- This topic has 1,090 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 15 years ago by
briansd1.
-
AuthorPosts
-
September 16, 2009 at 9:29 AM #458085September 16, 2009 at 12:31 PM #457364
sdgrrl
Participant[quote=Zeitgeist]Things have changed. People are not civil any more. Svelte, ask yourself, are drivers more rude than in the past? I think the answer is yes. It is a cultural change that is societal, not just political. People no longer respect the courts and show up in dirty, inappropriate clothing. They no longer respect the presidency and congress. Times have changed. The middle class was just behind the times.[/quote]
Things have changed and I think it depends on who you ask if the world is more rude today.
If you were a black man fifty years ago in the so called “good ole days” was the world a more civil place for them? Was America nicer as blacks were called niggers and grown men called Boy.
When my mother first moved here from Korea to a little town in Texas many people were awful to her for a long time and this was in the sixties.
As an American woman of Asian descent there is no other time than right now that I wish to exist.
I can do what I want, go where I want, marry, have or not have kids, work, be a stay at home, whatever. I am allowed my inalienable rights of life, liberty, and my own pursuit of happiness; with no social stigma.
I don’t know if people are ruder or not. I don’t see Americans sprayed with hoses and have dogs sicked on them. No one has called me a chink in a long time. No one is rounding up Native American children and “civilizing” them in federal schools. That seems much ruder than the driver that flips me off.
When I hear about the good ole days…I always think well if you were a white Anglo male they were probably good. If you were anything else it may not have always been so rosy.
I am so glad of the cultural change in America.
September 16, 2009 at 12:31 PM #457558Participant[quote=Zeitgeist]Things have changed. People are not civil any more. Svelte, ask yourself, are drivers more rude than in the past? I think the answer is yes. It is a cultural change that is societal, not just political. People no longer respect the courts and show up in dirty, inappropriate clothing. They no longer respect the presidency and congress. Times have changed. The middle class was just behind the times.[/quote]
Things have changed and I think it depends on who you ask if the world is more rude today.
If you were a black man fifty years ago in the so called “good ole days” was the world a more civil place for them? Was America nicer as blacks were called niggers and grown men called Boy.
When my mother first moved here from Korea to a little town in Texas many people were awful to her for a long time and this was in the sixties.
As an American woman of Asian descent there is no other time than right now that I wish to exist.
I can do what I want, go where I want, marry, have or not have kids, work, be a stay at home, whatever. I am allowed my inalienable rights of life, liberty, and my own pursuit of happiness; with no social stigma.
I don’t know if people are ruder or not. I don’t see Americans sprayed with hoses and have dogs sicked on them. No one has called me a chink in a long time. No one is rounding up Native American children and “civilizing” them in federal schools. That seems much ruder than the driver that flips me off.
When I hear about the good ole days…I always think well if you were a white Anglo male they were probably good. If you were anything else it may not have always been so rosy.
I am so glad of the cultural change in America.
September 16, 2009 at 12:31 PM #457899Participant[quote=Zeitgeist]Things have changed. People are not civil any more. Svelte, ask yourself, are drivers more rude than in the past? I think the answer is yes. It is a cultural change that is societal, not just political. People no longer respect the courts and show up in dirty, inappropriate clothing. They no longer respect the presidency and congress. Times have changed. The middle class was just behind the times.[/quote]
Things have changed and I think it depends on who you ask if the world is more rude today.
If you were a black man fifty years ago in the so called “good ole days” was the world a more civil place for them? Was America nicer as blacks were called niggers and grown men called Boy.
When my mother first moved here from Korea to a little town in Texas many people were awful to her for a long time and this was in the sixties.
As an American woman of Asian descent there is no other time than right now that I wish to exist.
I can do what I want, go where I want, marry, have or not have kids, work, be a stay at home, whatever. I am allowed my inalienable rights of life, liberty, and my own pursuit of happiness; with no social stigma.
