooted in envy, the other in self-respect. What distinguishes them, you might say, is the culture of the Tenth Commandment. That distinction is showing up in many ways, not least in the latest police reports." --columnist Jeff Jacoby
Click to expand...

So if you live in a 1 bedroom apartment above a guy who may or may not be running a meth lab, and you want to move into a nice house in the suburbs and have a car so you can drive to work, YOU'RE A DIRTY SINNER AND YOU'RE GOING STRAIGHT TO HELL!
 
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-11-07-09-30-12

Well, this is humorous. We won't touch entitlements which benefit a ****ton of people who have a net worth that averages sixty times that of the typical young adult who must pay OASDI taxes to fund said entitlements. That same young adult will receive fewer benefits 30+ years from now due to our budget problems all while paying a higher tax rate going forward (more than likely) - again, due to our budget problems.

At some point, it's going to degenerate into armed revolt if groups like AARP aren't willing to sacrifice some benefits since they're basically screwing the working class to enjoy comfortable retirements.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House

Twitch Boy said:
So if you live in a 1 bedroom apartment above a guy who may or may not be running a meth lab, and you want to move into a nice house in the suburbs and have a car so you can drive to work, YOU'RE A DIRTY SINNER AND YOU'RE GOING STRAIGHT TO HELL!
Click to expand...
That's not what the writer said.

If you're going to sit on your butt and whine about the crappy hand you were dealt and throw rocks at the rich person because he/she is doing better than you, then that's wrong. If you bust your butt you have a shot at improvement, you may not make it, but you have a shot. Sitting on your butt in a public park will not get you your first million (unless you rob the bank).
 
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House

joecct said:
If you're going to sit on your butt and whine about the crappy hand you were dealt and throw rocks at the rich person because he/she is doing better than you, then that's wrong.
Click to expand...
It is, but this is way too easy a dismissal of this protest, and it's always used, no matter what the merits of the case. (Or to put it another way: just because everybody believes something doesn't mean it's wrong.)

The workflow of any protest of the status quo includes defenders falling all over themselves to justify the status quo by trying to delegitimize the protesters. The fact that there's a nice, comfortable narrative out there to do it proves nothing either way.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House

outrage-ami150.gif
 
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House

Not sure where else to put this observation...so here it is.

If one looks around, it has been quite easy to meet and hear from folks on the far right. There has been movements like burning Korans, God hates gays and earlier last decade in talk of turning entire nations into nuclear wastelands. Also coming from the right, it seems like there has been continuous talk from the right about the extreme left agenda. How Barak was going to be a socialist using government to take over US capitalism (which is a far cry from anything tied to reality). Indeed the existence of a far left has been quite hard to find (except in history books of Haight Ashbury)...and no, societal push for green technologies does not count.

But there is emerging evidence of a far left in terms of elements of OWS. Recently there has been discussion about a goal to shut down wall street. It is at this point that its moving from liberal free speech about opportunities for improvement to something more negative. A key catalyst IMO is the fact that there is no single opinion, purpose, mission. This is a radical left idea. And even if that purpose is to shut down big business...that is a radical left idea.

Indeed the radical left is raising its head for the first time in many years...and although it would be better served as a deterent to the hard right...its outcomes are just appearing to be primarily negative and destructive rather than defensive in the face of radical right ideals.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House

I don't think this is a surprise. 90% of the time we have only an extremely narrow range of political opinion in the US compared to most (all?) other western democracies, because 90% of the time a sizable majority of Americans has felt relatively safe and prosperous. Right wing ideas (militarism, xenophobia) gain traction when people feel like their safety is threatened, while left wing ideas (wealth redistribution) gain traction when people feel their prosperity is threatened.

The Father Coughlin types were ascendant after 9/11. Now the John Steinbeck types (like me ;) ) are ascendant. But both phenomenon are temporary. Or at least they have been for the last century or so. Before that, when America was neither quite so secure nor fat, our politics tended to be more "interesting," in the Chinese curse sense of the word.

We may just be rejoining the rest of the world after a blissful century's holiday from reality. If so, it will test whether we're actually exceptional or whether we were just spoiled.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House

unofan said:
So does that mean we have the George Bush Sr. Steak Tax (which funds things like the Beef: It's What's for Dinner ad campaign), or the Bill Clinton Milk Tax (funding things like the Got Milk campaign)?

Because that's what this is.
Click to expand...
When can I expect to see Christmas tree ads?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top