I try to write like I'm having a conversation with the reader (at least on my website), so I have to be extra careful about grammar for the very reasons you outlined. I usually talk to myself while writing, to try to capture my conversational voice. Heh, it can get annoying for others around me, but I don't care...it works!
Standardized testing on a STATE level makes sense as a way to see how a state's schools are functioning amongst themselves. Standardized testing on a NATIONAL level is complete bullshit because every region of the country has different requirements.
Allowing the results of those standardized tests to directly influence the budget of a school district is downright evil. Standardized testing did exist before NCLB, but not in its currently useless incarnation.
Actually... I do fault the teachers unions... They have kept really shitty teachers teaching and keeping standards testing to be implemented for hiring and continued employment of teachers. I recall my second grade teacher pronouncing chameleon as "cham-a-lon". It wasnt until a very well educated and world traveled substitute teacher corrected us did we understand that much of what our teacher was teaching us was just wrong.
I wouldn't entirely fault the teachers unions (although I do agree that they keep bad teachers employed). Much of the blame can rest squarely on standardized testing (which, in turn, can primarily be blamed on No Child Left Behind.)
Look, I know they need some way to measure things, but kids in different parts of the country aren't all the same. Oh, and requiring kids with special needs to take standardized state tests is just stupid. That's right; special needs kids take the same MSAs that "normal" kids take...and their score counts towards the school average. This wouldn't be a problem if the school's average score wasn't a determining factor in their fucking budget for the following year.
It's sorta odd. Grammar checking is enabled by default in MS word. Do kids just ignore it?
Unless something major has changed in the past couple of years, I generally tell people to ignore grammar checking in Word. Spell checking is fine, but the grammar check is an unmitigated disaster.
Some say, that Idiocracy was a documentary sent back from the future
Other than having electrolytes, you know what the scariest thing about Idiocracy is? Every year that passes since it's release, that future seems not only more possible, but more probable.
My fiance thinks the future will be a combination of Wall-E and Idiocracy, but whatever...it's not looking good -_-;;
Isn't that a bit like saying mathematicians should stop focusing on numbers, and instead focus on "real problems"? Calling software development "irrelevant" is pretty ignorant...this stuff doesn't just put itself together (at least, not yet.)
I agree about Republicans being called fear mongers...but what else can you call it? War, terrorism, the "loss of American values and morality"...you name it, they use it.
As far as Democrats are concerned, people don't call them fear mongers because the "people" are the ones who visibly benefit from their corruption...whereas big business is usually who visibly benefits from Republican corruption.
That's really the only difference between the two major parties: who gets the direct benefits. It's a waste of time focusing on that, however...the thing we should be focused on is that both sides are corrupt. Benefiting from something doesn't make it any less corrupt; it just makes it easier to look the other way.
Same goes for news sources. Just because you agree with it doesn't make it unbiased. I always try to find the most extreme view, left and right. The truth lies SOMEWHERE in the middle. Usually.
They may work on a news radio but they are on talk shows and do not claim to be non-baised. In fact, Hannity speficially says on the radio that he is biased.
True (mostly), but people still listen to political pundits like they are providing news, not opinions...that's what my problem is. Whether this is due to ignorance on the viewers part, manipulation on the pundit's part, or both doesn't matter to me...the fact that it happens is pretty bad.
But more to the point, I think we should expect senators not to be making fools of themselfs.
I completely agree...but it can be kind of fun sometimes/(^.^)\
Did you find the pro-health care people that kept posting the worst health care disastater stories extreme?
Yes. I equated that to one half of a shouting match. Shouting never fixes problems, it just makes them worse.
Or the ones that took any critism as racisim?
YES YES YES. This bothered me IMMENSELY, especially as an Obama supporter who admitted he was half-way full of shit (I like being realistic). When people can't back up their own argument or opinion, they resort to one of the following, depending on the topic:
A) Racism B) Fanboyism C) Religion...ism...or something. Whatever, you know what I'm talking about!
Responding to criticism with chants of racism just make the critics angrier and less likely to listen to your side. It does nothing but get people angry. The only way to quiet a critic is to explain your side, why you think that way, and please tell me why you disagree. Getting them more pissed just makes things worse.