I don’t know if people are ruder or not. I don’t see Americans sprayed with hoses and have dogs sicked on them. No one has called me a chink in a long time. No one is rounding up Native American children and “civilizing” them in federal schools. That seems much ruder than the driver that flips me off.
When I hear about the good ole days…I always think well if you were a white Anglo male they were probably good. If you were anything else it may not have always been so rosy.
I am so glad of the cultural change in America.
September 16, 2009 at 12:31 PM #457972Participant[quote=Zeitgeist]Things have changed. People are not civil any more. Svelte, ask yourself, are drivers more rude than in the past? I think the answer is yes. It is a cultural change that is societal, not just political. People no longer respect the courts and show up in dirty, inappropriate clothing. They no longer respect the presidency and congress. Times have changed. The middle class was just behind the times.[/quote]
Things have changed and I think it depends on who you ask if the world is more rude today.
If you were a black man fifty years ago in the so called “good ole days” was the world a more civil place for them? Was America nicer as blacks were called niggers and grown men called Boy.
When my mother first moved here from Korea to a little town in Texas many people were awful to her for a long time and this was in the sixties.
As an American woman of Asian descent there is no other time than right now that I wish to exist.
I can do what I want, go where I want, marry, have or not have kids, work, be a stay at home, whatever. I am allowed my inalienable rights of life, liberty, and my own pursuit of happiness; with no social stigma.
I don’t know if people are ruder or not. I don’t see Americans sprayed with hoses and have dogs sicked on them. No one has called me a chink in a long time. No one is rounding up Native American children and “civilizing” them in federal schools. That seems much ruder than the driver that flips me off.
When I hear about the good ole days…I always think well if you were a white Anglo male they were probably good. If you were anything else it may not have always been so rosy.
I am so glad of the cultural change in America.
September 16, 2009 at 12:31 PM #458159Participant[quote=Zeitgeist]Things have changed. People are not civil any more. Svelte, ask yourself, are drivers more rude than in the past? I think the answer is yes. It is a cultural change that is societal, not just political. People no longer respect the courts and show up in dirty, inappropriate clothing. They no longer respect the presidency and congress. Times have changed. The middle class was just behind the times.[/quote]
Things have changed and I think it depends on who you ask if the world is more rude today.
If you were a black man fifty years ago in the so called “good ole days” was the world a more civil place for them? Was America nicer as blacks were called niggers and grown men called Boy.
When my mother first moved here from Korea to a little town in Texas many people were awful to her for a long time and this was in the sixties.
As an American woman of Asian descent there is no other time than right now that I wish to exist.
I can do what I want, go where I want, marry, have or not have kids, work, be a stay at home, whatever. I am allowed my inalienable rights of life, liberty, and my own pursuit of happiness; with no social stigma.
I don’t know if people are ruder or not. I don’t see Americans sprayed with hoses and have dogs sicked on them. No one has called me a chink in a long time. No one is rounding up Native American children and “civilizing” them in federal schools. That seems much ruder than the driver that flips me off.
When I hear about the good ole days…I always think well if you were a white Anglo male they were probably good. If you were anything else it may not have always been so rosy.
I am so glad of the cultural change in America.
September 16, 2009 at 12:36 PM #457349felix
ParticipantBoth parties have radical elements. Both parties have those who have those who buy into extreme ideas and conspiratorial theories.
However, there is a difference between the parties with regard to extremism. The Republicans don’t put those types in positions of power. The Democratic party being lead by Obama, Reid and Pelosi embraces extremism and even puts the like of Van Jones and others in charge of vast sums of money.
Obama asked that we judge him by the company he keeps close around him. So far that is getting more disturbing by the day.
Obama’s botched choices for cabinet positions (folks with tax issues and the like)and his reliance on czars demonstrates he and his staff are in over their heads. It has raised more questions about Obama’s real beliefs not the ones he implied while running for president.
