Quoting:
Oh, what things did he say that are racist?
End Quote

Quoting:
Oh, what things did he say that are racist?
End Quote

I can give you a list if you want, but here is one example.

When he had his TV show, he had this bit where he said liberal blacks might need a translator to understand him. So he had the screen split with a black guy in what appeared to be african tribal dress, making clicking noises as Limbaugh spoke.

Quoting:
BTW, is there a smiley I can add which pukes?
End Quote

Here is one for you, John.

http://www.click-smilies.de/sammlung/wuerg/vomit-smiley-001.gif



Cat

Quoting:



Here is one for you, John.

http://www.click-smilies.de/sammlung/wuerg/vomit-smiley-001.gif



Cat
End Quote

It is green puke? I wonder what that fellow ate for lunch.

Quoting:


It is green puke? I wonder what that fellow ate for lunch.
End Quote

Spinach?  ;)


Cat

Quoting:
My math teacher is a Limbaugh lemming.
End Quote

Rush could never be a Lemming. Lemmings have to be able to work well with others. Rush would quickly point out the slackers and lable them as "darker lemmings". He would then construct a system where he was at the top and everyone was working for him, even though Rush did nothing but collect a paycheck. What would the lemmings get for their hard work? Snapple. There would be a lemming revolution. The lemmings would demand a new governement. Rush would flee to naples, where he would critisize the new government as a bunch of "thugs" unfit for the world community. There would be a Snapple embargo. The lemmings would have to live off cars from the 1950's and drink juice with only 10% real friut.

Quoting:
A. Rush Is not racist

B. Rush is not fat

C. Rush's listeners are not "Mindless", and are more informed. If you want to see a bunch of uninformed fools, I suggest you look at the dems supporters.

D. This is not the first time he has been hired as a football commentator, so why is this News?

End Quote

Rush is a racist. What would you call his "African Interpreter"? Sick Comedy?

As for the football part, I do not think political commentators should be hired. Sports is a passtime, not a place for Rush to spew his hate.

And I remember his "EIB Network". It was nothing but a front against the people.

Modified to add that Rush was HUGE. I dunno if he lost the weight, and if he did I would suspect modern medicine had something to do with it. Rush is a sorry excuse for greed.

Quoting:
My 2 cents:


I'm not a fan of Rush.  I'll listen occasionally while flipping through the AM dial during lunch time.  But I don't make it a point to listen.

But, from what I know about him, I can say he is not a racist.  Yes, his comments can seem hateful if you are on the receiving end, but racist he is not.  Of the times I have listened, I have heard him praise many blacks for their achievements regarding politics, human services, etc.  Would a racist do that?  

And regarding his weight.  Is it even relivent?  But for the record, he used to be very fat, now he is pretty slim.

Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer.  Nothing more nothing less.  

However, when someone has a show as popular and wide-spread as his is with the gigantic fan-base he has, it makes him about the same as any celebrity, doesn't it?  What makes him any more greedy than, say, Martin Sheen or Barbra Streisand?

One can't help but wonder if he were a liberal talk show host, and everything he said was on the opposite end of the political spectrum, would you hate him so much.
End Quote

yeah man!

and I happon to be an avid Rush fan...

now seriously, how mature are you really if you make fun of someone for their weight?  Thats just like making fun of the president by calling him dubya...

Out of things to call this guy now, so why not pull the raciest card?  Happons to be entirely false!  Raciest people dont support black people behind their running for president.  

As 80s rocked said, if he were liberal, no one would be making fun of him at all...and Id like to say that, Conservatives are more mature and civilized for name calling and false rumors

Quoting:
My 2 cents:

I have heard him praise many blacks for their achievements regarding politics, human services, etc.  Would a racist do that?  

End Quote

Erm...to be fair, if you are talking about 'black achievements' you are grouping them all together as a race.  It's 'positive discrimination' but discrimination nonetheless.  Isn't that racism?

Quoting:

One can't help but wonder if he were a liberal talk show host, and everything he said was on the opposite end of the political spectrum, would you hate him so much.

End Quote

I don't hate him, but it would depend on what the lefty was saying.

Quoting:
But, from what I know about him, I can say he is not a racist.  Yes, his comments can seem hateful if you are on the receiving end, but racist he is not.
End Quote

Hateful, but not racist?

Anyways, it appears either people like him or hate him. I dislike him, because in my opinion he is very hateful of people different than him.

Quoting:


Hateful, but not racist?

Anyways, it appears either people like him or hate him. I dislike him, because in my opinion he is very hateful of people different than him.
End Quote

but John, in the end, we're all hateful people...

everyone's a raciest, some just dont keep it inside, and those are the ones hated for it...

Quoting:


everyone's a raciest...End Quote

That's your opinion. I don't consider myself a racist at all.

Quoting:
Conservatives are more mature and civilized for name calling and false rumors

End Quote

Like when my conservative classmate refered to me as John Walker? I'm sure Ann Coulter would NEVER stoop to name calling.

In general, leftists definately tend to be more mellow. The exeptions are the perpetually pissed off leftists, who are doing and saying angry things because the right is gaining power now.

Don't be silly. Conservatives are just as nasty as Michael More ever was. (And they didn't win an Oscar).

Quoting:


but John, in the end, we're all hateful people...

everyone's a raciest, some just dont keep it inside, and those are the ones hated for it...
End Quote

Speak for yourself, and if that is what you think of yourself, you might want to consider a change in life style.  I know that if I thought I was hateful, I would.

And I don't agree that "everyone is a racist".  Some of my best friends are white, and I forgive them  ;)  In fact, while there are some mitocondrial and Y markers that characterize "racial" groups, genetically, we are all cousins, with a common ancestor.  "race" just doesn't exist biologically, so why do we harp on it?

Quoting:


but John, in the end, we're all hateful people...

everyone's a raciest, some just dont keep it inside, and those are the ones hated for it...
End Quote

I was racist towards my own race for a while (caucasian). I couldn't get over how full of self pity we are. I accept now that there are good white people. It's taken a while, but I believe I have my prejudice under control. Unfortunately, it still comes out sometimes... UP YOURS, WHITEY!!!  ;D

Quoting:

I was racist towards my own race for a while (caucasian). I couldn't get over how full of self pity we are. I accept now that there are good white people. It's taken a while, but I believe I have my prejudice under control. Unfortunately, it still comes out sometimes... UP YOURS, WHITEY!!!  ;D
End Quote

What did you have against Carcasions?

Quoting:


What did you have against Carcasions?
End Quote

Well, one could make the argument that it was caucasions who practiced the slave trade (with African and Islamic assistance) and eliminated, by choice or accident) several million inhabitants of the western hemisphere, but that aside, as I said before, "some of my best friends are caucasian".  

Quoting:


Well, one could make the argument that it was caucasions who practiced the slave trade (with African and Islamic assistance) and eliminated, by choice or accident) several million inhabitants of the western hemisphere, but that aside, as I said before, "some of my best friends are caucasian".  
End Quote

ah!  No offence Don, Im getting rather tired of people having hatred towards another because of their actions at a differint time in history.  Human instinct is to follow, Americans saw slave trade going on, they needed goods from other countries, including slaves, so they participated.  In the end, supporting it was nothing more than Nationalism for one's country.  Of course, if someone supported slave trade in a present day world, Id be the first to consider that guy a raciest.

Quoting:

Human instinct is to follow, Americans saw slave trade going on, they needed goods from other countries, including slaves, so they participated.  In the end, supporting it was nothing more than Nationalism for one's country.
End Quote

How can you say this? So if I take all your children and force them into poverty for 2 generations while my kids prosper at their expense, then that will be okay in two generations, just wrong today? This is the kind of thing I would expect to hear from Rush. Slavery was just as wrong then, even if it meant America would have failed economically.

Quoting:


How can you say this? So if I take all your children and force them into poverty for 2 generations while my kids prosper at their expense, then that will be okay in two generations, just wrong today? This is the kind of thing I would expect to hear from Rush. Slavery was just as wrong then, even if it meant America would have failed economically.
End Quote

No, it wont be ok, because right now, you are the only one creating havok!  If you had a lot of people following you in this and doing the same thing, then theyre nto guilty.  Only you'd be guilty in that situation.  The people going with the fad are not the guilty ones!

