Glenn Beck, Cleon Skousen, Amerigo Vespucci, & Me

[gurneyhalleck1]

I can see you didn’t really have me on ignore since you found time to read my post and laugh at it, Melanie. I’ll address your points in blue…that is, if you can handle a debate without making outlandish statements then putting the other guy on ignore…

**So Bill Clinton didn’t sign any of the bills that cut spending? Yes or no? Just a yes or no will suffice …so Bill Clinton didn’t sign the welfare reform sent to him by Congress? Again, a simple yes or no is fine. He didn’t cut food stamps and sign the bill? Yes or no. He didn’t sign the balanced budget legislation from the House and Senate? So, let’s take this slowly…the President of the United States, Bill Clinton, signed the legislation that was sent to him by a majority Republican Congress, and thus made the legislation and policies official by his signature. But by your logic he gets NO CREDIT for the bills, the outcomes, or the successes of his terms? Hmmmm. Wow. That’s new logic to me. So by your thinking, an executive officer never should get credit, only advisors in a company, even though the exec didn’t have to sign anything and has the power to turn down what he wishes. So I guess George W. Bush shouldn’t get credit for signing the tax cuts into effect either. Apprently only Congress gets credit when times are good. **

But to address your previous post specifically, the reason that you hear that Clinton didn’t balance the budget a lot is because that’s true. He was cheerfully spending away during his first term, sort of like Obama is now, except Obama is doing it on steroids. The majority of the country disagreed with his policies and voted in a Republican Congress and they were the ones that cut spending, balanced the budget, reformed welfare, and delivered a surplus. The booming economy was the result of the economic policies of the US Congress, not the President.

**Yeah, you’re right. He had nothing to do with it. He only SIGNED ALL THE BILLS INTO LAW!! :hypno::newidea: Whoever said the legislation was his? LOL…most legislation doesn’t belong to a president, regardly of party. So what’s your point? No president ever gets credit for anything if he signs legislation that he didn’t write himself? Guess Reagan, FDR, Kennedy, Washington, heck all of them don’t get credit by your standard? And by the way, you talk about rude sarcasm, look at your cute little biting comment in red. **
Clinton had nothing to do with it, apart from the fact that it occurred during his time as President. And you can be sure that, absent the turnover in Congress in 1994, it never would have happened at all. So it is hardly an accomplishment of Clinton. **To refresh your memory from high school government class **~ spending bills originate in the House of Representatives, not with the President. Legislation to reform welfare originates in Congress, not with the President. Yes the President signs the legislation, and has to if it was passed with a veto-proof majority. That doesn’t make the legislation HIS.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Unfortunate indeed. Interesting how you blame the Democrats for their sad transformation? Republicans chose to spend away, adopt a Neo-con nation-building agenda, scare the crud out of us all, get us in debt, and grow government. And that’s the Dems’ faults when they were the minority in both houses and out of power in the executive office, too? Wow…interesting theory…You have to be pretty dumb to sell your souls to a party that is completely impotent and out of power. Dumb indeed if you’re correct.
Unfortunately the Republicans lost their way after Bush was elected, realizing, as Democrats have known for decades, that you can buy votes with taxpayer money via earmarks and other forms of government spending. They were wrong to do that, but that doesn’t suddenly retroactively give Clinton a halo for balancing the budget because he didn’t, the Congress who opposed him did. He would never have done it on his own. That’s why people tell you that Clinton didn’t balance the budget because he didn’t and it is factually wrong to say he did.

Big corporations, farmers, and the rich are fond of their “freebies” too. Maybe we should quit the agricultural welfare that we pay to farmers! I live in a highly agricultural area. They’re getting plenty of government perks. All the write-offs to big business and no-bid contracts Halliburton got from Cheney, that wasn’t a form of gimmee gimmee? And it’s sure interesting how corporate America was all-too-happy to take bail-out money from Bush and Obama. Trust me, illegals and dead-beats aren’t the only folks getting something for free.
It’s hard to say, yet, if Republicans have learned their lesson. A lot of the people that were there in 1994 are no longer there today. Spending bills are still chock full of earmarks and entitlement spending is scheduled to grow exponentially. I guess we’ll see. People seem to be delighted to receive government freebies, and nearly half the country pays no income taxes to fund those freebies, and yet those same people are happy to vote in additional taxes for the other half who pay for everything. Well of course they’re happy to do that because they know they won’t pay any taxes to make it happen, they’ll just enjoy the benefits. This was one of the things the Founders warned us about.