Do you remember ABC/CBS/NBC/MSNBC/CNN/NYT/LAT/WaPo etc running stories front and center on their flagships about, say, Obama's admitted drug use? I can remember those same outlets attacking GWB the weekend before the 2000 election front and center. I can remember Dan Rather using phony evidence to push a story about GWB's National Guard years (again, remember, Obama's actions during the same time are irrelevant per you).
YES!
I'm at work so I can't dig up footage, but look around on youtube. I 100% PROMISE that you will find news footage from all of the major networks covering everything about Obama that Fox did, minus the frothing at the mouth.
And, some NON-BLOG sources for you that is either about or mentions his drug use:
Are you honestly going to tell me that the same amount of reporting went into Obama's past by the mainstream media as went into Palin's past?
YES I FUCKING AM! Again, check youtube. You will find MANY MANY MANY videos of mainstream news agencies questioning things about Obama's past.
Or did I just imagine that I heard "God Damn America" and "William Ayers" nonstop during election season?
If so, defend the statement by Tom Brokaw, one of the most entrenched national news anchors, that we didn't get to know Obama before the election
I will answer this by asking a question: if you have such a problem with the way the MSM handled Obama, why are you quoting one of its most prolific members to support your argument?
I dunno, there is just something about having the actual trade (I don't collect singles, only TPB and THB) that digital just doesn't do for me. Don't get me wrong, a well-fucntioning portable e-comic reader would be awesome for travel, but at home I still prefer the real thing.
You're missing the point. No one is trying to convince you that it's a good thing. You have made up your mind, and that's cool
Oh, plenty of people on here have tried, lol.
The point is, your opinion isn't necessarily all that meaningful in the context of the use cases of this device.
That is not true at all. I was actually really excited about this thing, because I've been wanting a straight tablet with no keyboard for a while now. It would be quite handy for diagnostics in the garage, great for gaming/browsing the net while watching TV, double as an e-comic reader...pretty much everything I want in a tablet, the iPad offers.
That being said, I'm not paying $500 or more for a locked down device with no expansion, no external ports, and no multitasking. I'll just wait for some other similarly priced (or cheaper!) tablet that doesn't require permission from the company that built it just so I can use whatever program I want.
Am I the target demographic for the iPad? Not since it's details have been released, I'm not. I certainly was, but I'm not now.
I know this isn't practical for a lot of people, but we have a small area designated for board games (usually, there is a Hero Quest game in progress. We modified it to makea Hero Quest/DnD hybrid, works great.)
All joking aside, I know what the article is getting at (board games being just another reason to buy the thing). Of course, it is worth mentioning that you will be restricted to whatever Apple approves to go in the Appstore...whereas something like the Asus T91MT would cost the same (or less) and be completely unrestricted.
It doesn't look as pretty, but it would still serve the same purpose...just with more functionality.
I agree with the article. I think the iPad presents a great opportunity to play board games with friends in a more convenient way.
I also agree. I mean, who cares if the low end model only costs $500 and you are restricted to appstore applications? And who needs multitasking support?::chuckle:: Do people actually use AIM and Safari at the same time? Pfft! I mean, come on...who wouldn't pay the price of a full computer for something that offers half the functionality.
Disclaimer: I am not questioning your opinion, nor am I discrediting it. You are completely entitled to your own thoughts.
No matter what you do, say, or show me, you will never convince me that buying a device as expensive as a full computer but with only half the functionality is a good thing. Paying more and getting less is not a good thing, even if it comes wrapped up in a pretty package.
The most expensive "board" game (i.e. NOT a tabletop game) that I have bought was Hero Quest. It was worth every penny.
I dunno...I mean, i could see how SOME board games might work ok on an iPad, and I could definitely see board games made specifically for it...but, much like reading digital comics isn't quite teh same as the real thing...
And were derided as birthers for wanting to make sure he was in compliance with the Constitution.
Irrelevant. You made a claim which essentially said his personal life was ignored. That is false.
Nobody complained about GWB's dad before election or during his time in office?
Again, irrelevant. We are talking about Obama, not Bush.
Someone chooses to associate with someone for 20 years, someone they call their spiritual adviser, and now that person is off limits too?
I never said they were off limits. I said people were examining (extensively) who his pastor was. A pastor, being a spiritual adviser, is a very personal relationship. You made a claim which essentially said Obama's personal life was ignored. That is false.
Fox News did some digging on him, they are the lone "they" from the media as far as your statements above go. Where were the other media outlets? Virtually all of them gave him a pass as far as investigating just who he was. Why else would Tom Brokaw feel the need to say that we don't really know who Obama is AFTER he was elected if he was fully vetted beforehand?