Quoting:

If you had a lot of people following you in this and doing the same thing, then theyre nto guilty.
End Quote

What about the people who were harmed?

I believe in right and wrong, regardless of the time. Slavery was just as wrong back then as it is now. And the families who profited from slavery should have their money taken away, just like the banks that held Nazi money. They are no different from the Nazi's. But I guess black americans do not have enough money or power to cause political change in this country the way Jews do.

Quoting:
What about the people who were harmed?

I believe in right and wrong, regardless of the time. Slavery was just as wrong back then as it is now. And the families who profited from slavery should have their money taken away, just like the banks that held Nazi money. They are no different from the Nazi's. But I guess black americans do not have enough money or power to cause political change in this country the way Jews do.
End Quote

ok John, let me get this straight:

You're suggesting there be an global witch-hunt into any and all white persons who may or may not have had ancestors who were involved in slavery 2 centuries ago, and force them to pay money?  

Pay money to who?

What, just have the govt start writing checks to every single black person because of what happened to their ancestors 2 centuries ago?



Yes, slavery was wrong, nobody in their right mind can deny that.  However, I'm sorry, but I think you are way off base here.

Quoting:


ok John, let me get this straight:

You're suggesting there be an global witch-hunt into any and all white persons who may or may not have had ancestors who were involved in slavery 2 centuries ago, and force them to pay money?  

Pay money to who?

What, just have the govt start writing checks to every single black person because of what happened to their ancestors 2 centuries ago?



Yes, slavery was wrong, nobody in their right mind can deny that.  However, I'm sorry, but I think you are way off base here.


End Quote

That is what Jewish people forced banks which did buisness with Nazi's to do, to give back the cash. Blacks just are not organized, have no real power, and have no real wealth to cause political change. Instead they have Rev Sharpton to ack more like a court jester than an effective influance on the powers that be. Contrast that with the special interest groups that Jewish people have, and how they effect culture through movies like Schindlers List or laws and international policy through special interest groups which fund members of congress. Or for that fact, you could look at any well organized and funded group, they all are able to effect change for thier benifit.

As for your question, I am opposed to reperations, I think you are correct that it would be difficult figuring out who owes what, while it is easy to figure out to whom it is owed. After all, hundreds of thousands of whites did die in the cival war fighting for blacks to be free.

My whole point is we have a country of some who can do no wrong, and others who start out at such a disadvanatge that it's nearly impossible for them to have any chance of making it. Bad schools + Bad neighborhoods = ??

80sRocked, have you ever been in a ghetto? I went once to check it out for a school paper, figuring some first hand looking would be good. I will never go back there again. I could not imagine how horrible it might be to live there.

Quoting:


My whole point is we have a country of some who can do no wrong, and others who start out at such a disadvanatge that it's nearly impossible for them to have any chance of making it. Bad schools + Bad neighborhoods = ??

80sRocked, have you ever been in a ghetto? I went once to check it out for a school paper, figuring some first hand looking would be good. I will never go back there again. I could not imagine how horrible it might be to live there.
End Quote

So let me get this strait, they got poor living conditions, and just so coincidently, these people's ancesters were slaves.  So lets find all slave owners and give them the money they profited.  Imagine if it was the other way around?  Imagine if it was the owner's ancestors in the ghetto and the slaves are the richer of the two groups.  You wouldn't even be saying anything close to what youre saying right now.  Times change!  Remember, equal rights doesn't mean that the lesser has greater.

Thats why I find it entirely incorrect to not punish the person who started something, but punish the follower.  By not punishing the starter, all youre doing is making it look okay for the others to act the same, so, them getting in trouble is your fault.  

I jumped around here because Im tired, but you get my point...

Quoting:


...and Id like to say that, Conservatives are more mature and civilized for name calling and false rumors

End Quote

Do the names Monica Lewinski and Paula Jones ring a bell?  Read David Brock's Blinded by the Right to see just how far some conservatives were willing to go, how far they were willing to stretch the truth to "get" Bubba, and for what, because he has trouble keeping his pants on?  These "crimes" certainly don't raise to the level of betraying the public trust, at least not IMHO.

Quoting:
(1) Slavery existed long before what happened in the Americas.

(2) And you might want to mention what the early Spaniards did to the inhabitants of Mexico before you pointing fingers about slavery in America.

(3) The Spanish did the same thing to South America and Mexico that Europeans did to America and Canada.

End Quote

(1) Yes, it did, but CHATTLE slavery was invented in Virginia, and did not exist in the Spanish empire.  There, slaves had legal rights which were protected by both the crown and the Church.

(2) The Spaniard (who, by the way ARE caucasian) broght small pox to the western hemisphere inadvertantly, and it killed millions - no question.  And they were fierce fighters in combat, but the NEVER distributed small pox infested blankets to Indians, as Jeffery Amhurst did.  They never purposly spread the disease.

(3) Not quite (and again, Spaniards ARE Europeans.  In fact, in order for one to qualify for membership in the "Spanish world" one had to demonstrate, through a "cedula de limpiez de sangre" that their blood was "untainted".  A racist concept to be sure.).  In British America the goal was to exterminate the natives.  In Spanish America  the goal was to exploit them, which meant preserving them.  To my mind, totally different.

Quoting:


ah!  No offence Don, Im getting rather tired of people having hatred towards another because of their actions at a differint time in history.  Human instinct is to follow, Americans saw slave trade going on, they needed goods from other countries, including slaves, so they participated.  In the end, supporting it was nothing more than Nationalism for one's country.  Of course, if someone supported slave trade in a present day world, Id be the first to consider that guy a raciest.
End Quote

As a matter of fact I hold no hatred for any group - individuals, yes, but not groups - and I certainly have no need or desire to cast hatred back into the past.  That's a waist of time and emotion.  As I said before, slavery has existed for a long time (you might want to read Marvin Harris's Cannibles and Kings on this.  In fact, the whole book is very good, and not "academic").  But if you read the history, it is clear that the Virginians created a new form of slavery that had never existed before.  It's called CHATTLE slavery.

Quoting:


Do the names Monica Lewinski and Paula Jones ring a bell?  Read David Brock's Blinded by the Right to see just how far some conservatives were willing to go, how far they were willing to stretch the truth to "get" Bubba, and for what, because he has trouble keeping his pants on?  These "crimes" certainly don't raise to the level of betraying the public trust, at least not IMHO.
End Quote

And is this guy's book not specific proof that liberals still care about what happoned five years ago, and dont focus on current issues?  You see, republicans are do-ers, liberals are complainers.  At least we had probable cause for impeachment, as compared to some liberals out there who believe Bush should be impeached for no reason...

Quoting:


And is this guy's book not specific proof that liberals still care about what happoned five years ago, and dont focus on current issues?  You see, republicans are do-ers, liberals are complainers.  At least we had probable cause for impeachment, as compared to some liberals out there who believe Bush should be impeached for no reason...
End Quote

Well, Mike, I wouldn't go so far to generalize that ALL Republicans are do-ers and ALL liberals (i.e., Democrats) are complainers.  But recently, it seems to me that the Democrat party hasn't had too much of an actual platform other than "we hate Bush," so I can see where you're coming from.  Even if Bush were to swing totally to the left, the fact that he is a Republican will still mark him as the enemy.  For example, let's look at an excerpt from the other thread of what our esteemed professor Don Carlos has to say:

Quoting:...  but little Georgie is just bad, BAD BAD.  The guy is scary.  Anti-labor, anti-environment, anti-affirmative action, anti-feminist, anti-medicare/medicaid, pro big busisness, PRO BIG BUSINESS and PRO BIG BUSINESS.  End Quote

Recently, "little Georgie" has been very strong in pushing Medicare/Medicaid reforms, and is even increasing spending.  He has also pushed tax cuts intended to help middle- and small-businesses, so in that sense he is not completely pro-big business.  He has also defended diversity in universities, which, although it is not affirmative action, certainly speaks volumes about his desire to better the minority situation.  But like you said, Mike, since Georgie is a GOP, he's gonna get trashed no matter what he does.

