Vote w your heart - not your head!

“On the serious side, there are a lot of places for that woman to go, NO ONE has to beg on the street if they don't want to.

I used to be very involved administratively at my church, we routinely found services for those who needed them. I also used to run into people who would refuse to go to one location or another "because they didn't like the people there". They did better collecting $$ on the street at a busy intersection with a well-recieved cardboard sign. Not saying all are in the boat, of course, but a great many are. That's from personal experience.”

“RL, one of the problems in an internet forum is that people can post just about anything & too many readers believt it to be true.

In your case, you reference no sources to back up your ludicrous liberal media defense.

As much as I hate "cut & paste", here's a recent OBJECTIVE analysis.


People trying to persuade others to adopt their views are very likely to cite think-tank experts who agree with them. And the liberal lobbying group Americans for Democratic Action (their description of themselves) regularly grades politicians from 0 to 100 based on their votes on selected issues, with the most liberal members of Congress earning 100.

Two researchers have combined these two disparate ideas to come up with a measure of media bias that doesn't depend on journalists' own perceptions of where they fit on the political spectrum, or on subjective judgments about the philosophical orientation of think tanks. Tim Groseclose, of UCLA and Stanford, and Jeff Milyo of the University of Chicago used data comparing which think tanks various politicians liked to quote and which think tanks various media outlets liked to quote in their news stories to estimate two ADA scores for each media outlet in the study, one based on the number of times a think tank was cited, and the other on the length of the citation.

"Our results show a very significant liberal bias," they write. "One of our measures found that The Drudge Report is the most centrist of all media outlets in our sample. Our other measure found that Fox News' Special Report is the most centrist." And all three papers, plus NBC and CBS, "were closer to the average Democrat in Congress than to the median member of the House of Representatives." Fair and balanced, anyone? To use a simplified example, they say, suppose there were only two think tanks, and The New York Times cited the liberal one twice as often as the conservative one. Then the newspaper's ADA score would be the same as that of a member of Congress who did the same.

The estimated ADA score for Fox, based on citations, was 35.6. That puts it in the company of Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, and a few points below the House median, 39.0. The two highest were The New York Times, at 67.6, and CBS Evening News, at 70.0. The average Republican in Congress has an ADA score of 11.2, and the average Democrat 74.1.

The authors say they expected to find that the mainstream media leaned to the left, but they were "astounded by the degree." So when people say, for example, that The New York Times may be tilted left, but people can compensate for that by watching Fox News, they don't take into account that the Times is much further from the center than Fox. "To gain a balanced perspective, one would need to spend twice as much time watching Special Report as he or she spends reading The New York Times."”

“Wanderer if your claims are correct then there would be some data to back them up. I would think that something like the U.S. Census Bureau would have data to proof what you say to be true. What you saying is that since the Civil Rights act of 1964 and LBJ’s Great Society that minorities are worse off now since there’s no reason to try and lift ones self up.
If your statements are correct then the figures should show that

1. The percentage of minorities living in poverty has increased or stayed the same.
2. The percentage of minorities graduating college has decreased or stayed the same.
3. The percentage of minorities graduating high school has decreased or stayed the same.
4. The percentage of minorities owning their own business has decreased or stayed the same.
5. The average income (adjusted for inflation) for minorities has decreased or stayed the same.
6. The percentage of minorities becoming doctors or lawyers has decreased or stayed the same.

Why don’t you take a little time and do some research or is that simply too much work.

Or are you to afraid to challenge your broad generalizations.”

“Not afraid at all goog, the answera are just so obvious that research isn't required. This is just a pastime forum, I have no need to take my valuable time to prove to you what you should already be able to percieve by looking around. If I say "it's a nice day outside today" I don't feel the need to document why I made those comments by giving you multiple sources for a weather report, etc. Get real.

Having said that, however, I differ with your premise that "The percentage of XXXX has increased or stayed the same." is the question to ask.