Anyone that did attempt to dig through his history was excoriated for it. Look at what people did to Joe the Plumber just for asking him a question that exposed more of Obama's real views than the Obama campaign really wanted the public to know. The media ran cover for him, even going so far as to completely make up stories that would make him more sympathetic (like the one about someone publicly threatening to harm/kill Obama at a McCain rally. The Secret Service investigated and found no such threat).
Again, irrelevant. You made a claim which essentially said Obama's personal life was ignored. That is false.
Regardless of the reaction or fallout from looking into his personal life, to try and say it wasn't widely scrutinized is an outright lie.
The media dug through Palin's neighbor's trash to see what they could dig up on her but they never really asked the same questions of Obama and anyone that did try to ask questions, legitimate questions, was ignored or attacked for doing so.
People were complaining about his birth certificate. They were complaining about who he hung out with in college. They were complaining about his parents.
They were complaining about his fucking pastor.
It's fair to say Obama was never really pushed, but to claim people didn't rifle through his personal life is unmitigated bullshit.
So now it is a fact, and the substance of what I said remains unblemished by my admission of the first location that presented the idea to my eyes.
Better?
Much:-) Sorry, people using opinion to back up fact just bothers me.
My wife asks this same kind of question. I suppose it is in my nature to make myself and others uncomfortable about something that's bothering me. I'm not the sort that can let it lie unspoken, and feel that large doses of sunlight are a good thing.
My fiance is very much the same way. I always tell people "if you have to ask if she has a problem with you, you're fine. Trust me, if she thought there was something wrong, you would definitely know about it"
In this case I guess I just want to be wrong, and welcome an argument to that end. I don't want to believe that Obama is getting a different set of criteria due to his 'historic status', if you will. I'd like to think I'm just being to critical of the guy, and my own point of view is clouding my perceptions.
Well, in that case...
While I think there are people on both extremes (those that voted for him based on his color and those that DIDN'T vote for him based on his color), I like to think the majority of people were somehwere in the middle and didn't care what his skin color was.
Then again, I've been accused of being a hippy in a 25 year old's body, so who knows, lol
You just presented the other major issue I had with Ron Paul: it's all or nothing with this guy.
As an example:
1) Downsize. All sorts of redundant offices could have their budgets slashed to oblivion, their employees terminated, contracts canceled, etc. Department of Education, IRS, CIA, NSA, DHS, Blackwater, Federal Reserve, etc, etc, etc.
Right, and private industry is just supposed to appear overnight to take over the logistics of those operations? What about the thousands of companies who have contracts to provide services, equipment, and infrastructure to those offices? Are you seriously considering negating hundreds of billions of dollars worth of contracts that are already fulfilled by the private sector? Not to mention the literally millions of people who would simultaneously become unemployed and looking for work.
I know, I know..."they are already providing contracts, so the transition shouldn't be a problem!" Fulfillment of requirements and actually running the show are two VERY VERY different things.
3) Veto everything. Congress can't even get a simple majority, let alone a two-thirds one. Nothing a President isn't completely happy about needs to pass. Period
Wait...so you want to give the President even MORE power? I mean, you wouldn't be officially giving him more power...but you would increase his influence dramatically. Answer me this: given your opinion on Obama, how would you feel if he had complete control over what happens? How would you have felt if Bush II had complete control?
No offense, but that is fucking stupid.
Paul's candidacy got me thinking about what might be possible when you don't have a party pulling your puppet strings, and I really like the idea.
I agree, having a president who isn't beholden to his party's wishes would be great. Giving the president the single, final word on laws is NOT the way to accomplish this, however.
I applaud Paul for thinking outside the box, but many of his ideas would make things worse. His ideas would work for a population of a few million, tops. This country has 300+ million people in it; his ideas would be disastrous for a population that big.
Go back and read all the words. I realize you hit what felt like a really clever seed for a statement, but you failed to receive what I sent out.
You said you read an opinion piece, then proceeded to use that opinion to make a case for a fact. That sometimes works, but opinion!=fact, no matter how you slice it.
He was the one that said it, and it was his plan, and he is the one taking 'credit' for it.
He cannot be held blameless
Agreed, but neither can the people who elected him (which includes me.)