Quoting:






Recently, "little Georgie" has been very strong in pushing Medicare/Medicaid reforms, and is even increasing spending.  He has also pushed tax cuts intended to help middle- and small-businesses, so in that sense he is not completely pro-big business.  He has also defended diversity in universities, which, although it is not affirmative action, certainly speaks volumes about his desire to better the minority situation.  But like you said, Mike, since Georgie is a GOP, he's gonna get trashed no matter what he does.
End Quote

that seems to be a common trend among democrats these days, especially young ones....In our (the college republicans) debates with the Young democrats, Ive noticed, that they have no clue what the issues are, or what the causes for the issues are, or just plainly how the government works and people vote.....all they express is a hatred towards George Bush, and their reasons...he's a republican.  Yes, eventully someone comes up with somehting substancial like "I dont like him because of the war", but even that loses potency because when asked who the leader of Iraq is, half of them think it is Osama Bin Ladin, and the other half are SURE it's Osama Bin Ladin.  Well, I guess this is expected from a bunch of long haired hippies that are more concerned with having free pot for everyone than voting (and this isnt a cheap insult, this IS actully what they are...all the college democrat leaders are exactly just like I discribed....AND they are also the leaders of Students against injustice, but dont get me started on how much I hate them...)..anyway, I find it really distrubing that this is our future....actully, now I dont feel worried, because I know that these people wont be the future..theyre gonna be the ones that go move onto a commune in some secluded part of New Mexico and never vote because "it's too capitalist".....

Quoting:


And is this guy's book not specific proof that liberals still care about what happoned five years ago, and dont focus on current issues?  You see, republicans are do-ers, liberals are complainers.  At least we had probable cause for impeachment, as compared to some liberals out there who believe Bush should be impeached for no reason...
End Quote

Lets weigh the two "probable causes for impeachment" here.......Lying about an illicit affair with a 22 year old bimbo.............. using bogus "intelligence" to justify invading a sovereign nation. Damn right I'm going to complain! >:(

Quoting:


that seems to be a common trend among democrats these days, especially young ones....In our (the college republicans) debates with the Young democrats, Ive noticed, that they have no clue what the issues are, or what the causes for the issues are, or just plainly how the government works and people vote.....all they express is a hatred towards George Bush, and their reasons...he's a republican.  Yes, eventully someone comes up with somehting substancial like "I dont like him because of the war", but even that loses potency because when asked who the leader of Iraq is, half of them think it is Osama Bin Ladin, and the other half are SURE it's Osama Bin Ladin.  Well, I guess this is expected from a bunch of long haired hippies that are more concerned with having free pot for everyone than voting (and this isnt a cheap insult, this IS actully what they are...all the college democrat leaders are exactly just like I discribed....AND they are also the leaders of Students against injustice, but dont get me started on how much I hate them...)..anyway, I find it really distrubing that this is our future....actully, now I dont feel worried, because I know that these people wont be the future..theyre gonna be the ones that go move onto a commune in some secluded part of New Mexico and never vote because "it's too capitalist".....


End Quote

First, if what you described are the democrats you know, then you must be at a community college. As for the "who is the leader of Iraq" question, I see stuff like this on the Leno show where they are asked "who is the vice president" and half the people on the street do not know. I think it is good that young democrats want to learn about the issues, and rather than critisize 18 year olds, why not tell them the anwser? Maybe the 18 year old democrat does not stay at home and watch CNN 24 hours a day. Maybe the 18 year old democrat knows that bush cut some program which was important to him, and that effected his life, so he dislikes Bush?

As for the Iraq question, I will agree with you that Hussien is a bad guy, but would you want to go and fight? I am amazed at how some people will support war until they have to go and fight and be shot at. Republicans seem to have no problem telling the young poor to go and die in a foriegn country because Nixon or GW wants a pissing contest. BTW, do you know how extreme GW is? He isolated France and Germany and many of our european friends by attacking and killing Iraqis over oil. That is the idiot running the show.

Anyways, back to your point. There are many issues that republicans suck at. The biggest one is education. Republicans have no clue what to do. They want to hand out vouchers so rich families can get money back for sending their kids to private schools. It is a way of redistributing wealth from the poor to the rich, and breaking city schools at the same time. Democrats want to fix the public school system so everyone gets a good education. Democrats are for teachers not having to use thier own money to buy school supplies for the classroom. Democrats are for after school programs where kids will be tutored, regardless of if they can afford it. Republicans want to take away the lunch program for poor kids.

Another issue that republicans have dead wrong is health care. Republicans seem to think the only people who should have health care are the rich. They figure the rest of us should die around 50 or 60, just before social security benifits should start. Speaking of social security, republicans are the ones who want to destroy social security by taking all the money and giving it to companies like Enron to invest with. One big banckrupcy by a rich greedy person and our social security will go the way of the Enron workers pensions.

Now back to GW. He is a fraud. Why should clinton have to anwser questions and go through an impeachment over a private sex event, but GW can commint securities fraud of $800,000 and not have to anwser for it? Why is it that GW does cocain and had a DIU and will not talk about it. I think it is far more serious to do cocain and be president than have sex in private. Oh, I forgot, republicans are the ones who want to come in your bedroom and regualate "how you do it".

Quoting:
Yup, all us young Democrats really have no clue what is going on. We are blissfully unaware of Bush's taxcut which has achieved nothing but more of a deficit. I have no idea why I am protesting a completely unnecessary and unjustified war. I just give blank stares to the old Dems who go on and on about how Bush is destroying health care, social security, the environment, the economy, our credibility as a nation, our image as a nation, jobs, services and basically anything he can get his hands on.

I had no idea that Bush is against abortion (as I am), yet for the Death penalty and that we are the only industrialized country that excecutes minors.

I really am clueless. Some bright young conservative help me out here.
End Quote

I have noticed that many young republicans, the kind that are brainwashed by O'Rielly and Limbaugh, are the ones given false promises. They are told to work hard, work very hard and you can be as rich as you want to. Why give the poor anything, they do not work nearly as hard as you do. Keep it all for yourself, you have no responsibility to your America at all. We can rope the poor into figthing our wars. We will force them into being useful, as we see fit.

Then you know what happens? These young people graduate college with a $40,000 loan and get a job making 35k a year, and they bust their buts for 2 or 3 years waiting for that big promotion, until our economy goes in a minor recission, and they are the first ones laid off. Then that same company goes and gets a new bunch of college recruits and starts them off at the same payrate.

I guess you have to have lived a little to see all the false hopes, promises, and lies the republicans keep retelling. If you look at who has wealth in America, you will see it is in the same families, for generations. The republicans have it rigged so they will keep all the wealth. Wealth they did not earn or work for, but inherited.

Quoting:


Now back to GW. He is a fraud. Why should clinton have to anwser questions and go through an impeachment over a private sex event, but GW can commint securities fraud of $800,000 and not have to anwser for it? Why is it that GW does cocain and had a DIU and will not talk about it. I think it is far more serious to do cocain and be president than have sex in private. Oh, I forgot, republicans are the ones who want to come in your bedroom and regualate "how you do it".
End Quote

I think what bothers me most about our most recent presidents is their lack of integrity.

Cheating on your wife says a lot about your character.

Lying about your motives for waging war also says a lot about your character. (BTW...I voted for Bush)

It seems to me there has not been a man of integrity in the white house for several decades.

Quoting:


I think what bothers me most about our most recent presidents is their lack of integrity.

Cheating on your wife says a lot about your character.

Lying about your motives for waging war also says a lot about your character. (BTW...I voted for Bush)

It seems to me there has not been a man of integrity in the white house for several decades.
End Quote

I agree with you 100%. Althought I think there is a huge differance in severity from having an affair to killing people. An affair is horrible, but it should be private between two people. It does not really effect me. But a president who gives false information as a pretext for war and the murder of people, including our own military is such a horrorible person. He lied to us, not about something private, but about war. As for the cocain, I think that is relative too becuase this guy has his finger on the nuclear button. I think someone with altered brain chemistry from cocain is more of a threat than someone who had sex.