No argument from me. We finally agree 100%. I hated the bailouts, the stimulus under BOTH presidents, and the idiotic “job” bills and agenda Obama has set forth. He will put us in debt infinitely IMO. He has put the nail in our coffins.
It will be interesting (notice I did not say FUN) to see what happens if and when we get to the point where we can neither borrow, nor tax, enough to fund all the freebies that people want to have. Then what? Do we have riots like Greece? Do people get killed? Do we set buildings on fire? Because that is where we are headed if we stay on the present course. It sorta makes you wonder what these people in Washington are thinking. You CAN’T just keep borrowing money and spending like there is no tomorrow because tomorrow eventually COMES.

**Old enough to be my mother? Didn’t realize that. I found your post pretty insulting as well and the c ya at the end was a nice final slap on the way out just as this post ended with a click and an ignore. **
Your “beyond the teenage style c-yas” statement is offensive. Are you suggesting I’m immature? That’s really insulting. Especially since I’m old enough to be your Mother. Maybe I was just saying goodbye, ever think of that? Or was the urge to insult too hard to resist?
Wouldn’t be the first time!
Since I don’t believe I wrote “just sayin” anywhere on this thread, I’m not sure where you get that, perhaps you’re confused?

**I deeply appreciate your wishes, Melanie. I sure hope to have a nice life. I have a great wife and three kids, a good job, live in a state I love, can’t complain. Hope you have a nice life as well! And thanks for explaining the whole click thing. That’s always confusing and definitely needs elaboration and blanks filled in. Glad you did that. **
Have a nice life. CLICK (and that means, so I don’t have to explain it to you, that I am going to put you on ignore so that I don’t have to be exposed to further insults.)

I think you seriously misunderstand my posts and are overreacting in a tea party, GOP, Fox News style. I’m an independent. I know most GOP folks think that means “if you’re not with us you’re against us!” a la Bush. It actually means I see good and bad in both parties and refuse to sign up like a drone to either one. I go in the tradition of Washington who had no love for partisan politics. I call it like I see it. As I said, I voted for Dole, not Clinton, yet I will give Clinton the credit I feel he deserves as a matter of public record. I will also give Bush credit for what he did. His tax rebates for families saved my wife and my butts more than once when times were thin. I voted twice for him and never once believed half the tripe the far left said about him. But I also don’t believe that Obama is a communist, not a citizen, and out to own all the car companies, yada yada. I think Obama is a ninny and a failure, but I owe it to be truthful in my observations. I’m not in a “camp” where the Dems are always the bad guys, always always always. Can’t go that route. I see you can. We just disagree. Best of luck to you.

 

[dianaiad]

**So Bill Clinton didn’t sign any of the bills that cut spending? Yes or no? Just a yes or no will suffice …so Bill Clinton didn’t sign the welfare reform sent to him by Congress? Again, a simple yes or no is fine. He didn’t cut food stamps and sign the bill? Yes or no. He didn’t sign the balanced budget legislation from the House and Senate? So, let’s take this slowly…the President of the United States, Bill Clinton, signed the legislation that was sent to him by a majority Republican Congress, and thus made the legislation and policies official by his signature. But by your logic he gets NO CREDIT for the bills, the outcomes, or the successes of his terms? Hmmmm. Wow. That’s new logic to me. So by your thinking, an executive officer never should get credit, only advisors in a company, even though the exec didn’t have to sign anything and has the power to turn down what he wishes. So I guess George W. Bush shouldn’t get credit for signing the tax cuts into effect either. Apprently only Congress gets credit when times are good. **

History/civics lesson on the roles of the adminstrative vs. the legislative bodies of the United States of America (I’m still trying to figure out if you were serious, here…)

The president of the United States may not pass any law. That is the job of Congress. Once Congress has put together a bill and passed it, then the President has three choices: he can sign it into law, he can veto it outright, or he can…simply refuse to sign it.

In the last two instances, Congress can overide his veto. The President of the US can also make executive decisions (executive orders) that pretty much have the force of law, but he cannot, except through the force of political peer pressure (I’ll support you if you support me, and if you vote for this bill I’ll see to it that you don’t get any good committeeships or c’mon, be true to the party and I’ll campaign for you…) affect the vote of congress. He can propose ideas, even detailed ones, to congress members, but then Congress has to write it and make it law.

So really; does Clinton deserve credit? Well, compared to Obama he was a wonderful President, and I never thought I would ever say anything close to that. The fact is, Melanie is correct; Clinton signed those bills. Not because he wanted to, but because he didn’t have a choice…so no, he doesn’t get any credit for stuff passed when he was dealing with a Republican Congress, not when he was generally, and rather adamantly, OPPOSED to those measures.