I suppose I could have withheld the comment, but I'm not necessarily ashamed of feeling the way I do. I personally feel that we need to move beyond race issues, as a society. I understand that we're not all there yet, but this sort of reverse discrimination really shows how far we have left to go.
How do you expect people to move beyond race issues if they bring them up in an argumentative way?
Well you're allowed to that opinion. However, I ask you - given the extremely radical people he surrounded himself with his entire life (you know who I'm talking about because it's been in the news), after looking at their agenda think about it and then do you still feel the same way about him?
Back when I was a mechanic, most of my fellow workers (and subsequently people I hung out with and went to bars with) were ex-cons...some of them did hard time for some pretty serious shit. I haven't worked on cars professionally in almost 5 years, but I still hang out with a lot of those same people.
My own record, to this day, is still limited to two speeding tickets. You can judge a person by the people they are around...but you shouldn't make that your only criteria.
As for your hypothetical question - it is still money coming out of the pockets of people who earned it and being redistributed to those who did not earn it. Making the theft more efficient doesn't make it any less theft. I'm not arguing against giving money or food to the poor / those who need it - however, it's not giving when the government does it. I fully advocate charity and helping those around you - of your own free will. Once the government starts forcefully taking your money from you to give to others (even if they do need it), it becomes wrong.
This country has a long history of taking care of the needy at the expense of those that aren't needy. The way I see it, so long as you voluntarily live in this country, you voluntary give up a portion of your earnings.
Don't like it? Run for office and try to change it, deal with it, or GTFO. That's what people were telling me when the patRIOT act was introduced, right?
Slashdot Mirror
NGOSS Day? Sounds like a good name to me :P
I try to write like I'm having a conversation with the reader (at least on my website), so I have to be extra careful about grammar for the very reasons you outlined. I usually talk to myself while writing, to try to capture my conversational voice. Heh, it can get annoying for others around me, but I don't care...it works!
Standardized testing on a STATE level makes sense as a way to see how a state's schools are functioning amongst themselves. Standardized testing on a NATIONAL level is complete bullshit because every region of the country has different requirements.
Allowing the results of those standardized tests to directly influence the budget of a school district is downright evil. Standardized testing did exist before NCLB, but not in its currently useless incarnation.
AUGH! Man...normally I'm such a nazi about "its" and "it's"...I feel horribly stupid for screwing that one up :-(
(oh noes! emoticon!)
Actually... I do fault the teachers unions... They have kept really shitty teachers teaching and keeping standards testing to be implemented for hiring and continued employment of teachers. I recall my second grade teacher pronouncing chameleon as "cham-a-lon". It wasnt until a very well educated and world traveled substitute teacher corrected us did we understand that much of what our teacher was teaching us was just wrong.
I wouldn't entirely fault the teachers unions (although I do agree that they keep bad teachers employed). Much of the blame can rest squarely on standardized testing (which, in turn, can primarily be blamed on No Child Left Behind.)
Look, I know they need some way to measure things, but kids in different parts of the country aren't all the same. Oh, and requiring kids with special needs to take standardized state tests is just stupid. That's right; special needs kids take the same MSAs that "normal" kids take...and their score counts towards the school average. This wouldn't be a problem if the school's average score wasn't a determining factor in their fucking budget for the following year.
It's sorta odd. Grammar checking is enabled by default in MS word. Do kids just ignore it?
Unless something major has changed in the past couple of years, I generally tell people to ignore grammar checking in Word. Spell checking is fine, but the grammar check is an unmitigated disaster.
Some say, that Idiocracy was a documentary sent back from the future
Other than having electrolytes, you know what the scariest thing about Idiocracy is? Every year that passes since it's release, that future seems not only more possible, but more probable.
My fiance thinks the future will be a combination of Wall-E and Idiocracy, but whatever...it's not looking good -_-;;
Isn't that a bit like saying mathematicians should stop focusing on numbers, and instead focus on "real problems"? Calling software development "irrelevant" is pretty ignorant...this stuff doesn't just put itself together (at least, not yet.)
I agree about Republicans being called fear mongers...but what else can you call it? War, terrorism, the "loss of American values and morality"...you name it, they use it.
As far as Democrats are concerned, people don't call them fear mongers because the "people" are the ones who visibly benefit from their corruption...whereas big business is usually who visibly benefits from Republican corruption.