Quoting:


First, if what you described are the democrats you know, then you must be at a community college.


End Quote

you just insulted me.....

I am at the Harvard of Long Island.....Hofstra University.....We are one of the best schools in New York State....I do though wonder how some of the people here got in, I mean, I could have gone to much better schools..I could have gotten into American University, or Temple, but I didnt apply to them....I wanted to stay fairly near by my home.....I wonder though how certain people got into this school, I mean they are just so ignorant to facts its not funny.....Ive got to tell a story here...One time in my Western Civilization II class, the professor asked us the question "where would you be if you lived in the 1930s?".....the black girl that sits in front of me responded: "aww, shoot son, I'd be a slave then".....I am so serrious, I swear to God that she said this......I just wanted to walk out of the room after that because I was playing with whether I should break out in laughter, or throw a American history book at her....I hate these idiots who dont know history....

Quoting:


And is this guy's book not specific proof that liberals still care about what happoned five years ago, and dont focus on current issues?  You see, republicans are do-ers, liberals are complainers.  At least we had probable cause for impeachment, as compared to some liberals out there who believe Bush should be impeached for no reason...
End Quote

Assuming that what a Pres tells the American people in a State of the Union adress should be accurate, and given the Li'l Georgie lied, that should be as strong a reason for impeachment as Bubba's B.J.  And a much more serious lie, since the B.J. didn't lead to a war, and Dubya's did. Which betrayal of the public trust is more important?

Quoting:
Which betrayal of the public trust is more important?
End Quote

Ooh! I know this one! Adam Sandler's!...

What? I'm wrong? Just goes to show what young Dems know, huh?

Quoting:


First, if what you described are the democrats you know, then you must be at a community college.
End Quote

What's so wrong with community college John?  Is my education less than yours because I attend a community college? With my community college education, I am surprised I even know who the president is.

Quoting:


Assuming that what a Pres tells the American people in a State of the Union adress should be accurate, and given the Li'l Georgie lied, that should be as strong a reason for impeachment as Bubba's B.J.  And a much more serious lie, since the B.J. didn't lead to a war, and Dubya's did. Which betrayal of the public trust is more important?
End Quote

There is a big difference between Clinton's lie and Bush's accused lie.  Clinton lied in court, which means he committed perjury.  That is why he got impeached.  Plus clinton has had to pay thousands of dollars in dammages to the people his lie harmed.  Clinton lied under oath, Bush did not.  That automatically makes Clinton's lie 1000 times more serious. If you can prove to me that Bush lied, and then get Bush to lie under oath, I would say you have an argument.  Until then, they are not comparable.

Quoting:


What's so wrong with community college John?  Is my education less than yours because I attend a community college? With my community college education, I am surprised I even know who the president is.
End Quote

Did not say that at all. Community Colleges are a great place to learn a trade, skill, or prepare to transfer to a 4 year school. I just would not expect to find seasoned politcial groups on Communit College campuses. Those who are learning a skill or trade probably are not interested in school groups, and those who are just out of highschool probably do not have the experiance. Not the same as 4 year schools.

My original post was not saying that people at CC's have a less valued opinion. What I did say is the young person who was reffered to who did not know who Hussien is, but hated bush, probably did so because of some policy the president backed which effected the students life. That student probably equated loss of some valued program with the president.  

Quoting:

There is a big difference between Clinton's lie and Bush's accused lie.  Clinton lied in court, which means he committed perjury.  That is why he got impeached.  Plus clinton has had to pay thousands of dollars in dammages to the people his lie harmed.  Clinton lied under oath, Bush did not.  That automatically makes Clinton's lie 1000 times more serious. If you can prove to me that Bush lied, and then get Bush to lie under oath, I would say you have an argument.  Until then, they are not comparable.


End Quote

I had to read that twice to make sure I understood what you said is what you really said. Clintion lied about sex. Bush lied about WAR and sent Americans to die in Iraq based on lies. What, is it okay to lie about reasons for war which will KILL PEOPLE? I think the latest toll is up to over 90 Americans dead since the president declared victory. How many died because Clinton lied about his sex life?

Tell me that post was a joke and that you are not more interested in Clintons sex life than in our country's military. BTW, we are getting one HUGE tax bill for this war that we will have to pay.

Quoting:
If you can prove to me that Bush lied, and then get Bush to lie under oath, I would say you have an argument.  Until then, they are not comparable.

End Quote

Bush did lie under oath. Remember his State of the Union? Last time I checked, it is purgery to lie to either House of Congress.

Quoting:

There is a big difference between Clinton's lie and Bush's accused lie.  Clinton lied in court, which means he committed perjury.  That is why he got impeached.  Plus clinton has had to pay thousands of dollars in dammages to the people his lie harmed.  Clinton lied under oath, Bush did not.  That automatically makes Clinton's lie 1000 times more serious. If you can prove to me that Bush lied, and then get Bush to lie under oath, I would say you have an argument.  Until then, they are not comparable.


End Quote

thank you screwball, you got to it before me, and If I had gotten to it first, my reasons for why Clinton is worse would not have been put so elequently....anyway, John, the State of the union was not before congress as in testimony, it was to the American Public...Bush was not under Oath or any kind of contempt of congress law....it is not considered purgery.....plus, if it was, then how come we never brought purgery charges against every other president in the US that said they were going to do something in their SOTU, but never did?  It aint purgery, sorry to disappoint ya.....

Quoting:


thank you screwball, you got to it before me, and If I had gotten to it first, my reasons for why Clinton is worse would not have been put so elequently....anyway, John, the State of the union was not before congress as in testimony, it was to the American Public...Bush was not under Oath or any kind of contempt of congress law....it is not considered purgery.....plus, if it was, then how come we never brought purgery charges against every other president in the US that said they were going to do something in their SOTU, but never did?  It aint purgery, sorry to disappoint ya.....
End Quote

And, much less, its not even known...right now, youre just hopping that it shows to be true...and it isn't purgery unless its an actual lie!  Youre, once again, just accusing him because hes a republican!  Thank You...

Quoting:


I have noticed that many young republicans, the kind that are brainwashed by O'Rielly and Limbaugh, are the ones given false promises. They are told to work hard, work very hard and you can be as rich as you want to. Why give the poor anything, they do not work nearly as hard as you do. Keep it all for yourself, you have no responsibility to your America at all. We can rope the poor into figthing our wars. We will force them into being useful, as we see fit.

Then you know what happens? These young people graduate college with a $40,000 loan and get a job making 35k a year, and they bust their buts for 2 or 3 years waiting for that big promotion, until our economy goes in a minor recission, and they are the first ones laid off. Then that same company goes and gets a new bunch of college recruits and starts them off at the same payrate.

I guess you have to have lived a little to see all the false hopes, promises, and lies the republicans keep retelling. If you look at who has wealth in America, you will see it is in the same families, for generations. The republicans have it rigged so they will keep all the wealth. Wealth they did not earn or work for, but inherited.
End Quote

aint life a b_______?

but serriously, think about it this way, if you were rich, would you want your money reditributed?  and also, most of the rich people did earn their wealth, and not inherit it....the only ones that probably inherieted it are the members of the Upper upper class, like the Kennedys, and the Vanderbuilts.....

Rich people like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs worked long and hard for their millions....and I dont think that they would ever want that taken away from them....so, people call the poor's financial conditions unfair, well, I think its pretty unfair to take away hard earned money as well....try looking at it from the other sides eyes, thats what I always do.......

further, I am not brainwashed by Oreilly and Limbaugh, I havent listened to Limbaugh in about a year and I havent watched a whole episode of Oreilly since the war in Iraq started....I make my own opinions based on the issues that I see in politics and in the world...I dont agree with everything the republicans says, nor do I think that Bush is a great president, but my opinions on issues fall more on the republican side, and so I am a republican....


at least I am truthful that I am a republican, I have friends of mine that are registered democrats, but they are more fiscally conservative than me, and beleive in quite a few republican ideals, yet they refuse to switch parties.....well, i guess it all depends on how they vote, and not what they are registered....if it ever depended on what people were registered, then we'd have a democrat president everytime since there are more registed democrats than republicans in the USA

Quoting:
the State of the union was not before congress as in testimony, it was to the American Public...Bush was not under Oath or any kind of contempt of congress law....
End Quote

So it is okay to lie to start a war where Americans die as long as you tell the lie to the American people and not in a court? It is okay to lie in front of Congress, and influance how they vote? I never understood why republicans cared so much about sex issues, such as who is sleeping with who. Congress never had a valid reason to investigate Clintons sex life. But they do have an interest in protecting Americans. Bush lied openly about the war in Iraq and most republicans do not seem to care. I care about the 90+ americans dead since bush declared hostilities over.