The question(s) to ask are:

(1) is the progress that has been made "good enough"?

(2) Is there a better / more productive way to achieve better results?

The answers are : (1) NO it's NOT good enough, and (2) YEST, there are better ways to achieve better results.

If you REALLY cared about the issue you'd open your mind a little to consider other options!”

“Just for you goog, because I like you so much & want you to be informed....

In his first State of the Union address on January 8, 1964, President Lyndon Baines Johnson announced: “This Administration today, here and now, declares unconditional war on poverty.” On August 20 of the same year Johnson signed into law his first antipoverty bill—the Equal Opportunities Acts—declaring, “Today, for the first time in the history of the human race, a great nation is able to make and is willing to make a commitment to eradicate poverty among it people.”

After defeating Republican candidate Barry Goldwater in the November 1964 election, Johnson expanded his war on poverty themes in his January 4, 1965, State of the Union speech. He requested federal funds to assist the elderly, the poor, black Americans, needy children, immigrants, and the mentally ill. He requested legislation to improve education, to provide scholarships and loans, to increase mental and physical health services, to raise Social Security benefits, to double the war against poverty, to improve the inner city, to provide housing, to fight crime and delinquency, and to protect the environment. Johnson proposed to use government to “keep our nation prosperous…, to open opportunity to all our people…, and to improve the quality of American life.”

Each of these “Great Society” programs seemed absolutely necessary and worthwhile, but there were serious flaws lurking just below the surface. “It became an exercise in grantsmanship,” said Jack Flynn of the Department of Housing and Urban Development. “In the end, those that got the money were the ones that wrote the best grant applications and had the best connections in Washington.”

The Great Society determined that the federal government could, on its own, eliminate poverty and transform the nation. It couldn’t. The programs were top-heavy, benefiting staff more than the poor they were intended to assist. Top-heaviness grew until the federal government became the nation’s top employer. To cite just one example, the Community Action Program grew to employ more than 180,000 people in 907 different agencies that spent about $1.2 billion every year.

Just ten years after Johnson initiated his Great Society program, his successor, Richard Nixon, declared that much of its structure needed dismantling. Referring to the ambitious programs launched in the 1960s, he said, “The intention…was laudable. But the results, in case after case, amounted to dismal failure…. Too much money has been going to those were supposed to help the needy and too little to the needy themselves.” Though hundreds of billion of dollars were spent by the federal government to fund Great Society initiatives, millions of Americans still lived in poverty, the problem of nation illiteracy only increased, and adequate medical care was still beyond the reach of masses of Americans.

Unfortunately, the Great Society created by Lyndon Johnson left another kind of legacy as well. It bred a new sense of dependency on the government to solve man’s troubles. President Johnson undoubtedly loved the country and wanted to help its people, but the Great Society was doomed from its inception. Johnson did his best to mobilize the federal government to solve the problems of the world, but he failed, and the nation has been saddled with the cost of that failure ever since.


In an essay entitled “Government Not the Solution to All Problems,” James Antle has said, “Notice the assumption that the choice is between government redistribution of wealth and the mass starvation of the poor. There can be no way to care for the poor without the government forcibly extracting compassion from people’s paychecks. This does not take into consideration that perhaps a compassionate society’s obligation to its unfortunate members belongs to families, communities and individuals, not government. Maybe there is more to compassion than simply endorsing new government programs and supporting politicians who promise to keep as many people as possible on the public dole.”

The Great Society also explains why the public tends to support government growth. In contemporary America, the state has become a “god,” a super-problem solver, and if you don’t support government solution to our problems you must be opposed to that problem being solved.

We are learning in America—or should be learning—that Big Government is like a huge monster with an insatiable appetite. The more it feeds, the more it grows in its ever-increasing lust.

August 14, 2003”

“Wanderer!

I am not at all opposed to your arguments about large government. In fact, I respect and agree with them.