Personally, I think the best of all worlds is a Centrist, Pragmatic Democrat President and a no nonsense Republican Congress. They’ll either keep each other from doing anything stupid, or else get something reasonable done. The WORST of all worlds is a Democrat controled House, Senate AND an idealogue in the Oval Office. I think the evidence of this is before us.

(shrug)

But that’s politics, and has nothing to do with religion. To bring the whole thing back on topic, I see a great many Catholic conservatives—and I also see a great number of Catholic liberals. Their politics don’t matter much at Mass, do they?

Well, the same thing SHOULD apply at the voting booth, and in all other religions.

 

[MelanieAnne]

History/civics lesson on the roles of the adminstrative vs. the legislative bodies of the United States of America (I’m still trying to figure out if you were serious, here…)

The president of the United States may not pass any law. That is the job of Congress. Once Congress has put together a bill and passed it, then the President has three choices: he can sign it into law, he can veto it outright, or he can…simply refuse to sign it.

In the last two instances, Congress can overide his veto. The President of the US can also make executive decisions (executive orders) that pretty much have the force of law, but he cannot, except through the force of political peer pressure (I’ll support you if you support me, and if you vote for this bill I’ll see to it that you don’t get any good committeeships or c’mon, be true to the party and I’ll campaign for you…) affect the vote of congress. He can propose ideas, even detailed ones, to congress members, but then Congress has to write it and make it law.

So really; does Clinton deserve credit? Well, compared to Obama he was a wonderful President, and I never thought I would ever say anything close to that. The fact is, Melanie is correct; Clinton signed those bills. Not because he wanted to, but because he didn’t have a choice…so no, he doesn’t get any credit for stuff passed when he was dealing with a Republican Congress, not when he was generally, and rather adamantly, OPPOSED to those measures.

Personally, I think the best of all worlds is a Centrist, Pragmatic Democrat President and a no nonsense Republican Congress. They’ll either keep each other from doing anything stupid, or else get something reasonable done. The WORST of all worlds is a Democrat controled House, Senate AND an idealogue in the Oval Office. I think the evidence of this is before us.

(shrug)

But that’s politics, and has nothing to do with religion. To bring the whole thing back on topic, I see a great many Catholic conservatives—and I also see a great number of Catholic liberals. Their politics don’t matter much at Mass, do they?

Well, the same thing SHOULD apply at the voting booth, and in all other religions.

Thanks for that. I agree (!) including the part about Clinton being “wonderful”, at least in retrospect (although I might not have used that word) compared to the current occupant of the Oval Office and I suspect you’re correct about the ideal makeup of the Executive and Legislative branches of government.

If we keep this up, the next thing you know we’ll be saying “let’s do lunch”.

I do have a problem with any President committing perjury, no matter what the reason, which is why I wouldn’t have used “wonderful” to describe Clinton. I think I’d choose another word, maybe “effective” or “competent”. That would certainly distinguish Clinton from Obama, since Obama is neither. For committing perjury, which Clinton was unequivocally proven to have done, regardless of the subject matter, he should have been driven out of office. Clinton damaged the office of the President and was never truly held accountable. Unfortunately people seem to have forgotten that now. There is an interesting double standard in our country about this sort of thing. I have to wonder if that will ever be addressed appropriately.

Clinton had a pretty “easy ride” as Presidencies go. He didn’t have the extreme problems to deal with that have confronted Presidents that have succeeded him and for those problems he did have, he had the benefit of years of executive experience, something Obama had NONE of before taking office, which clearly shows now. And of course, as has already been noted, he had the benefit of that “no nonsense Republican Congress” that has enabled him to bask in the glow of the economic success the policies of that
“no nonsense Republican Congress” produced.

Politically I’m an independent. I can’t say I have ever supported any party 100%, but today, the parties have become so extreme, and, at times, so vicious towards each other that I have begun to wonder whether ANYONE connected with them is actually concerned about the American people. It seems to me they often just care about their own power. If I were asked about the Democrats and the Republicans my most likely opinion would be something along the lines of “a pox on both their houses”.

And you’re right (AGAIN! YIKES!) this all ends in the pews. In fact our choir director has banned all political discussion from ever taking place during practice or at any other time the choir gathers. This is probably a very smart rule. While the Church has some opinions about various political topics (the most recent Orange County Catholic newspaper has an article supporting Comprehensive Immigration Reform) I don’t believe any are binding on the members except for the Church’s stance on abortion and euthanasia. (I could be wrong about this, and if so, someone will undoubtedly correct me.)