Quoting:
Rich people like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs worked long and hard for their millions....and I dont think that they would ever want that taken away from them....so, people call the poor's financial conditions unfair, well, I think its pretty unfair to take away hard earned money as well....try looking at it from the other sides eyes, thats what I always do.......

End Quote

You are wrong. Most of the wealth at the top has been had by the same families for generations. Gates is a rare exception. Furthermore, why should Bill Gates great, great, grandson inherit a fortune while your great, great grandson has to deal with the same sh!t you do? What did Gates great, great grandson do to earn it, pick the right womb? It is like this guy I know who's grandfater made millions and the kids blew it all away traveling and partying. Should they have wasted that wealth, or does government have a valid reason to "tax it up" and use it for school programs? After all, these rich snobby kids did not earn it.

Quoting:


So it is okay to lie to start a war where Americans die as long as you tell the lie to the American people and not in a court? It is okay to lie in front of Congress, and influance how they vote? I never understood why republicans cared so much about sex issues, such as who is sleeping with who. Congress never had a valid reason to investigate Clintons sex life. But they do have an interest in protecting Americans. Bush lied openly about the war in Iraq and most republicans do not seem to care. I care about the 90+ americans dead since bush declared hostilities over.
End Quote

pick up a law book John, Lying is not illegal unless it is under oath....

Quoting:


You are wrong. Most of the wealth at the top has been had by the same families for generations. Gates is a rare exception. Furthermore, why should Bill Gates great, great, grandson inherit a fortune while your great, great grandson has to deal with the same sh!t you do? What did Gates great, great grandson do to earn it, pick the right womb? It is like this guy I know who's grandfater made millions and the kids blew it all away traveling and partying. Should they have wasted that wealth, or does government have a valid reason to "tax it up" and use it for school programs? After all, these rich snobby kids did not earn it.

End Quote

No, John, it is only the Upper-Upper class that has inherited the money for generations...thats the KENNEDYS, VANDERBUILTS, and CARNEGIES .....the lower-upper class has mostly earned the money...yes, there are a few exceptions...Im sure that there are a few in the lower-upper class that inherited the money, but thats the minority in that class....Bill Gates isnt the exception, he's the rule...he's the american dream..to get rich and then better your family....lets say a poor worker from Europe came here with his family to start a better life and give his children all that he didnt have....He worked his butt off and sweated long days and nights, and finally made a lot of money ...now his family and himself are much better than they were in the European country....so, now since the father worked himself to death, he dies...does this now mean that we take away the money fromt he family?  Do you think that the father, who worked long and hard just to give them a better life would want the money that he gave to them taken away?  Theyd be worse off here than in their original country then....John, look at it from the other persons shoes.....

now, if you excuse me, Ive got to go to work and make money lol

Quoting:


pick up a law book John, Lying is not illegal unless it is under oath....
End Quote

I was under the impression that when you give evidance to Congress, you are under oath. I thought it was illegal to lie to Congress.

So what do you suggest, that before every State of the Union, the Senate Sargent at Arms comes up to the president with a bible and says: "Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?".

I am sorry if you think it is okay to mislead the American people and send kids to die in a foriegn country.

Quoting:


I was under the impression that when you give evidance to Congress, you are under oath. I thought it was illegal to lie to Congress.

So what do you suggest, that before every State of the Union, the Senate Sargent at Arms comes up to the president with a bible and says: "Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?".

I am sorry if you think it is okay to mislead the American people and send kids to die in a foriegn country.
End Quote

its not presenting evidence to congress...its to the american public...he wasnt testifying...

Quoting:


Recently, "little Georgie" has been very strong in pushing Medicare/Medicaid reforms, and is even increasing spending.  He has also pushed tax cuts intended to help middle- and small-businesses, so in that sense he is not completely pro-big business.  He has also defended diversity in universities, which, although it is not affirmative action, certainly speaks volumes about his desire to better the minority situation.  But like you said, Mike, since Georgie is a GOP, he's gonna get trashed no matter what he does.
End Quote

This is mostly just wrong.  The Medicare/medicaide "reform" will provide a very expensive meds benefit that will leave many people out and still cost those in BIG BUCKS.  His tax cuts are for the rich, 90% go to the top 5%.  If you are refering to the inheritance tax, it will have NO EFFECT on small or medium businesses since they were never effected under the tax as it existed.  As to favoring "diversity", how can you achieve it without affirmative action?  Little Georgie opposed the U of Mich.'s program, which was upheld by a very conservative Supreme Court (which has made 2 good decisions lately - this one and the Texas sodomy case).

Let me further point out that I am not affiliated with any political party, so please don't call me a Democrate, and PLEASE don't call me a liberal - I'm far to left for that.  I will support any politician who supports anything close to my views on the issues.  

Let me further inform you conservatives that I very much know what the current issues are, and if I may be so bold, know more about them than many of you, since I know their history.

Quoting:


I have noticed that many young republicans, the kind that are brainwashed by O'Rielly and Limbaugh, are the ones given false promises. They are told to work hard, work very hard and you can be as rich as you want to. Why give the poor anything, they do not work nearly as hard as you do. Keep it all for yourself, you have no responsibility to your America at all. We can rope the poor into figthing our wars. We will force them into being useful, as we see fit.

Then you know what happens? These young people graduate college with a $40,000 loan and get a job making 35k a year, and they bust their buts for 2 or 3 years waiting for that big promotion, until our economy goes in a minor recission, and they are the first ones laid off. Then that same company goes and gets a new bunch of college recruits and starts them off at the same payrate.

I guess you have to have lived a little to see all the false hopes, promises, and lies the republicans keep retelling. If you look at who has wealth in America, you will see it is in the same families, for generations. The republicans have it rigged so they will keep all the wealth. Wealth they did not earn or work for, but inherited.
End Quote

John, you got the drill.  And now they want to do away with the inheritrance tax.  Even Bill Gates and his father want to keep it.

Quoting:


I agree with you 100%. Althought I think there is a huge differance in severity from having an affair to killing people. An affair is horrible, but it should be private between two people. It does not really effect me. But a president who gives false information as a pretext for war and the murder of people, including our own military is such a horrorible person. He lied to us, not about something private, but about war. As for the cocain, I think that is relative too becuase this guy has his finger on the nuclear button. I think someone with altered brain chemistry from cocain is more of a threat than someone who had sex.
End Quote

As I said some time ago, I would hope that the finger on the button is not frustrated, but well satisfied - he should, as someone pointed out, get satisfied AWAY from the button  ;)  And not be a simpleton who's brain is fried on cocane, and couldn't get more than "C" in college.  Wonder if daddy bought those too, along with the SEC ???

Quoting:

There is a big difference between Clinton's lie and Bush's accused lie.  Clinton lied in court, which means he committed perjury.  That is why he got impeached.  Plus clinton has had to pay thousands of dollars in dammages to the people his lie harmed.  Clinton lied under oath, Bush did not.  That automatically makes Clinton's lie 1000 times more serious. If you can prove to me that Bush lied, and then get Bush to lie under oath, I would say you have an argument.  Until then, they are not comparable.