Maybe I haven't read enough of your responses to know which way you lean in terms of party affiliation. However, it seems clear to me that the Republicans are NOT in favor of smaller government.

The Republicans in control right now have created two massive new federal bureacracies - the Transportation Safety Administration and the Office of Homeland Security.

The Republicans have also started to run up massive spending deficits after several years of small surpluses.

So, in terms of philosophy, I really don't disagree with you at all. Big government is bad. But voting for Bush this election year is not furthering the cause against big government.

The two most responsible presidencies we've had in recent times have come during periods of divided government - Reagan and Clinton. The Congress acted as a check against the President's ability to spend. The result was smaller government.

Due to Congressional redistricting, the Congress will likely remain in Republican hands. Therefore, those in favor of smaller government should vote for Kerry in this election.

Sorry if you wanted some liberal cultural defense here.”

“I am an independent, lean conservative on fiscal issues, probably lean left on many social issues. Didn't vote for GW fisrt time & won't vote for him this time.

When I start a politically oriented thread, my objective is to get people to THINK, not post their tired old "cut & paste" responses. I like to challenge people to tell me WHY they beleive as they do, if they've analyzed a position & arrived at a conclusion based upon real fact, great.

What's frustrating are the number of people who are badly mis-informed, can't think for themselves, blindly recite tired old propaganda, from the Left OR the Right! Ignorance drives me nuts... I really believe we are turning into "A Nation of Sheep" (great, but scary, book)!”

“I agree the government is not the great solver of all problems. I never said they were.

The question(s) to ask are:

(1) is the progress that has been made "good enough"?

(2) Is there a better / more productive way to achieve better results?

The answers are : (1) NO it's NOT good enough, and (2) YEST, there are better ways to achieve better results.


Your answer to question 1 shows that you feel that progress for minorities has been made since the inception of the Great Society despite it’s problems, but it hasn’t been successful enough for the cost.

Now your answer to question 2 that there are better ways, hey I’m all for better ways. Can you elaborate on this a little more? Since we both agree that social programs have made progress just not enough. We obviously can’t go back to the old failed system that was in place before all the social programs. Can you put forward some of those better ideas so we can discuss. I’m always looking for more efficient ways to do things that yield better results.


By the way generalizations are bit over the top. It's like someone saying all conservatives are goose-stepping Nazis who are hell bent on turning this country into a fascist dictatorship.”

“Well, W, it certainly was a cut and paste argument you lead with. We've all heard it a thousand times (at least I have, without exageration). The same lines have been used to discredit the welfare system for at least 40 years, that I can personally vouch for.

Things like that are much more likely to generate flames: GIGO, donchaknow. If you want to generate thoughtful debate, try posing a thoughtful question.”

“Tango, you mentioned the "pollution credits" they are a sham for sure. I never mentioned them in any (let alone a positive) light.”

“Wanderer, I think you should just slowly back out of this discussion now as you are at a true disadvantage here because of the fact you have shackled and limited your scope of this topic with common sense.”

“I'll go back to the pld analogy...You want to give them a fish because they're hungry today. I want to have them learn how to fish. Problem with your position is that they will come back to you forever with their hand out. You CREATED their dependency, shame on you!"
wanderer
01:26:40 PM
07/11/04

OK, I'll go with your analogy.

We have fish school. How fish school can be a private or public venture. For analogy's sake, lets say fish school is our public education system. If you underfund fish school, less people will learn how to fish, or not properly learn how to fish. And, those that do learn how to fish at fish school now get the pleasure of going out to fish.....

in lakes and rivers that are polluted, competeing against huge companies (who happen to pollute those very lakes and streams), and, who don't pay taxes to the "fish school" because thier republican buddies exempted them from paying taxes in order to create jobs.