That's really the only difference between the two major parties: who gets the direct benefits. It's a waste of time focusing on that, however...the thing we should be focused on is that both sides are corrupt. Benefiting from something doesn't make it any less corrupt; it just makes it easier to look the other way.
Same goes for news sources. Just because you agree with it doesn't make it unbiased. I always try to find the most extreme view, left and right. The truth lies SOMEWHERE in the middle. Usually.
They may work on a news radio but they are on talk shows and do not claim to be non-baised. In fact, Hannity speficially says on the radio that he is biased.
http://static.crooksandliars.com/files/movieimages/2009/10/10315.jpg
True (mostly), but people still listen to political pundits like they are providing news, not opinions...that's what my problem is. Whether this is due to ignorance on the viewers part, manipulation on the pundit's part, or both doesn't matter to me...the fact that it happens is pretty bad.
But more to the point, I think we should expect senators not to be making fools of themselfs.
I completely agree...but it can be kind of fun sometimes /(^.^)\
Did you find the pro-health care people that kept posting the worst health care disastater stories extreme?
Yes. I equated that to one half of a shouting match. Shouting never fixes problems, it just makes them worse.
Or the ones that took any critism as racisim?
YES YES YES. This bothered me IMMENSELY, especially as an Obama supporter who admitted he was half-way full of shit (I like being realistic). When people can't back up their own argument or opinion, they resort to one of the following, depending on the topic:
A) Racism
B) Fanboyism
C) Religion...ism...or something. Whatever, you know what I'm talking about!
Responding to criticism with chants of racism just make the critics angrier and less likely to listen to your side. It does nothing but get people angry. The only way to quiet a critic is to explain your side, why you think that way, and please tell me why you disagree. Getting them more pissed just makes things worse.
Do you remember ABC/CBS/NBC/MSNBC/CNN/NYT/LAT/WaPo etc running stories front and center on their flagships about, say, Obama's admitted drug use? I can remember those same outlets attacking GWB the weekend before the 2000 election front and center. I can remember Dan Rather using phony evidence to push a story about GWB's National Guard years (again, remember, Obama's actions during the same time are irrelevant per you).
YES!
I'm at work so I can't dig up footage, but look around on youtube. I 100% PROMISE that you will find news footage from all of the major networks covering everything about Obama that Fox did, minus the frothing at the mouth.
And, some NON-BLOG sources for you that is either about or mentions his drug use:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/12/politics/uwire/main3823725.shtml
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/24/world/americas/24iht-dems.3272493.html
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/13/clinton.obama/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/27/costello.drug.use/index.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/02/AR2007010201359.html
http://www.obamapedia.org/page/Barack+Obama's+Drug+Use
Are you honestly going to tell me that the same amount of reporting went into Obama's past by the mainstream media as went into Palin's past?
YES I FUCKING AM! Again, check youtube. You will find MANY MANY MANY videos of mainstream news agencies questioning things about Obama's past.
Or did I just imagine that I heard "God Damn America" and "William Ayers" nonstop during election season?
If so, defend the statement by Tom Brokaw, one of the most entrenched national news anchors, that we didn't get to know Obama before the election
I will answer this by asking a question: if you have such a problem with the way the MSM handled Obama, why are you quoting one of its most prolific members to support your argument?
I dunno, there is just something about having the actual trade (I don't collect singles, only TPB and THB) that digital just doesn't do for me. Don't get me wrong, a well-fucntioning portable e-comic reader would be awesome for travel, but at home I still prefer the real thing.
Strange...I don't feel the same way about books.
You're missing the point. No one is trying to convince you that it's a good thing. You have made up your mind, and that's cool
Oh, plenty of people on here have tried, lol.
The point is, your opinion isn't necessarily all that meaningful in the context of the use cases of this device.
That is not true at all. I was actually really excited about this thing, because I've been wanting a straight tablet with no keyboard for a while now. It would be quite handy for diagnostics in the garage, great for gaming/browsing the net while watching TV, double as an e-comic reader...pretty much everything I want in a tablet, the iPad offers.
That being said, I'm not paying $500 or more for a locked down device with no expansion, no external ports, and no multitasking. I'll just wait for some other similarly priced (or cheaper!) tablet that doesn't require permission from the company that built it just so I can use whatever program I want.
Am I the target demographic for the iPad? Not since it's details have been released, I'm not. I certainly was, but I'm not now.