End Quote

I beg to differ.  When the President answers his Constitutional responsibility to appraise the Congress of the State of the Union, one would presume, althought he may not have taken an oath to tell the truth at that moment, that he is bound to tell the truth by the Constitutional requirement.  Lying to Congress, with or without a specific oath, is commiting perjury, which is exactly what little Georgie did.  And, one could argue, that since his lie led to the deaths of (so far) almost 150 American service people (where Clinton's lie inflicted no physical harm on anyone) Georgie might also be charged with at least manslaughter.  I would say that a President, delivering a State of the Union message, IS under oath.  But the Republicans control Congress, so we will never get to explore this issue.  

Quoting:


the State of the union was not before congress as in testimony, it was to the American Public...Bush was not under Oath or any kind of contempt of congress law.....plus, if it was, then how come we never brought purgery charges against every other president in the US that said they were going to do something in their SOTU, but never did?  It aint purgery, sorry to disappoint ya.....
End Quote

In a previous post you bragged about your knowledge of American Gov't.  Might I suggest that you read the U.S. Constitution, which requires the President to report to CONGRESS annually on the State of the Union.  I repeat, it is a Consitutionally mandated testimony to Congress.  While it is true that Presidents also include in it their legislative agends FOR THE FUTURE, these are their wish lists, and should not be considered "promises".  Presidents can't do some of what they would like without Congfressional action.  If that action does not occure, their hands are tied.  

I would have thought that a student at "the Harvard of Long Island" would know these details.

Quoting:


its not presenting evidence to congress...its to the american public...he wasnt testifying...
End Quote

As I said before, READ THE CONSTITUTION.  He was testifying before Congress.  The fact that it was broadcast to the American people is not relevant.  He was fulfilling a CONSTITUTIONAL responsibility, and one might presume that lying to Congress is perjury.

Quoting:
I wonder though how certain people got into this school, I mean they are just so ignorant to facts its not funny.....Ive got to tell a story here...One time in my Western Civilization II class, the professor asked us the question "where would you be if you lived in the 1930s?".....the black girl that sits in front of me responded: "aww, shoot son, I'd be a slave then".....I am so serrious, I swear to God that she said this......I just wanted to walk out of the room after that because I was playing with whether I should break out in laughter, or throw a American history book at her....I hate these idiots who dont know history....
End Quote

While you are correct that slavery was outlawed by the 1930's, her anwser may not be that far off the mark. Consider the following contridiction: the 13th amendment to the constitution ended slavery in 1865 but yet we needed the 24th amendment to end poll taxes in 1964, 99 years later. Everyone knows that poll taxes and tests were just a means to deprive blacks the right to vote (it is interesting to note that women got the right to vote in 1920, less than 85 years ago. you might have a grandmother alive that at one point was prohibited from voting during her lifetime).

If I lived in a time when people were still denying me the right to vote, I think I would not feel like a full citizen.

Other things which might make me feel like a slave: rights that were not present in the 30's might include: 1) it was not until the 1948 that president Truman signed an executive order ending federal discrimination based on race, 2) it took til 1954 to end school segregation (but that was not good enough for governor Faubus of Arkansas, Ike had to send troops there in 1957 to allow blacks in the school. so i guess the law is only as good as who enforces it), 3) in 1955 Rosa Parks was arrested for not giving up her bus seat to a white person, and 4) in 1968 Martin Luther king was assasinated for promoting non-violent protests for civil rights. I might also add it took til 1988 for the non-discrimination laws to go into effect for private institutions recieving federal money (and this happened over jellybean Reagan's veto).

Anyways, I think I would cut her some slack. Chances are if she was alive in the 1930's she would have very few right and experiance discrimination such as having seperate schools or not being able to eat in the same resturants as white people.

I can totally understand how she might feel no better off than a slave if she lived in the 1930's. They stopped using the whip to force them to stay on plantations and replaced it with slums and a lack of food and nessecities. They found other ways to enslave them to whatever end whites wanted.

Quoting:


In a previous post you bragged about your knowledge of American Gov't.  Might I suggest that you read the U.S. Constitution, which requires the President to report to CONGRESS annually on the State of the Union.  I repeat, it is a Consitutionally mandated testimony to Congress.  While it is true that Presidents also include in it their legislative agends FOR THE FUTURE, these are their wish lists, and should not be considered "promises".  Presidents can't do some of what they would like without Congfressional action.  If that action does not occure, their hands are tied.  

I would have thought that a student at "the Harvard of Long Island" would know these details.
End Quote

Every year the president must give his state of the Union address in front of congress, to report to the NATION...other than that, the president is not allowed inside the capital building at all, unless he is given a special invitation....(technicly, he must get the special invitation for the state of the union as well, but that is assumed because the constitution states that he must appear at least once every year)...yes, the SOTU is to inform congress as well, but theres a reason why it is televised on the major channels instead of CSPAN, and why the newspapers covered it greatly before TV..it was so the public, the main people affected by the speech could know what was said.... anyway, its not sworn testimony....

Quoting:


While you are correct that slavery was outlawed by the 1930's, her anwser may not be that far off the mark. Consider the following contridiction: the 13th amendment to the constitution ended slavery in 1865 but yet we needed the 24th amendment to end poll taxes in 1964, 99 years later. Everyone knows that poll taxes and tests were just a means to deprive blacks the right to vote (it is interesting to note that women got the right to vote in 1920, less than 85 years ago. you might have a grandmother alive that at one point was prohibited from voting during her lifetime).

If I lived in a time when people were still denying me the right to vote, I think I would not feel like a full citizen.

Other things which might make me feel like a slave: rights that were not present in the 30's might include: 1) it was not until the 1948 that president Truman signed an executive order ending federal discrimination based on race, 2) it took til 1954 to end school segregation (but that was not good enough for governor Faubus of Arkansas, Ike had to send troops there in 1957 to allow blacks in the school. so i guess the law is only as good as who enforces it), 3) in 1955 Rosa Parks was arrested for not giving up her bus seat to a white person, and 4) in 1968 Martin Luther king was assasinated for promoting non-violent protests for civil rights. I might also add it took til 1988 for the non-discrimination laws to go into effect for private institutions recieving federal money (and this happened over jellybean Reagan's veto).

Anyways, I think I would cut her some slack. Chances are if she was alive in the 1930's she would have very few right and experiance discrimination such as having seperate schools or not being able to eat in the same resturants as white people.

I can totally understand how she might feel no better off than a slave if she lived in the 1930's. They stopped using the whip to force them to stay on plantations and replaced it with slums and a lack of food and nessecities. They found other ways to enslave them to whatever end whites wanted.


End Quote

yeah, but you see, she serriously meant actual slavery...this is just one outburst of this woman...there were many more....(and I agree with you that many blacks did not feel free until the civil rights movement, so theres no need to argue here lol...my point was, that in certain classes im surrounded by idiots lol)

and btw, I wasnt calling all Young democrats idiots before.....just certain ones....you see I specified the leadership of them in my post....

Quoting:


Every year the president must give his state of the Union address in front of congress, to report to the NATION...other than that, the president is not allowed inside the capital buildingEnd Quote

Constitution, Article II, Section III:
"He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States."

Seems to me that he gives the State of the Union TO Congress. But maybe I was reading it wrong?

Quoting:
my point was, that in certain classes im surrounded by idiots lol)
End Quote

I am sorry, I can't refrain. You surrounded by republicans?  ;D

Modified to add: I just could not refrain. No offense to you.  8)

Quoting:


Every year the president must give his state of the Union address in front of congress, to report to the NATION...other than that, the president is not allowed inside the capital building at all, unless he is given a special invitation....(technicly, he must get the special invitation for the state of the union as well, but that is assumed because the constitution states that he must appear at least once every year)...yes, the SOTU is to inform congress as well, but theres a reason why it is televised on the major channels instead of CSPAN, and why the newspapers covered it greatly before TV..it was so the public, the main people affected by the speech could know what was said.... anyway, its not sworn testimony....
End Quote

I say again, my young friend, it is a Constitutional requirementto report to CONGRESS, not to the American people.  How many of them saw George Washington's SOTU address on TV?  Ot Adam's, or Jefferson's, or even FDR's?  You got that right, NONE.  And when one addresses Congress under Constitutional mandate, one, I think, may be presumed to be under oath to tell the truth about matters of fact.  The Constitution A.2,S.3 also allows the Pres to suggest legislative initiative (s)he would like to see passed, but these are not matters of fact.