So, finding that you can't compete against the big fish companies, you take you fish school training, and go to work for the big fish company so you can earn a living. But, guess what! You are making too much money, and hell, most of the fish are gone anyway, so the big fish company moves to China, and there you are, left with out a fishing job, and no fish left because of polluted waters and overfishing by the big fish company.


This scenario was brought to you by the Republican Party, proud to serve for the Big Fish Company!”

“BTW - Now that you have lost your fish job, maybe you could go to "chicken school", so you can aviod the hand out that you, according to wanderer, brought upon yourself or that the liberals created for you.



For chicken school, please repeat "fish school" refrain, but replace fish with chicken.”

“BB, what in the he!! are you talking about?

Perhaps the biggest single problem with public education is your beloved UNION influence. Example: we aren't allowed to terminate inept teachers because of their BS tenure program. I have a lot more examples if you can stomach the truth.

Those who really suffer are the students... in great part because of bloated administrative beauracracy, out-of-control teacher unions and lilly-livered lib politicians who are beholden to the unions for re-election.

And don't pull a "Tilt" and suggest I don't know what I'm talking about, as he did regarding my comments re healthcare IT. My wife is a schoolteacher in a Title 1 school, because she wants to make a difference in young lives and feels those kids need all the help they can get (she's right!). Because of all the cutbacks (due to mismanagement and general misappropriation of funds), we personally donate quite a few $$ annualy out of our family budget so she can buy supplies for her classroom.

If you'd take a broader, more global perspective, you'd see that good intentions don't equal positive end-results. One again, for the 50th time, that's the purpose of this thread... to get people to think about whether their bleeding heart, "immediate gratification" approach is truly serving the needs of those who need help, or, whether that short-term, emotionally-driven thinking is actually part of the problem.

It's a BIG part of the problem!”

“Buddha Bear!

Can I disagree with your approach here for a bit?

If Kerry wins this year, I don't think that it will be a mandate to greatly increase social programs. Given the horrible spending of the past several years, I think that a few years of fiscal restraint will be in order.

So, I would be very happy with maintaining social programs that we have and reconfiguring health care in practical, measured ways.

Then, we need to privatize the TSA and get rid of Homeland Security. The sooner we can gracefully bow out of Iraq, the better and then we need to stop the reckless Bush tax cuts from being fully implemented.

Hopefully, that'll get the budget back in some reasonable shape and start to restore our image abroad. Then, the economy will start to grow.

Kerry was helped big time that he didn't have to run left in the primary. He should, and I think will, run to the right in the general election.

A moderate/centrist administration could consolidate Kerry's support and start to make the Democrats the majority party again.

So, I would suggest campaiging to the right.”

“Did I say W didn't know what he was talking about re: his job? I thought I said he stood to personally gain and couldn't be trusted to give an unbiased opinion.

Not the same at all -- <G>



And his argument wasn't cut&paste, it was like pre-mimeograph, or.... carbon paper.”

“OH OH! I wanna go to sheep school!”

“Keep your sexual proclivities out of this Nigal.”

“Here ya' go Tilt-a-whirl:
"3) So that's wanderer's area of expertise and we should take his opinion as gospel because he's an industry insider? Ooops! Sorry. Conflict of interest, donchaknow. You should recuse yourself."

You don't even know what part of the industry I'm in... you just assume and claim that I have some conflict of interest because I happen to be knowlegeable in a certain area.

Negative attitudes & paranoia will never get you anywhere. You discredit yourself whenevr you post crap like this.”

“Of course, he didn't paste in the bit where he's talking about his 'expertise'.... just the response.

Hey, this is his crap thread. He tried that line before... about trying to 'raise the level of the debate'. He'll have to pull an Avis and try harder because it's just flamebait, again: a trite collection of suppositions delivered in a combative, condecending tone. Go back and read it.

Like most people, I tend to give what I get. If W wants a polite conversation, perhaps he should pose his question in a more copacetic fashion. Unfortunately, if past performance is anything to go by, I find it doubtful.”