According to the Church, a Catholic cannot support a political candidate that supports abortion. Catholic liberals who support such candidates get around the Church’s position by justifying their choice (at least to themselves) as the selection of “the lesser of two evils”. And Catholic bishops across the country, with few exceptions, take no action, particularly against prominent politicians who support abortion. (Examples: Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry) I submit THAT’s the scandal.

In the end, I don’t worry about the political differences among those sitting next to me in the congregation. I have my personal opinions, and they may not just clash with those of someone sitting next to me at Church, I know that they definitely clash with those of dear friends and some family members. I give my opinion when the subject comes up, and others give theirs, similar to the give and take on this forum. And I leave the rest up to God.

 

[dianaiad]

Thanks for that. I agree (!) including the part about Clinton being “wonderful”, at least in retrospect (although I might not have used that word) compared to the current occupant of the Oval Office and I suspect you’re correct about the ideal makeup of the Executive and Legislative branches of government.

If we keep this up, the next thing you know we’ll be saying “let’s do lunch”.

Oh, I dunno…unless you like Wienerschnitsel’s pastrami sandwiches? I’m a cheap date.

Anyway, I’m with you. A pox on both their houses. I’ve been officially a Republican all my life, because California until now was a closed primary state. What I REALLY am is a rock solid libertarian who leans fiscally right. (sigh)

 

[MelanieAnne]

Oh, I dunno…unless you like Wienerschnitsel’s pastrami sandwiches? I’m a cheap date.

Anyway, I’m with you. A pox on both their houses. I’ve been officially a Republican all my life, because California until now was a closed primary state. What I REALLY am is a rock solid libertarian who leans fiscally right. (sigh)

Never had a Wienerschnitsel pastrami but it sounds intriguing.

Politically, I’m not sure what I am.

 

[dianaiad]

Never had a Wienerschnitsel pastrami but it sounds intriguing.

Politically, I’m not sure what I am.

They are good. I just discovered them. Dunno if a proper New York deli customer would agree, but I like 'em.

…and “I’m not sure what I am” people tend to be “Independent” to “liberatarian…” like me.

 

[MelanieAnne]

They are good. I just discovered them. Dunno if a proper New York deli customer would agree, but I like 'em.

…and “I’m not sure what I am” people tend to be “Independent” to “liberatarian…” like me.

I bet you’re not 100% libertarian. A true die-hard libertarian is OK with legalizing drugs. I’m just guessing, but I doubt you’re for heroin and cocaine being available at your local 7-11.

I’m pretty much a “pastrami on rye and don’t you dare put mayo on it” kind of girl. (Which sounds pretty much like “New York deli” or at least Katella deli. But I’m open to new possibilities and the local Wienerschnitzel drive thru is waking distance from my house, so I’ll have to give it a try!

 

[dianaiad]

I bet you’re not 100% libertarian. A true die-hard libertarian is OK with legalizing drugs. I’m just guessing, but I doubt you’re for heroin and cocaine being available at your local 7-11.

Notquite that…but I AM in favor of restricting laws against most drugs to making it illegal for those who use them to do anything where their impairment could harm others. So I might be a little closer to the above than might be comfortable.

I’m pretty much a “pastrami on rye and don’t you dare put mayo on it” kind of girl. (Which sounds pretty much like “New York deli” or at least Katella deli. But I’m open to new possibilities and the local Wienerschnitzel drive thru is waking distance from my house, so I’ll have to give it a try!

Oh, when you do, tell me what you think. I want to know if I’ve been missing something REALLY good for 60 years!

 

[MelanieAnne]

Notquite that…but I AM in favor of restricting laws against most drugs to making it illegal for those who use them to do anything where their impairment could harm others. So I might be a little closer to the above than might be comfortable.

Agreed. Light show to come.

Oh, when you do, tell me what you think. I want to know if I’ve been missing something REALLY good for 60 years!

I’ll let you know. May not be this week tho’.

 

[awatkins69]

Ok, tongue firmly in cheek over that one…

Look. I love Wikipedia. I send my students there first when they begin research for papers. It’s a great place to START…but anybody stupid enough to CITE Wikipedia as a primary source flunks the paper. It is comprehensive, perfect for getting local information that appears nowhere else, the majority of the contributors are honest researchers…but just enough are NOT so to make it anything but a primary, ‘objective source of information.’

This is the same complaint I hear all the time. I think it’s bogus. Now of course we don’t cite wikipedia as a primary source. That doesn’t even make sense. But it’s still good for general information. There are all kinds of “checks and balances”. If the article is cited as being biased, it says so. If there is information that needs citations, it says so. I may never include wikipedia in my bibliography, but more than a few of my sources come from the notes and references at the end of each wikipedia article.