"...it is not sworn testimony."  So you are suggesting that it is ok for the President to lie to Congress?  An interesting proposition.  Do you really believe this?  Although some notorious Republicans have, Like the representatives of both Nixon and Reagan.  Do the names Mitchel, Haldeman, North, or Poindexter ring a bell?

Quoting:

and btw, I wasnt calling all Young democrats idiots before.....just certain ones....
End Quote

Well, there are certain young Republicans that are complete idiots, so you didn't make much of a point, then. There are stupid people everywhere. Today we have stupid men, stupid women, stupid whites, stupid blacks, stupid presidents ;), but you can't pass judgment on the group because of the (perceived) stupidity of a few you sort of knew from class.

And yes, I'm still offended by your comment!

Quoting:
Ill just sit back and let Billy field everything... 8)
End Quote

Well, Billy, lets hear more from the "Harvard of Long Island".  I'm waiting for your vast knowledge of the Constitution and purjury laws.  Or do you conceed the point?

Quoting:


Well, Billy, lets hear more from the "Harvard of Long Island".  I'm waiting for your vast knowledge of the Constitution and purjury laws.  Or do you conceed the point?
End Quote

well, if youre going to be nasty like that, then no I wont shead more knowledge.....


plus, I don't have time now

8)

Quoting:


No, John, it is only the Upper-Upper class that has inherited the money for generations...thats the KENNEDYS, VANDERBUILTS, and CARNEGIES .....the lower-upper class has mostly earned the money...yes, there are a few exceptions...Im sure that there are a few in the lower-upper class that inherited the money, but thats the minority in that class....Bill Gates isnt the exception, he's the rule...he's the american dream..to get rich and then better your family....lets say a poor worker from Europe came here with his family to start a better life and give his children all that he didnt have....He worked his butt off and sweated long days and nights, and finally made a lot of money ...now his family and himself are much better than they were in the European country....so, now since the father worked himself to death, he dies...does this now mean that we take away the money fromt he family?  Do you think that the father, who worked long and hard just to give them a better life would want the money that he gave to them taken away?  Theyd be worse off here than in their original country then....John, look at it from the other persons shoes.....

now, if you excuse me, Ive got to go to work and make money lol
End Quote

And you have evidance to support these assertions?  References?, Links?.

Quoting:


And you have evidance to support these assertions?  References?, Links?.
End Quote

well, for a listing of the upper upper class, look in the National Registry...it is a known fact which groups of people are in which class....the National registry is just a yearly book that comes out (mainly for the Upper upper class, but sometimes others can get their hands on it) and it lists every member of the upper upper class, and their addresses, and familt members.....Of course it contains the Kennedys, the Vanderbuilts, the Morgans,, etc  and Arnold Swarxenager (Because he married into one of  the families...the Kennedys)

or you can take intro to sociology (thats what I did, and thats where my socialist professor told us about the National Registry)

Quoting:
Strange... How can someone have such an anti-war avatar, and yet be pro-war...
End Quote

how is it strange...I appriciate one of the best comedies in the history of American cinema...it is a great film and the quintesential black comedy, that of which all others should be judged against....plus Im a Peter Sellers fan, and a comedy writer (So I must know this movie line for line lol)

Quoting:


well, if youre going to be nasty like that, then no I wont shead more knowledge.....


plus, I don't have time now

8)
End Quote

Oh My, the poor boy is in a snit, and is refusing to share his vast store of Consitutional knowlege with us.

Billy, it was you who use the term "Harvard of Long Island"  and who claimed a vast knowledge of the Constitution, and were wrong as to the purpose of the SOTU.  Sorry if you thought my respons was "nasty" but may I suggest that you learn the facts BEFORE you post "facts"?  Your opinions are not subject to the same scrutiney, but FACTS are.

Quoting:Oh My, the poor boy is in a snit, and is refusing to share his vast store of Consitutional knowlege with us.End Quote

Don, what is your problem? ::)

Geez, and to think I was the one being called "hateful", "nasty" and "tongue-forked" on here by some members on occasion.  You are about to take that honor my friend. ;)

Quoting:


well, for a listing of the upper upper class, look in the National Registry...it is a known fact which groups of people are in which class....the National registry is just a yearly book that comes out (mainly for the Upper upper class, but sometimes others can get their hands on it) and it lists every member of the upper upper class, and their addresses, and familt members.....Of course it contains the Kennedys, the Vanderbuilts, the Morgans,, etc  and Arnold Swarxenager (Because he married into one of  the families...the Kennedys)

or you can take intro to sociology (thats what I did, and thats where my socialist professor told us about the National Registry)
End Quote

Well, my young friend, although my Ph.D. is in history, I have an ABD (all but dissertation) in Sociology as well, from Rutgers University, so I think I know a bit more than you from your introductory  course.  I will say that if your professor used the categories you refer to, he was certainly no "socialist".  The record is clear.  Most of those who own the means of production and distribution of commodities inherited their ownership, the exception being the retirement accounts, which have been buying into capital - creeping socialism?  As to the "National Registry" you needn't go that far.  Just look at the Fortune 500.

Quoting:


What is your problem? ::)

Don, chill out.   ;)
End Quote

No problem, just object to the spreading of mis-information.  And please refer to me as Carlos or DC.  

Quoting:Well, my young friend, although my Ph.D. is in history, I have an ABD (all but dissertation) in Sociology as well, from Rutgers University, so I think I know a bit more than you from your introductory  course.  End Quote

Don, thats all well and good, but, often times those with the most "expertise" etc are not a bit smarter than those without it.  

No offense intended, but I think its a bit self-rightoues of you to just assume you know more than him simply because you went to school longer. ;)

Quoting:


Don, thats all well and good, but, often times those with the most "expertise" etc are not a bit smarter than those without it.  

No offense intended, but I think its a bit self-rightoues of you to just assume you know more than him simply because you went to school longer. ;)
End Quote

This is something that amazed me about republicans, and people like Rush Limbaugh. They would always critisize universities and colleges as the breeding grounds for liberal thought. Don't these people know that form follows function. The function of a university is to study with greath depth any specific topic. In biology they look deep into cells, in physics they examine the composition of the universe, and in political science & history & the social sciences they use the same kind of inqury. They gather all the avialabe data and look for relationships & corelations. It is a worthwhile way to spend a life, doing research. The only reason I can think of that republicans attack universities and education are because if someone takes the time to look at all the evidence and study it, they will come to conclusions against what the republicans will have you believe. Somehow, an education seems to combat those 30 second commercials during campaigns.

Quoting:
This is something that amazed me about republicans, and people like Rush Limbaugh. They would always critisize universities and colleges as the breeding grounds for liberal thought. Don't these people know that form follows function. The function of a university is to study with greath depth any specific topic. In biology they look deep into cells, in physics they examine the composition of the universe, and in political science & history & the social sciences they use the same kind of inqury. They gather all the avialabe data and look for relationships & corelations. It is a worthwhile way to spend a life, doing research. The only reason I can think of that republicans attack universities and education are because if someone takes the time to look at all the evidence and study it, they will come to conclusions against what the republicans will have you believe. Somehow, an education seems to combat those 30 second commercials during campaigns.
End Quote

aahggh, here we go again. ::)

John, obviously you missed my point interely.

In business and jobs, especially blue-collar and factory jobs, oten times the ones in charge have absolutely no experience in the individual jobs throughout the plant.  I know this from experience.  Yet they are in charge.

It also applies in white-collar jobs where the executives have no idea what goes on in the lower levels of the office.

Point, you ask?  Simple.  The ones who have the higher positions in life and all the education aren't necessarily the most qualified or smartest, by any means.



I am not saying universities and colleges aren't useful as your post suggests.  Universites and colleges have done remarkable things and will continue to do so.