I know this isn't practical for a lot of people, but we have a small area designated for board games (usually, there is a Hero Quest game in progress. We modified it to makea Hero Quest/DnD hybrid, works great.)
All joking aside, I know what the article is getting at (board games being just another reason to buy the thing). Of course, it is worth mentioning that you will be restricted to whatever Apple approves to go in the Appstore...whereas something like the Asus T91MT would cost the same (or less) and be completely unrestricted.
It doesn't look as pretty, but it would still serve the same purpose...just with more functionality.
I agree with the article. I think the iPad presents a great opportunity to play board games with friends in a more convenient way.
I also agree. I mean, who cares if the low end model only costs $500 and you are restricted to appstore applications? And who needs multitasking support? ::chuckle:: Do people actually use AIM and Safari at the same time? Pfft! I mean, come on...who wouldn't pay the price of a full computer for something that offers half the functionality.
Wait...what?
Disclaimer: I am not questioning your opinion, nor am I discrediting it. You are completely entitled to your own thoughts.
No matter what you do, say, or show me, you will never convince me that buying a device as expensive as a full computer but with only half the functionality is a good thing. Paying more and getting less is not a good thing, even if it comes wrapped up in a pretty package.
The most expensive "board" game (i.e. NOT a tabletop game) that I have bought was Hero Quest. It was worth every penny.
I dunno...I mean, i could see how SOME board games might work ok on an iPad, and I could definitely see board games made specifically for it...but, much like reading digital comics isn't quite teh same as the real thing...
Well, heavy cardboard wrapped in a plastic-like material...but you get my point.
-1 for replying to myself.
The perfect board game platform is cardboard.
And were derided as birthers for wanting to make sure he was in compliance with the Constitution.
Irrelevant. You made a claim which essentially said his personal life was ignored. That is false.
Nobody complained about GWB's dad before election or during his time in office?
Again, irrelevant. We are talking about Obama, not Bush.
Someone chooses to associate with someone for 20 years, someone they call their spiritual adviser, and now that person is off limits too?
I never said they were off limits. I said people were examining (extensively) who his pastor was. A pastor, being a spiritual adviser, is a very personal relationship. You made a claim which essentially said Obama's personal life was ignored. That is false.
Fox News did some digging on him, they are the lone "they" from the media as far as your statements above go. Where were the other media outlets? Virtually all of them gave him a pass as far as investigating just who he was. Why else would Tom Brokaw feel the need to say that we don't really know who Obama is AFTER he was elected if he was fully vetted beforehand?
Again, bullshit.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/DemocraticDebate/story?id=4443788&page=1
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/06/wright-dominated-news-coverage/
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8630.html
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/02/obamas_weatherman_connection.html
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rich-noyes/2008/09/23/barack-obama-bill-ayers-stanley-kurtz-makes-connection
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/02/obama-birth-cer.html
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_birth_certificate/2009/07/22/238969.html
Even fucking Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/21/obamas-church-pushes-cont_n_92802.html
Anyone that did attempt to dig through his history was excoriated for it. Look at what people did to Joe the Plumber just for asking him a question that exposed more of Obama's real views than the Obama campaign really wanted the public to know. The media ran cover for him, even going so far as to completely make up stories that would make him more sympathetic (like the one about someone publicly threatening to harm/kill Obama at a McCain rally. The Secret Service investigated and found no such threat).
Again, irrelevant. You made a claim which essentially said Obama's personal life was ignored. That is false.
Regardless of the reaction or fallout from looking into his personal life, to try and say it wasn't widely scrutinized is an outright lie.
Not sure if I would include that in my own opinion, but I'm certainly not going to say you're wrong.
The media dug through Palin's neighbor's trash to see what they could dig up on her but they never really asked the same questions of Obama and anyone that did try to ask questions, legitimate questions, was ignored or attacked for doing so.
People were complaining about his birth certificate. They were complaining about who he hung out with in college. They were complaining about his parents.
They were complaining about his fucking pastor.
It's fair to say Obama was never really pushed, but to claim people didn't rifle through his personal life is unmitigated bullshit.
So now it is a fact, and the substance of what I said remains unblemished by my admission of the first location that presented the idea to my eyes.
Better?
Much :-) Sorry, people using opinion to back up fact just bothers me.
My wife asks this same kind of question. I suppose it is in my nature to make myself and others uncomfortable about something that's bothering me. I'm not the sort that can let it lie unspoken, and feel that large doses of sunlight are a good thing.