The simple fact of the matter is that Beck provided the incorrect information, and wikipedia provided the correct information. Not to mention that the page on Benjamin Banneker alone has over 130 sources, including letters. Beck probably uses a tenth of that, and those are the ones he likes.

No, he didn’t plan it, but he certainly did the surveying…

So why does Beck perpetuate the myths? Why not clear things up, being the great historian that he is.

You mean that it isn’t possible to be anti-another faith and be true to one’s own faith? (innocent expression…) Or is it just anti CATHOLICS who are evil personified?

I’m just trying to figure out how the 25% of the US population that is Catholic is going to be able to find a rabid anti-Catholic as their model for the virtue of Faith.

Glenn Beck doesn’t address culture, education, morality, religion, community, tradition, yada yada yada?

…are you sure we are watching the same Glenn Beck?

Yes. All he does is go on and on about the socialist Nazi-like conspiracy, and gives us a few spurious economic statistics. Throw in a couple of erroneous historical “facts” and you’ve got the Glenn Beck Program. Meanwhile objective morality, justice, and truth are crumbling before the neo-con secular emphasis on money, free trade, foreign war, “Pax” Americana, and Israel-love.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Hi MelanieAnne. Well at least we can put our shotguns down LOL. That must be some kinda record. Gone from vehement disagreement and the ignore button to agreeing on much. That’s some progress we had! LOL

I agree about Clinton and am not president of his fan club but I do like some things about him. I like his willingness to come to the center to do what was right and to survive himself. Obama will be a one-term (I hope) president because he is unwilling to come to the middle on anything. He’s an idealogue to the extreme and is, I believe, willing to sacrifice a second term in order to tinker with our social and political fabric as much as possible. I predict he will not go the way of Clinton, moving to the center right, even for his own survival…

I loathed the way Clinton cheated on Hillary umpteen times. It was scandalous and nauseating. I agree about the purgery stuff as well. My problem is with both the Republicans and Dems on that one, though. I heard Republican moms and dads saying, “I’m appauled! I mean, I’m disgusted that my little 10-year old boy, Billy sees his own president on TV linked to semen-stained dresses, oral sex, and adultery! Shame on you, Mr. President, for exposing Billy to your sin!” Now while that is partly true, it was the Republicans who went out of their way to out him and put it to the media to show. Linda Tripp and Ken Starr went on a crusade to expose what Clinton had done showing it to the world and putting him in a position to confront a humiliating sin in front of millions of people. It’s like knowing that a little boy’s daddy has Playboy magazines in his sock drawer. You have two choices–confront dad and tell him to knock it off or you can show Billy, ‘hey, look at what your dad is into!’ Does the kid need to know that? Did the American people need to know that?

Look at Kennedy. That guy was a sex maniac! He made Clinton look like an amateur. And most Americans knew it. The White House and the Congress knew it full well. But nobody sought to expose it and bring shame to the office and the man in that way and force him to be in a situation like that. So, yeah, I agree it was purgery. But it shouldn’t have been asked to begin with really.

As far as a plague on both their houses? I agree 10000%. Replacing Obama with some vouchers loving, war-minded, tax-cutting, good ole boy Republican will only put a guy in the White House to compliment an already venomous and hateful congress of Dems and GOP that will get more nothing done for another 4 years. I’m convinced that until we get a total Independent Ross Perot type (without the southern quips, please!!) we’re hosed!

Thanks for that. I agree (!) including the part about Clinton being “wonderful”, at least in retrospect (although I might not have used that word) compared to the current occupant of the Oval Office and I suspect you’re correct about the ideal makeup of the Executive and Legislative branches of government.

If we keep this up, the next thing you know we’ll be saying “let’s do lunch”.

I do have a problem with any President committing perjury, no matter what the reason, which is why I wouldn’t have used “wonderful” to describe Clinton. I think I’d choose another word, maybe “effective” or “competent”. That would certainly distinguish Clinton from Obama, since Obama is neither. For committing perjury, which Clinton was unequivocally proven to have done, regardless of the subject matter, he should have been driven out of office. Clinton damaged the office of the President and was never truly held accountable. Unfortunately people seem to have forgotten that now. There is an interesting double standard in our country about this sort of thing. I have to wonder if that will ever be addressed appropriately.

Politically I’m an independent. I can’t say I have ever supported any party 100%, but today, the parties have become so extreme, and, at times, so vicious towards each other that I have begun to wonder whether ANYONE connected with them is actually concerned about the American people. It seems to me they often just care about their own power. If I were asked about the Democrats and the Republicans my most likely opinion would be something along the lines of “a pox on both their houses”.

