Those damn big govt republicans just running us into debt, finally we get some cuts! From the democrats!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12130628

$178 Billion in cuts over 5 years.

What does the Republican say?



Aww, must be they gave a lot to his campaign fund. You would think the guy would be so happy to cut spending, but apparently Republicans in power are just as full of crap as those on this board.

It's about freakin time someone cut that ridiculous budget.

china is driving the bus now and the chinese told the antichrist Barack Hussein Obama II the first African American president of the United States to cut the budget and pay up! also if you think that's going to be the only budget cut you're crazier than a loon. personally i can't wait until they start cutting the so called safety net and education programs... you want to talk about bloat.

china is driving the bus now and the chinese told the antichrist Barack Hussein Obama II the first African American president of the United States to cut the budget and pay up! also if you think that's going to be the only budget cut you're crazier than a loon. personally i can't wait until they start cutting the so called safety net and education programs... you want to talk about bloat.
[/quote/]
Those education programs are notoriously overfunded!. The Federal Government spends about 5% of our tax money on education. Ridiculous!

It is very obvious this is the part that bothers you.

Federal spending on education is one of those pesky little issus with the Constitution. Education is the responsibility of the states not the Fed.

As to the DOD cuts, the debate will not be about whether it is cut or not, but about what is cut.

Really? Hmmmmm....Can you show me where in the Constitution it says that the Federal Government isn't involved in education.
Why are there so many federal laws/regulations in education?
And the National standards that were just adopted? How does that fit?

These sort of statements truly irk me. I also believe that it’s disingenuous and used far too often to explain political discourse. As he is biracial, he may be the nation's first African American President, but he is also the nation's 44th white president.

Before you call me a bigot, my family is truly representative of the American “melting pot” . . . including Native Americans, African Americans, Hispanics and Asians.

What part of the statement bothers you? Harleybob bringing race into it or Zorn's response?

I don't see why race has to be brought up at all. Harleybob likes to bring it up a lot and he also likes to use President Obama's middle name a lot. He also likes to mention Mrs. Obama's big butt and say how ugly she is. What is his motive? A better question is what the heck is his problem? I have a pretty good handle on what his problem is. What do you think?

Ghosts, I completely agree, especially the middle name. I believe that some people are afraid of a name--almost like Harry Potter's 'He Who Must Not Be Named.'

I think it should be used more often, perhaps it will lose the 'shock value' that some people think it has.

Education is left to the states in the constitution, All the national laws and standards are set and used because they come with money attached.

Take NCLB and Race to the Bottom as examples, no school needs to follow those. But congress attached them to getting money out of the Feds. In simpler words if you do not do what the Feds want you do not get money.

no it doesn't bother me but i think it bothers people like you that's why i bring it up.


From Wikipedia,
Barack Hussein Obama II (Listeni /bəˈrɑːk huːˈseɪn oʊˈbɑːmə/; born August 4, 1961)is the 44th and current President of the United States. He is the first African American to hold the office. Obama previously served as a United States Senator from Illinois, from January 2005 until he resigned after his election to the presidency in November 2008.

ahahahaha... and i have a real good understanding with what's going on in your over sized head.

Great! Not only is Obama the anti-Christ, he's a quitter too!

Now you're just dreaming...

Might as well ask when was the last time the federal government followed this:

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

By that standard, everyone who quits a job in order to take up another is a "quitter."

I suspect that if you have an African and white background but look black, most people tend to think of you as African American. Was Frederick Douglass black or white? Keep in mind that his father was white.

Yes. It is called the 'Sarah Pailn' standard. I thought it would only be fair to hold Obama to it

Come on Sands, now your just talking crazy.

Yes, I know that Frederick Douglass had a white father. Birth parents, circumstances of birth, era, culture can not be honestly compared to those of our modern day President.

Of course, physical appearance and skin color are the first things people notice. I had hope that President Obama would be able to use the reality of being biracial as a unifying fact and begin to bridge racial issues. However, it seems that many Americans and especially the main stream media only feel compelled to embrace his African heritage.

In the past, children of mixed parentage were usually identified with the parent of color. Even earlier then that, there was the "one drop" rule. I have read that more biracial children in today’s society are experiencing identity problems. Given that, couldn't our President put more emphasis on identifying with the racial, cultural and genetic heritage of BOTH parents and set the right tone and correct the media?

Although no longer a fan of Tiger Woods, I do admire his efforts to identify as biracial.

Link: http://www.texnews.com/tiger/pride042197.html

"Racial identity problems arise when biracial children have to face choosing one racial group and rejecting the other in order to develop an identity. We live in a society that sees things as black and white, with no gray areas. Tiger Woods, who is part African American and part Asian, says that society does not give these children a chance to embrace every aspect of their heritage."

Those who are biracial have said they are denying one parent, and a part of themselves, when they claim only one racial identity.

In the early and mid-1990s, most mainstream newspapers and magazines described Woods as a talented young "black" or "African-American" amateur golfer. Black magazines such as Ebony and Jet profiled the young golfer.