Quoting:


how is it strange...I appriciate one of the best comedies in the history of American cinema...it is a great film and the quintesential black comedy, that of which all others should be judged against....plus Im a Peter Sellers fan, and a comedy writer (So I must know this movie line for line lol)
End Quote

You see the movie merely as a comedy? You don't see the anti-war message? You don't see the playful call for sanity? That's far more bizzare than supporting our troops but hating the war, don't you think? ;D

Quoting:


Well, my young friend, although my Ph.D. is in history, I have an ABD (all but dissertation) in Sociology as well, from Rutgers University, so I think I know a bit more than you from your introductory  course.  I will say that if your professor used the categories you refer to, he was certainly no "socialist".  The record is clear.  Most of those who own the means of production and distribution of commodities inherited their ownership, the exception being the retirement accounts, which have been buying into capital - creeping socialism?  As to the "National Registry" you needn't go that far.  Just look at the Fortune 500.
End Quote

my professor openly said he was a socialist on the first day of class...but if you say that if he used those terms that he cant be a socialist, well, then ok,. maybe he didnt teach like one...I guess he felt is was wrong to lead the students just to his opinions, and beleived that we should actully get something out of his class.....anyway, you probably know more about sociology than me (and probably history too,Im not arguing that) but anyone who knows sociology must realize that there is a difference between the upper-upper class and the lower-upper class.....and the Fortune 500 is not a way of differentiating the two......(it doesnt break up people who just inherited the money from people who worked their butts off to get it ...ie Donald Trump, Bill Gates, Ted Turner, Steve Jobs, etc)

Quoting:

You see the movie merely as a comedy? You don't see the anti-war message? You don't see the playful call for sanity? That's far more bizzare than supporting our troops but hating the war, don't you think? ;D
End Quote

well, it is a black comedy and a political satire, so yes, I see it as a comedy....a great comedy....sure it has an anti-war message, but many films I like have messages that I dont agree with...you got to learn to look past those to see the genius of them ...same with music....I love Bob Dylan and John Lennon and REM, and U2 and Bruce but I dont think that they share my political beliefs...I even love their political songs (except for Born int he USA which I dont like because its annoying.,....it actully has nothing to do with politics).....

and I think it was my brother that said the hate war/support troops thing, not me....

Quoting:


Don, thats all well and good, but, often times those with the most "expertise" etc are not a bit smarter than those without it.  

No offense intended, but I think its a bit self-rightoues of you to just assume you know more than him simply because you went to school longer. ;)
End Quote

Sorry to disagree, but its not an issue of "smarter" but of deeper and more sophisticated knowledge of the discipline.  The kid took an intro course, probably read an into text and maybe some supplamentary stuff and that makes him an expert?  On the other hand, I have read the seminal figures from Marx to Weber to Derkhiem, to Simmel, and many others from all paradigms.  If claiming a deeper knowlegde than one can get from an intro course makes me "self-rightious", than I guess I am.  I'm just asking him to provide facts to back up his assertions.  Not, I think, an unreasonable request.  And I DO know more than him, precisely because I "went to school longer" and have continued to read and study since getting out.  As I said to him, he has an absolute right to his opinions, as do you, but when one deals with facts, one has an obligation to make sure they are accurate.  How they are INTERPRETED is another matter.  But I would say that there too, one should be able to at least evalute one's theoretical perspective.

Quoting:


This is something that amazed me about republicans, and people like Rush Limbaugh. They would always critisize universities and colleges as the breeding grounds for liberal thought. Don't these people know that form follows function. The function of a university is to study with greath depth any specific topic. In biology they look deep into cells, in physics they examine the composition of the universe, and in political science & history & the social sciences they use the same kind of inqury. They gather all the avialabe data and look for relationships & corelations. It is a worthwhile way to spend a life, doing research. The only reason I can think of that republicans attack universities and education are because if someone takes the time to look at all the evidence and study it, they will come to conclusions against what the republicans will have you believe. Somehow, an education seems to combat those 30 second commercials during campaigns.


End Quote

Absolutely.  Paul Broca (1824-1880) was a French scientist/anthropologist who was one of the founders of the French Society of Anthropology, which was inflitrated by Emporer Louis Napolean's secret police because they believed that "the close study of the human condition is inately subversive to the state."  They were right.

Let me add, as an afterthought, that the most repressive governments also tend to have the lowers literacy levels (Cuba's is still higher than ours).  The reason, I think, is obvious.  The less people know, the fewer ideas they are able to confrom and concider, the easier it is to manipulate them.  This was true of Batista's Cuba, Somoza's Nicaragua, Don Porfirio's Mexico,. just about every repressive regime opne can mention.  Ignorance may be bliss, but it "ain't" democracy and it "don't" lead to social justice.  I find it rather a shame that there is such a pervasive anti-intellectual strain running through U.S. "culture" (if there is such a thing).  And this reminds me of an exchange between M. Ghandi and a western reporter, who asked him what he thought of "western civilization".  His reply "It would be a good idea".

Quoting:


my professor openly said he was a socialist on the first day of class...but if you say that if he used those terms that he cant be a socialist, well, then ok,. maybe he didnt teach like one...I guess he felt is was wrong to lead the students just to his opinions, and beleived that we should actully get something out of his class.....anyway, you probably know more about sociology than me (and probably history too,Im not arguing that) but anyone who knows sociology must realize that there is a difference between the upper-upper class and the lower-upper class.....and the Fortune 500 is not a way of differentiating the two......(it doesnt break up people who just inherited the money from people who worked their butts off to get it ...ie Donald Trump, Bill Gates, Ted Turner, Steve Jobs, etc)

End Quote

Your professor may have claimed to be a socialist, but if he used terms like "upper upper class" and lower upper class" he was useing a definitly non-socialist form of analysis called "Structural Functionalism" pioneered by Tallcot Parson (see The Social System - forget the date, but it came out in the 1950s).  Had you been more sophiosticated theoretically you might have asked him about the discrepency.

I don't deny that there are self made billionairs, but the most important of the elite did inherit their wealth.  In the 1830's there was a U.S. born "proto-socialist" named Thomas Skidmore who advocated a 100% inheritance tax, the proceeds to be used to make sure that everyone got an equal start in life.  An interesting idea.

Quoting:


Your professor may have claimed to be a socialist, but if he used terms like "upper upper class" and lower upper class" he was useing a definitly non-socialist form of analysis called "Structural Functionalism" pioneered by Tallcot Parson (see The Social System - forget the date, but it came out in the 1950s).  


End Quote

that was what the class was about..it wasnt a class on socialism (granted that Socialism is very important in sociology, but since it was an intro class we didnt spend that much time in it)...He had to teach the terms and ideas that are important in socialism, and that includes upper-upper class and lower-upper class....you can go on all you want about how its a non-socialist form of analysis, but he taught it, and he's a socialist...why would he lie about that...that doesnt earn you "cool points" (especially at Hofstra lol....)

Quoting:
Had you been more sophiosticated theoretically you might have asked him about the discrepency.
End Quote

whats the discrepency?  That a socialist is teaching the curriculum and not putting his own POV into the lesson?  Yeah, you know what...that is weird....

Quoting:


that was what the class was about..it wasnt a class on socialism (granted that Socialism is very important in sociology, but since it was an intro class we didnt spend that much time in it)...He had to teach the terms and ideas that are important in socialism, and that includes upper-upper class and lower-upper class....you can go on all you want about how its a non-socialist form of analysis, but he taught it, and he's a socialist...why would he lie about that...that doesnt earn you "cool points" (especially at Hofstra lol....)


whats the discrepency?  That a socialist is teaching the curriculum and not putting his own POV into the lesson?  Yeah, you know what...that is weird....
End Quote

No, my boy, you misunderstand.  The  terms upper upper, middle upper, lower upper, etc do not come from the socialist paradigm.  They come from the conservative paradigm.  The categories socialists recognize are Capitalists (those who control the means of production), the middle classes (professionals, the self employed, family farmers etc), the working class (proletariat) and the lumpen proletariat (criminals at all levels, from the "teflon Don" to the crack dealer on the street).  These are the categories of Marxist analysis, and if your intro course was introducing you to the varieties of sociological analysis, I would have thought that they would have been presented at the "Harvard of Long Island".

As to your last statement All I can say is  ???  ???  ???