And you’re right (AGAIN! YIKES!) this all ends in the pews. In fact our choir director has banned all political discussion from ever taking place during practice or at any other time the choir gathers. This is probably a very smart rule. While the Church has some opinions about various political topics (the most recent Orange County Catholic newspaper has an article supporting Comprehensive Immigration Reform) I don’t believe any are binding on the members except for the Church’s stance on abortion and euthanasia. (I could be wrong about this, and if so, someone will undoubtedly correct me.)

According to the Church, a Catholic cannot support a political candidate that supports abortion. Catholic liberals who support such candidates get around the Church’s position by justifying their choice (at least to themselves) as the selection of “the lesser of two evils”. And Catholic bishops across the country, with few exceptions, take no action, particularly against prominent politicians who support abortion. (Examples: Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry) I submit THAT’s the scandal.

In the end, I don’t worry about the political differences among those sitting next to me in the congregation. I have my personal opinions, and they may not just clash with those of someone sitting next to me at Church, I know that they definitely clash with those of dear friends and some family members. I give my opinion when the subject comes up, and others give theirs, similar to the give and take on this forum. And I leave the rest up to God.

 

[dianaiad]

As far as a plague on both their houses? I agree 10000%. Replacing Obama with some vouchers loving, war-minded, tax-cutting, good ole boy Republican will only put a guy in the White House to compliment an already venomous and hateful congress of Dems and GOP that will get more nothing done for another 4 years. I’m convinced that until we get a total Independent Ross Perot type (without the southern quips, please!!) we’re hosed!

And THAT, my friend, would be the best of all possible worlds.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I will be as optimistic and hopeful as possible here and hope that you are definitely not addressing me with this “history civics lesson” implying I never had said course and don’t know how my country works; I’ll assume you’re just speaking in general. …

History/civics lesson on the roles of the adminstrative vs. the legislative bodies of the United States of America (I’m still trying to figure out if you were serious, here…)

---

The president of the United States may not pass any law. That is the job of Congress. Once Congress has put together a bill and passed it, then the President has three choices: he can sign it into law, he can veto it outright, or he can…simply refuse to sign it.
These are all obvious and understood by all in here I would hope. I’m not sure what your point is here except to educate people getting their GED or trying to become citizens?
In the last two instances, Congress can overide his veto. The President of the US can also make executive decisions (executive orders) that pretty much have the force of law, but he cannot, except through the force of political peer pressure (I’ll support you if you support me, and if you vote for this bill I’ll see to it that you don’t get any good committeeships or c’mon, be true to the party and I’ll campaign for you…) affect the vote of congress. He can propose ideas, even detailed ones, to congress members, but then Congress has to write it and make it law.

**Absurd. He always has a choice. We’ve watched presidents veto bills before in various circumstances. Bottom line is any of your speculation is just that…speculative theory and supposition. You’re welcome to all your theories but you can’t prove any of them. Just like with Bush. We have to go by FACTS. Was he for amnesty for illegals? YES. Did he do it because he believed in it or just because he wanted to appease hispanics and glean off liberal votes? Did he do it to keep his “base” that he admits is the rich who need the cheap labor of the illegals? Who cares? We can speculate till the cows come home. Bottom line: he favored amnesty. Credit must be given where credit is due. Clinton played a part in signing those bills into law. Hence, he deserves credit for their success. If they had failed, I’m sure you and your cohorts would’ve quickly blamed him and diverted culpability from Congress. Bottom line is you hate Democrats and they will never earn credit in your eyes even if they’re right. Same can be said for the Moveon.org George Sorous loons. They also are playing team partisan politics “our camp vs. their camp” and no sense of fairness or objectivity will ever exist in their eyes. I use the same sense of fairness with Democrats in my analysis. The Democrats tried to blame Bush for “lying to the American people” and “fooling us all” and we kept hearing their protestations that they were “lied to” as a congressional body and “manipulated.” They also contend that Bush is an unintelligent, dim-witted boob. They can’t have it both ways. If he’s dumb, he can’t manipulate and strong-arm and cajole people. I try to be fair in how I view politics. As an independent-minded person I call it as I see it. Clinton played a role in signing a successful series of policies and bills into law. He gets credit. Obama signs a train wreck called the stimulus into law…he gets credit for a mushroom cloud. It’s simple math IMO. I know we’ve both taken civics so I won’t insult you assuming you don’t “get it,” you just disagree. We see it differently. That’s fine. **
So really; does Clinton deserve credit? Well, compared to Obama he was a wonderful President, and I never thought I would ever say anything close to that. The fact is, Melanie is correct; Clinton signed those bills. Not because he wanted to, but because he didn’t have a choice…so no, he doesn’t get any credit for stuff passed when he was dealing with a Republican Congress, not when he was generally, and rather adamantly, OPPOSED to those measures.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