But Woods soon began correcting reporters, telling them he would be denying his mother by allowing the media to describe him only as black.

In June 1995, shortly before playing in his first U.S. Open, Woods went a step further and issued a news release about his racial background.

"The various media have portrayed me as an African-American, sometimes Asian," he said in the short statement. "In fact, I am both... . Truthfully, I feel very fortunate and equally proud to be both African-American and Asian."

[/quote]

Why is Harley entitled to troll and harass everyone, but if I just give him back what he is dishing out, I get told I am going too far.

I think it is fair to bring up race if you have some evidence. It is NOT fair to bring up race out of the blue, just to try and win an argument. If I claimed everyone who disagreed with Obama was racist, taht would be unfair. If I claimed some people are racist towards him, and have some evidence, then I think it is fair.

The evidence with Harley is pretty damned obvious, I think. (most of it already talked about here) He skirts around it, but I think everyone knows there are still a ton of racists in the US that just hide it. Older people are more likely to be racist, as many of them had parents who lived through times when segregation is legal, etc.

Also, there is the evidence that Republicans are more likely to be racist than Democrats. JFK was originally against the civil rights act because he was told that if the Democrats passed it, then Republicans would enjoy '50 years of power' - and basically they did. Passing the civil rights act meant that at that time, racists would be more likely to turn Republican.

Then you have the Lee Atwater and Dog Whistle Politics evidence, that shows Republicans have been pushing some ideas specifically to appeal to racists. As Atwater said, when Reagan said he was in favor of state's rights, he was blowing the dog whistle, letting the racists know that Reagan was against the Federal government forcing states to end segregation.

I can see why you would think I was just using racism as an unfair debate tactic, but that isn't it at all. Harley also knows how to get ahold of me and knows who I am (actually Pete, I have a new cell phone number now, do you want it?) so it's not like I am hiding behind the anonymity of the internet, or he can reply here.

I also wouldn't call many people a racist, even if I knew they were one, but Harley enjoys making people upset here on the boards. He likes making people mad. So screw him, if he is bothered then maybe he can enjoy a taste of his own medicine. Right?

In another thread a guy told me to take a message (bomb) to the guy who leaked all the govt info to Wikileaks, so basically he was telling me he would be happy to see me die. Is anyone calling out these losers? Or just me, the guy who just treats Harley as he treats others?

what's it matter if Douglass is/was black or white he's not the antichrist Barack Hussein Obama II the first African American president of the United States. ahahaahahaahahah!!!

Although I may disagree with you (and many others) at times, I personally feel that you (and others) are also entitled to express your opinions. Using the words "trolling" and "harassment" - as it pertains to Forums, IMO, are subjective. If I feel that a poster has gone "too far" for my taste, I either respond to them or choose to ignore them. Yes, at times, some people can get under my skin. To me, that's the time to sign off until I cool off.

As often stated, this is a privately owned forum . . . so the Mods and FL1 rules determines who is going "too far." If you feel you have been signaled out, you need to forward your concerns to them.

Another poster can only "win an argument" when you let them "win." Each poster has their unique style for either making their point or not really wanting to make a point . . . but "win" by getting their adversary frustrated and angry.

As for your evidence in determining who are most likely to be racists, I have to respectfully disagree. Racists come in ALL colors, political leanings, and age ranges.

As far as history of race relations, as it pertains to the major political parties, may I suggest that you do more research and study? By the way, I am not a Republican.

haha, that is pretty unfair. Look, right now I am reading a book called "Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism". I have Milton Friedman's "Free To Choose" on deck, then "Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies"

I've read a couple history books in the last couple years ("A People's History of the United States: 1492 to Present", "Legacy of Ashes, a History of the CIA" and "Lies My Teacher Told Me"), some Chomsky, etc. The key is that history is often debated, you would have to be a real history buff to not ever get corrected, and even then historians often argue about what really happened. The recent books I have read probably don't sound fair to someone who thinks that what is taught in high schools is the correct version of history, but that is what is, in my opinion, pretty important for people to know about history - what is taught at the high school level for history is a pretty biased and whitewashed view.

So to just say 'do more research and study' comes across as pretty arrogant, in my opinion. I HAVE read about what I stated, and possibly the books I read were wrong, but if so, please correct me, don't just assume I am ignorant and making stuff up. It is also unfair to assume that if someone gets something wrong, they don't read. They might just read about many different subjects, not to mention reading fiction on top of that...

Your opinion of me is noted . . . although I must respectfully disagree.

I do not wish to debate the merits (or lack of) of our preferred reading book titles. However, since I enjoy reading, I may just add your recommended books to my winter reading list. How is that for arrogance?

I agree that "what is taught at the high school level for history is a pretty biased and whitewashed view." In my opinion, the distortion of our nation's history starts even at an earlier age in our public schools. Educational materials are overly scrutinized and censored in an effort to "protect" children from anything deemed offensive or controversial.

The most recent blatant example . . . the revisionist approach to the American classic, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. The political correctness is absurd and only goes further to distort our true history. Mark Twain was not a racist.

I don't believe that I made that assumption.