Obama’s relies on campaign instead of administration. He’s given more speeches, been on more talk shows and given more soft interviews than any president in my life time and he’s only been in office less than eight months. That has demonstrated what many but apparently not enough of us understood prior to his election. That is that he had no executive experience and that he doesn’t know how to do anything but campaign.
Obama’s ties to folks having extreme positions should have been common knowledge. It also should have been all over the front pages of the papers and lead the nightly news but that story was mostly ignored by the media. If it wasn’t ignored we would all have known that he himself actually held many of these same positions.
Many in the media ignored Obama’s past and his views because of their blind hate of our previous president. The media and Obama took advantage of many voters who have short attention spans or who were unwilling to do what it took to know who or what they were really voting for last November.
We are now watching this country take a huge step toward even a more massive government which will operate in the favor of those who don’t work, who are not citizens or who belong to either our ruling class or unions.
These folks now running our country know many voters only have a long enough attention span to take in themes and slogans such as; “Hope and Change” and “Yes, we can”. They know the pickings were easy if you knew how to not let a good catastrophe go to waste.
Lastly, as to the Freedomworks demonstration this past weekend in DC. I watched about a half an hour of the event on C-Span. The speakers were normal folks with normal concerns. Those who spoke weren’t extremists. They didn’t want more taxes or more government. They worked and took responsibility for their own children and their own health care. They didn’t want our economy stifled by “Cap (tax) and trade”, misguided “Stimulus” programs or takeovers of the private sector.
They also didn’t like any of their very valid concerns being characterized as veiled racism.
September 16, 2009 at 12:36 PM #457543ParticipantBoth parties have radical elements. Both parties have those who have those who buy into extreme ideas and conspiratorial theories.
However, there is a difference between the parties with regard to extremism. The Republicans don’t put those types in positions of power. The Democratic party being lead by Obama, Reid and Pelosi embraces extremism and even puts the like of Van Jones and others in charge of vast sums of money.
Obama asked that we judge him by the company he keeps close around him. So far that is getting more disturbing by the day.
Obama’s botched choices for cabinet positions (folks with tax issues and the like)and his reliance on czars demonstrates he and his staff are in over their heads. It has raised more questions about Obama’s real beliefs not the ones he implied while running for president.
Obama’s relies on campaign instead of administration. He’s given more speeches, been on more talk shows and given more soft interviews than any president in my life time and he’s only been in office less than eight months. That has demonstrated what many but apparently not enough of us understood prior to his election. That is that he had no executive experience and that he doesn’t know how to do anything but campaign.
Obama’s ties to folks having extreme positions should have been common knowledge. It also should have been all over the front pages of the papers and lead the nightly news but that story was mostly ignored by the media. If it wasn’t ignored we would all have known that he himself actually held many of these same positions.
Many in the media ignored Obama’s past and his views because of their blind hate of our previous president. The media and Obama took advantage of many voters who have short attention spans or who were unwilling to do what it took to know who or what they were really voting for last November.
We are now watching this country take a huge step toward even a more massive government which will operate in the favor of those who don’t work, who are not citizens or who belong to either our ruling class or unions.
These folks now running our country know many voters only have a long enough attention span to take in themes and slogans such as; “Hope and Change” and “Yes, we can”. They know the pickings were easy if you knew how to not let a good catastrophe go to waste.
Lastly, as to the Freedomworks demonstration this past weekend in DC. I watched about a half an hour of the event on C-Span. The speakers were normal folks with normal concerns. Those who spoke weren’t extremists. They didn’t want more taxes or more government. They worked and took responsibility for their own children and their own health care. They didn’t want our economy stifled by “Cap (tax) and trade”, misguided “Stimulus” programs or takeovers of the private sector.
They also didn’t like any of their very valid concerns being characterized as veiled racism.
September 16, 2009 at 12:36 PM #457884ParticipantBoth parties have radical elements. Both parties have those who have those who buy into extreme ideas and conspiratorial theories.