**Here is an area where I enthusiastically agree with you 100%. My personal favorite president would be

Pro-life
Pro-environment
Pro-union
Anti-gay marriage and social tinkering
Willing to use government in an effective way and grow it where it needs to grow, cut it where it’s least effective and worthless (i.e. the department of education, and I’m a teacher!)
Against vouchers
Pro faith based initiatives and supportive of religious communities
Pro military and supportive of troops but NOT into nation-building a la Cheney/Bush
Against repealing don’t ask don’t tell, keep things status quo, gays forbidden in military
Pro regulatory reform of banks and wall street
Tough on insurance companies but also willing to undertake huge tort reform for medical professionals
Pro second amendment, gun owners’ rights
Against illegal immigration and willing to deport AND hard against those who hire illegals
Close the borders tight as a drum using military to guard it
Against out-sourcing jobs
Pro public education and not blamey toward teachers for all social ills
Against the drill baby drill mentality, hardcore in favor of alternative fuels for cars
Pro death penalty
Christian
Respectful toward public sector labor force AND private equally, not divisive
Not Sarah Palin

Those are the qualities of my dream candidate
And I also think we need a balance of ideaologies in the Congress as well. A mix of Dems and GOP in both houses, or a majority of each in the respective houses. Mixed government should be the ideal. One party government brought us the lovely Bush years and the rosey peachy Obama debacles…puke! These guys are all so crooked that they need a check on themselves badly!

**
Personally, I think the best of all worlds is a Centrist, Pragmatic Democrat President and a no nonsense Republican Congress. They’ll either keep each other from doing anything stupid, or else get something reasonable done. The WORST of all worlds is a Democrat controled House, Senate AND an idealogue in the Oval Office. I think the evidence of this is before us.

(shrug)
Yep!
But that’s politics, and has nothing to do with religion. To bring the whole thing back on topic, I see a great many Catholic conservatives—and I also see a great number of Catholic liberals. Their politics don’t matter much at Mass, do they?

Well, the same thing SHOULD apply at the voting booth, and in all other religions.

 

[dianaiad]

**Here is an area where I enthusiastically agree with you 100%. My personal favorite president would be

Pro-life
Pro-environment
Pro-union
Anti-gay marriage and social tinkering
Willing to use government in an effective way and grow it where it needs to grow, cut it where it’s least effective and worthless (i.e. the department of education, and I’m a teacher!)
Against vouchers
**

Why against vouchers? Frankly, given the state of public education, it would be a very good thing to have some competition. Also, since property taxes support the schools (usually) vouchers would give parents back some choice in how their children are being educated.

Right now, no matter what the parents do with their kids, they ARE supporting public education. If they don’t like what’s happening in the school system and put their kids in private school or (gasp) homeschool them, they are paying for their kid’s education TWICE.
How is that fair?

…and I too am a teacher.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Where are you a teacher? What grade?

I disagree with your assessment. In my classroom over the last 12 years I have observed that the majority of the time there is a recipe for success:

An active parent, parents who read with their children, parents who help their kids with their homework, parents who show up to conferences, parents who are married and not divorced ten times or shacking up, parents who keep their kids in school all day and don’t yank them out on a daily basis early because it’s convenient, parents who keep on top of their kids’ work, parents who work with teachers and actually know where the classroom is and who the teacher is, parents who don’t expose their kids to violent video games and put them to bed at 11pm each night, parents who are actually at home with their kids, etc.

You might notice the prime ingredient: parents.

But that is largely ignored. I work my ever-loving butt off in the classroom every day. 110%.I try to run the type of classroom that I would’ve enjoyed: demanding, rigorous, full of fun, some comedy, group work AND plenty of solo work, creativity, some test prep, plenty of social studies and science balanced with language arts and math, plenty of review, lots of technology, making adjustments, etc.

The kids that usually are failing in my classroom have a prime ingredient: parental apathy or parental absence or a learning disability. They make poor decisions. They refuse to do work or refuse to show up off and on or they just don’t want to do the work.

Vouchers would create a new class system. Public education takes anyone: the poor, the wealthy, the intellectual, the retarded, the lame, the low, the high, good, bad and the ugly.