My fiance is very much the same way. I always tell people "if you have to ask if she has a problem with you, you're fine. Trust me, if she thought there was something wrong, you would definitely know about it"
In this case I guess I just want to be wrong, and welcome an argument to that end. I don't want to believe that Obama is getting a different set of criteria due to his 'historic status', if you will. I'd like to think I'm just being to critical of the guy, and my own point of view is clouding my perceptions.
Well, in that case...
While I think there are people on both extremes (those that voted for him based on his color and those that DIDN'T vote for him based on his color), I like to think the majority of people were somehwere in the middle and didn't care what his skin color was.
Then again, I've been accused of being a hippy in a 25 year old's body, so who knows, lol
You just presented the other major issue I had with Ron Paul: it's all or nothing with this guy.
As an example:
1) Downsize. All sorts of redundant offices could have their budgets slashed to oblivion, their employees terminated, contracts canceled, etc. Department of Education, IRS, CIA, NSA, DHS, Blackwater, Federal Reserve, etc, etc, etc.
Right, and private industry is just supposed to appear overnight to take over the logistics of those operations? What about the thousands of companies who have contracts to provide services, equipment, and infrastructure to those offices? Are you seriously considering negating hundreds of billions of dollars worth of contracts that are already fulfilled by the private sector? Not to mention the literally millions of people who would simultaneously become unemployed and looking for work.
I know, I know..."they are already providing contracts, so the transition shouldn't be a problem!" Fulfillment of requirements and actually running the show are two VERY VERY different things.
3) Veto everything. Congress can't even get a simple majority, let alone a two-thirds one. Nothing a President isn't completely happy about needs to pass. Period
Wait...so you want to give the President even MORE power? I mean, you wouldn't be officially giving him more power...but you would increase his influence dramatically. Answer me this: given your opinion on Obama, how would you feel if he had complete control over what happens? How would you have felt if Bush II had complete control?
No offense, but that is fucking stupid.
Paul's candidacy got me thinking about what might be possible when you don't have a party pulling your puppet strings, and I really like the idea.
I agree, having a president who isn't beholden to his party's wishes would be great. Giving the president the single, final word on laws is NOT the way to accomplish this, however.
I applaud Paul for thinking outside the box, but many of his ideas would make things worse. His ideas would work for a population of a few million, tops. This country has 300+ million people in it; his ideas would be disastrous for a population that big.
Go back and read all the words. I realize you hit what felt like a really clever seed for a statement, but you failed to receive what I sent out.
You said you read an opinion piece, then proceeded to use that opinion to make a case for a fact. That sometimes works, but opinion!=fact, no matter how you slice it.
He was the one that said it, and it was his plan, and he is the one taking 'credit' for it.
He cannot be held blameless
Agreed, but neither can the people who elected him (which includes me.)
I suppose I could have withheld the comment, but I'm not necessarily ashamed of feeling the way I do. I personally feel that we need to move beyond race issues, as a society. I understand that we're not all there yet, but this sort of reverse discrimination really shows how far we have left to go.
How do you expect people to move beyond race issues if they bring them up in an argumentative way?
Well you're allowed to that opinion. However, I ask you - given the extremely radical people he surrounded himself with his entire life (you know who I'm talking about because it's been in the news), after looking at their agenda think about it and then do you still feel the same way about him?
Back when I was a mechanic, most of my fellow workers (and subsequently people I hung out with and went to bars with) were ex-cons...some of them did hard time for some pretty serious shit. I haven't worked on cars professionally in almost 5 years, but I still hang out with a lot of those same people.
My own record, to this day, is still limited to two speeding tickets. You can judge a person by the people they are around...but you shouldn't make that your only criteria.
As for your hypothetical question - it is still money coming out of the pockets of people who earned it and being redistributed to those who did not earn it. Making the theft more efficient doesn't make it any less theft. I'm not arguing against giving money or food to the poor / those who need it - however, it's not giving when the government does it. I fully advocate charity and helping those around you - of your own free will. Once the government starts forcefully taking your money from you to give to others (even if they do need it), it becomes wrong.
This country has a long history of taking care of the needy at the expense of those that aren't needy. The way I see it, so long as you voluntarily live in this country, you voluntary give up a portion of your earnings.
Don't like it? Run for office and try to change it, deal with it, or GTFO. That's what people were telling me when the patRIOT act was introduced, right?