However, there is a difference between the parties with regard to extremism. The Republicans don’t put those types in positions of power. The Democratic party being lead by Obama, Reid and Pelosi embraces extremism and even puts the like of Van Jones and others in charge of vast sums of money.
Obama asked that we judge him by the company he keeps close around him. So far that is getting more disturbing by the day.
Obama’s botched choices for cabinet positions (folks with tax issues and the like)and his reliance on czars demonstrates he and his staff are in over their heads. It has raised more questions about Obama’s real beliefs not the ones he implied while running for president.
Obama’s relies on campaign instead of administration. He’s given more speeches, been on more talk shows and given more soft interviews than any president in my life time and he’s only been in office less than eight months. That has demonstrated what many but apparently not enough of us understood prior to his election. That is that he had no executive experience and that he doesn’t know how to do anything but campaign.
Obama’s ties to folks having extreme positions should have been common knowledge. It also should have been all over the front pages of the papers and lead the nightly news but that story was mostly ignored by the media. If it wasn’t ignored we would all have known that he himself actually held many of these same positions.
Many in the media ignored Obama’s past and his views because of their blind hate of our previous president. The media and Obama took advantage of many voters who have short attention spans or who were unwilling to do what it took to know who or what they were really voting for last November.
We are now watching this country take a huge step toward even a more massive government which will operate in the favor of those who don’t work, who are not citizens or who belong to either our ruling class or unions.
These folks now running our country know many voters only have a long enough attention span to take in themes and slogans such as; “Hope and Change” and “Yes, we can”. They know the pickings were easy if you knew how to not let a good catastrophe go to waste.
Lastly, as to the Freedomworks demonstration this past weekend in DC. I watched about a half an hour of the event on C-Span. The speakers were normal folks with normal concerns. Those who spoke weren’t extremists. They didn’t want more taxes or more government. They worked and took responsibility for their own children and their own health care. They didn’t want our economy stifled by “Cap (tax) and trade”, misguided “Stimulus” programs or takeovers of the private sector.
They also didn’t like any of their very valid concerns being characterized as veiled racism.
September 16, 2009 at 12:36 PM #457957ParticipantBoth parties have radical elements. Both parties have those who have those who buy into extreme ideas and conspiratorial theories.
However, there is a difference between the parties with regard to extremism. The Republicans don’t put those types in positions of power. The Democratic party being lead by Obama, Reid and Pelosi embraces extremism and even puts the like of Van Jones and others in charge of vast sums of money.
Obama asked that we judge him by the company he keeps close around him. So far that is getting more disturbing by the day.
Obama’s botched choices for cabinet positions (folks with tax issues and the like)and his reliance on czars demonstrates he and his staff are in over their heads. It has raised more questions about Obama’s real beliefs not the ones he implied while running for president.
Obama’s relies on campaign instead of administration. He’s given more speeches, been on more talk shows and given more soft interviews than any president in my life time and he’s only been in office less than eight months. That has demonstrated what many but apparently not enough of us understood prior to his election. That is that he had no executive experience and that he doesn’t know how to do anything but campaign.
Obama’s ties to folks having extreme positions should have been common knowledge. It also should have been all over the front pages of the papers and lead the nightly news but that story was mostly ignored by the media. If it wasn’t ignored we would all have known that he himself actually held many of these same positions.
Many in the media ignored Obama’s past and his views because of their blind hate of our previous president. The media and Obama took advantage of many voters who have short attention spans or who were unwilling to do what it took to know who or what they were really voting for last November.
We are now watching this country take a huge step toward even a more massive government which will operate in the favor of those who don’t work, who are not citizens or who belong to either our ruling class or unions.
These folks now running our country know many voters only have a long enough attention span to take in themes and slogans such as; “Hope and Change” and “Yes, we can”. They know the pickings were easy if you knew how to not let a good catastrophe go to waste.