Private education does not have to take anyone. It tests kids to get in and if they aren’t cutting it, they’re toast. I have also watched from personal experience in private education how the big donors at churches often have kids who are bullies, punks, and get away with ten times more than the kids whose parents are not wealthy and big donors. I watched a co-teacher of mine have all her kids at our catholic school. Her son was beaten up on an almost daily basis by a total jerk kid with a huge bully complex. The principal would not do more than a simple talk and wrist slap with the kid because his parents donate tens of thousands. The teacher mom I know is middle class. They had to pull their kid out and put him in public where he’s been happy.

Private schools have a huge amount of wealthy and jaded kids and they have their own problems. Just turn on MTV for a minute and watch that Pregnant and 16 show or whatever it’s called. It’s usually laced with Catholic and Reformed schools, pregnant girls admitting to smoking dope and having oral sex while sitting there in a Catholic school girls’ uniform.

My best friend, a hardcore conservative and anti-public education guy (who incidentally teaches in public!!) pulled his son out of the Catholic high school nearby because the materialism, the sex, the drugs, the dinking, and fighting were out of control AND the teachers were more liberal than in the public! He had to go back to public.

Private often has teachers without credentials although most do.

What would happen would be this: The smart kids get the voucher. They run to a private school, let’s say St. Paul’s Anglican School. They pass the entrance test easily. They are now members. The middle of the road to low kids try and don’t pass. They don’t enter. They go back to public. The public kids are all now basically middle to low kids with no role models amongst their peers, nothing to shoot for, no leadership in groups or in the classroom, the blind leading the blind in many cases. Teachers in public would be teaching primarily learning disabled, lower, misbehaving, what the private would deem the rejects.

The test-test-test mentality would balloon like crazy. There would be no one standard to compare the private and public systems so how would we know who is achieving at a superior level? As it stands now there is not a SHREAD of evidence that private schools offer a superior or up to par education with the public schools. So the theory that competition would make things better is just that…a theory at best. We’ve seen no data that says otherwise.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Conservatives tend to think that de-regulating the utilities and competition will make prices go down. Funny how when they did that in California the rates went up and up. No doubt competition would do little for education.

It’s all about parents, teachers, administrators, and society working as a team. When the parents drop the ball and don’t care, the kids don’t care, and education as a society is not really respected, you can have all the vouchers you want and it wouldn’t matter one iota.

In California we have very very rigorous mathematics, history, science, and language arts standards. Most of the parents complain that the kids can barely handle the challenges we’re throwing at them. We spend so much time with worrying about silly state tests thanks to NCLB and other nonsense. I value public education and don’t think vouchers would do a thing except to elevate the gifted and bright, who would exceed in public anyway, to private while the lowly get kept down anyway. The system has flaws, no doubt. I see them. But I blame our society and our values as a culture more. Just as I don’t blame the corrections system and police force for the out of control state of crime and delinquency as well as packed prisons. I blame society and a lack of values. I don’t blame the DMV for the myriad moronic drivers who cause wrecks and carnage, I blame the recklessness of individuals. I think vouchers is just another conservative theory with blame attached to the public employee and the public sector. It’s just like the “let’s attack pensions!” agenda they have. The only culprit in the conservative world is always the public employee.

Why against vouchers? Frankly, given the state of public education, it would be a very good thing to have some competition. Also, since property taxes support the schools (usually) vouchers would give parents back some choice in how their children are being educated.

Right now, no matter what the parents do with their kids, they ARE supporting public education. If they don’t like what’s happening in the school system and put their kids in private school or (gasp) homeschool them, they are paying for their kid’s education TWICE.
How is that fair?

…and I too am a teacher.

 

[zaffiroborant]

. I value public education and don’t think vouchers would do a thing except to elevate the gifted and bright, who would exceed in public anyway, to private while the lowly get kept down anyway.

I don’t see how it would benefit the gifted who live as paycheck to paycheck working poor or those that are poverty stricken. What incentive to these schools have to seek out children in these circumstances? And how in the world would they find them, it’s not like there is any venue for gifted kids to show their talent and they cant’ just go poking around in the student records to cull out the bright poor.

Did you read A Nation of Wimps I see vouchers benefiting the children of parents described in that book, not those I mentioned above or even lower middle class families who struggle to make ends meet.

 

[awatkins69]

Look. I’m not particularly gifted. But we in California do not have high standards for our kids. Not trying to be mean, but you must not have been in school in the last decade. I’m a senior in high school and it is not hard. You are correct in saying that it is the society and values. We don’t have high standards, we just have terrible kids (caused by their unfortunately terrible parents in a terrible culture).