Lastly, as to the Freedomworks demonstration this past weekend in DC. I watched about a half an hour of the event on C-Span. The speakers were normal folks with normal concerns. Those who spoke weren’t extremists. They didn’t want more taxes or more government. They worked and took responsibility for their own children and their own health care. They didn’t want our economy stifled by “Cap (tax) and trade”, misguided “Stimulus” programs or takeovers of the private sector.
They also didn’t like any of their very valid concerns being characterized as veiled racism.
September 16, 2009 at 12:36 PM #458144ParticipantBoth parties have radical elements. Both parties have those who have those who buy into extreme ideas and conspiratorial theories.
However, there is a difference between the parties with regard to extremism. The Republicans don’t put those types in positions of power. The Democratic party being lead by Obama, Reid and Pelosi embraces extremism and even puts the like of Van Jones and others in charge of vast sums of money.
Obama asked that we judge him by the company he keeps close around him. So far that is getting more disturbing by the day.
Obama’s botched choices for cabinet positions (folks with tax issues and the like)and his reliance on czars demonstrates he and his staff are in over their heads. It has raised more questions about Obama’s real beliefs not the ones he implied while running for president.
Obama’s relies on campaign instead of administration. He’s given more speeches, been on more talk shows and given more soft interviews than any president in my life time and he’s only been in office less than eight months. That has demonstrated what many but apparently not enough of us understood prior to his election. That is that he had no executive experience and that he doesn’t know how to do anything but campaign.
Obama’s ties to folks having extreme positions should have been common knowledge. It also should have been all over the front pages of the papers and lead the nightly news but that story was mostly ignored by the media. If it wasn’t ignored we would all have known that he himself actually held many of these same positions.
Many in the media ignored Obama’s past and his views because of their blind hate of our previous president. The media and Obama took advantage of many voters who have short attention spans or who were unwilling to do what it took to know who or what they were really voting for last November.
We are now watching this country take a huge step toward even a more massive government which will operate in the favor of those who don’t work, who are not citizens or who belong to either our ruling class or unions.
These folks now running our country know many voters only have a long enough attention span to take in themes and slogans such as; “Hope and Change” and “Yes, we can”. They know the pickings were easy if you knew how to not let a good catastrophe go to waste.
Lastly, as to the Freedomworks demonstration this past weekend in DC. I watched about a half an hour of the event on C-Span. The speakers were normal folks with normal concerns. Those who spoke weren’t extremists. They didn’t want more taxes or more government. They worked and took responsibility for their own children and their own health care. They didn’t want our economy stifled by “Cap (tax) and trade”, misguided “Stimulus” programs or takeovers of the private sector.
They also didn’t like any of their very valid concerns being characterized as veiled racism.
September 16, 2009 at 12:39 PM #457374Allan from Fallbrook
Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=patb]
Iraq in 2001 was strong enough to resist any iranian invasion.Heck if the Iranians invaded we would just sell mustard gas,
nerve gas and even nukes to hussein to prevent that. We did it
before, we’d do it again.[/quote]Very good point patb. Without the invasion of Iraq (Iran’s competitor in the region), Iran wouldn’t be so strong today.
Bush miscalculated. Iraqis did not greet the American “liberators” with parades and flowers. We broke it so now we own it. Too bad for us.
I’m sure that the Bushies would argue that since we are now in Iraq, we are better positioned to prevent an Iranian expansion (prevention and preemption). I personally don’t buy that.
I wonder why Republicans don’t support the big gun approach of shock-and-awe when it comes to prevention and preemption in health care and unwanted pregnancies.
If we can fix Iraq with big weapons, can’t we fix unwanted pregnancies by funding birth control and abortion?[/quote]
Brian: Okay. Given all of that, where do you fall on Obama’s stated position of negotiating with Iran and without preconditions? If you support it, why? If you don’t support it, why?
I’m asking this because I’m genuinely curious. Also, how do you feel about Obama’s position vis-a-vis the North Koreans and Syria? Again, just curious.
September 16, 2009 at 12:39 PM #457568Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=patb]
Iraq in 2001 was strong enough to resist any iranian invasion.Heck if the Iranians invaded we would just sell mustard gas,
nerve gas and even nukes to hussein to prevent that. We did it
before, we’d do it again.[/quote]Very good point patb. Without the invasion of Iraq (Iran’s competitor in the region), Iran wouldn’t be so strong today.
Bush miscalculated. Iraqis did not greet the American “liberators” with parades and flowers. We broke it so now we own it. Too bad for us.
I’m sure that the Bushies would argue that since we are now in Iraq, we are better positioned to prevent an Iranian expansion (prevention and preemption). I personally don’t buy that.
I wonder why Republicans don’t support the big gun approach of shock-and-awe when it comes to prevention and preemption in health care and unwanted pregnancies.
If we can fix Iraq with big weapons, can’t we fix unwanted pregnancies by funding birth control and abortion?[/quote]
Brian: Okay. Given all of that, where do you fall on Obama’s stated position of negotiating with Iran and without preconditions? If you support it, why? If you don’t support it, why?
I’m asking this because I’m genuinely curious. Also, how do you feel about Obama’s position vis-a-vis the North Koreans and Syria? Again, just curious.
September 16, 2009 at 12:39 PM #457909Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=patb]
Iraq in 2001 was strong enough to resist any iranian invasion.Heck if the Iranians invaded we would just sell mustard gas,
nerve gas and even nukes to hussein to prevent that. We did it
before, we’d do it again.[/quote]Very good point patb. Without the invasion of Iraq (Iran’s competitor in the region), Iran wouldn’t be so strong today.
Bush miscalculated. Iraqis did not greet the American “liberators” with parades and flowers. We broke it so now we own it. Too bad for us.
I’m sure that the Bushies would argue that since we are now in Iraq, we are better positioned to prevent an Iranian expansion (prevention and preemption). I personally don’t buy that.
I wonder why Republicans don’t support the big gun approach of shock-and-awe when it comes to prevention and preemption in health care and unwanted pregnancies.
If we can fix Iraq with big weapons, can’t we fix unwanted pregnancies by funding birth control and abortion?[/quote]
Brian: Okay. Given all of that, where do you fall on Obama’s stated position of negotiating with Iran and without preconditions? If you support it, why? If you don’t support it, why?
I’m asking this because I’m genuinely curious. Also, how do you feel about Obama’s position vis-a-vis the North Koreans and Syria? Again, just curious.
September 16, 2009 at 12:39 PM #457980Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=patb]
Iraq in 2001 was strong enough to resist any iranian invasion.Heck if the Iranians invaded we would just sell mustard gas,
nerve gas and even nukes to hussein to prevent that. We did it
before, we’d do it again.[/quote]Very good point patb. Without the invasion of Iraq (Iran’s competitor in the region), Iran wouldn’t be so strong today.
Bush miscalculated. Iraqis did not greet the American “liberators” with parades and flowers. We broke it so now we own it. Too bad for us.
I’m sure that the Bushies would argue that since we are now in Iraq, we are better positioned to prevent an Iranian expansion (prevention and preemption). I personally don’t buy that.
I wonder why Republicans don’t support the big gun approach of shock-and-awe when it comes to prevention and preemption in health care and unwanted pregnancies.
If we can fix Iraq with big weapons, can’t we fix unwanted pregnancies by funding birth control and abortion?[/quote]
Brian: Okay. Given all of that, where do you fall on Obama’s stated position of negotiating with Iran and without preconditions? If you support it, why? If you don’t support it, why?
I’m asking this because I’m genuinely curious. Also, how do you feel about Obama’s position vis-a-vis the North Koreans and Syria? Again, just curious.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.