GOP still proving why they lost

[Nagumo]

(Dec. 26) -- A candidate for the Republican National Committee chairmanship said Friday the CD he sent committee members for Christmas -- which included a song titled "Barack the Magic Negro" -- was clearly intended as a joke.
The title of the song about President-elect Barack Obama was drawn from a Los Angeles Times column.

http://news.aol.com/main/obama-presidency/article/magic-negro-satire-rnc-candidate-says/287730?icid=200100397x1215155052x1201010164

Note, the name of the song is Barack the Magic Negro.

According to The Hill, other song titles, some of which were in bold font, were: "John Edwards' Poverty Tour," "Wright place, wrong pastor," "Love Client #9," "Ivory and Ebony" and "The Star Spanglish Banner."

I'm sorry, while this material might or might not offend you, it has no place at work and especially in a government office. Then again, after the McCain Palin campaign, is anyone surprised that the GOP seems to be filled with people that think it's quaint to poke fun of others race, sex, or creed?

[Rob]

I am happy Obama won, but let's not kid ourselves and think the above is only from the GOP. Democrats have just as many blunders and idiotic calls/emails/text messages/slip ups. Of course, what they didn't have was Palin, which is why they won.

In the words of Wayne Campble, she is a psycho hose beast.

[Nagumo]

Sorry, but the most blatant sycophants and racists are still tied up in the GOP. Two words, Strom Thurmond (that people continued to vote for a man that supported segregation till the day he died also says something). While he started out as a Democrat, he shifted as did many, when the main conservative base switched to the Republican party. And it all spilled out between McCain, Huckabee, and Palin. If the GOP ever wants to get back in power, they're going to have to cut away the dead flesh that are the neo-cons. People like Palin and Huckabee need to go for the party to recover.

Oh, and next time. Try picking a candidate that isn't obviously suffering from the early stages of senility and dementia.

[Mikell]

He's losing it.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=189149&title=gaffe-in

[The Plainsman]

All Republicans aren't bad people or racist, but the party does seem to attract that element in much bigger numbers than the Democrats. Think the Klan or the Skinheads voted Democrat for President? Think again.

It was truly cognitive dissonance watching John McCain's campaign rallies -especially Palin's - and McCain's concession speech on the night of November 4. Great speech by McCain on Nov. 4, but the audience was all white, just like his and Palin's campaign rallies. At least the audiences at Obama's rallies looked like America in 2008. McCain's rallies looked like America in 1928.

And anybody who watched the electoral map fill up in November 4 saw that the GOP is now a marginalized regional party. The party of the South, and a shrinking south too. North Carolina, Viriginia and Florida have already turned blue. Georgia will be next. In 2012, without McCain on the ticket, Arizona will go blue, and maybe even Texas, joining Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada, all of which flipped to blue in 2008. The entire West Coast and Northeast are permanently locked down as Democrat, along with the enlightened upper midwest (Minnesota, Wisconsin Iowa, and Illinois). No way will they ever vote for the Sarah Palin Party. GOP can still fight for Ohio and Indiana, I guess, LOL. Man, what's left for the GOP? The Dakotas? LOL. I've been to both North and South Dakota. About 200 people live in each state.

The GOP may not get back the White House--ever.

[Lou Cypher]

Sorry, but the most blatant sycophants and racists are still tied up in the GOP. Two words, Strom Thurmond
That is the most idiotic statement that I've heard in a long time, the Democrats elected Sen Robert Byrd as Senate Majority leader from 1977 to 1981 and from 1987 to 1989 was Senate Minority leader.
Sen. Robert Byrd was also a member for 10 years in the Ku Klux Klan, he once wront a letter saying....

"I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side... Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."

And whatever his personal views were, Thurman supported the Voting Rights Act and making the birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr. a federal holiday.


But if the GOP is full of racists why is it that the Democrats always play the race card.

Lou :globe:

[Nagumo]

No, what's idiotic is picking a paragraph apart and removing the context to contort it to what you wish it to say.

If the GOP ever wants to get back in power, they're going to have to cut away the dead flesh that are the neo-cons. People like Palin and Huckabee need to go for the party to recover.

Gee, ads just a bit of light to what part of the respective GOP I'm actually referring. :rolleyes:

[Lou Cypher]

No, what's idiotic is picking a paragraph apart and removing the context to contort it to what you wish it to say.

Carefull, don't start with personal attacks, I stated that your statement was idiotic, I wasn't calling you an idiot.
Calling people an idiot is breaking forum rules.

Lou :globe:

[Terry Penrod]

.

1. Calling a certain statement idiotic

2. Calling the act of picking that statement apart out of context idiotic

These in effect are the exact same thing.

Which one came first?

Cheers, Terry

[pcfreak]

And two wrongs don't make a right!

[Terry Penrod]

.

And two wrongs don't make a right!


True Stuart, but what we actually have here are three wrongs followed by a couple of minor infractions, which I will now proceed to dissect, examine and analyze.


Initial Sequence of Events:

1. Party A makes an unsolicited derogatory remark about Party B's statement.

2. Party B replies in kind with a similar derogatory remark.

3. Party A accuses Party B of doing what Party A did to begin with.


Primary Question: Who was the instigator, Party A or Party B?


Secondary Question: Which Party is being hypocritical?


Preliminary Conclusion: Although Party B should not have "taken the bait", clearly Party A is more to blame for any personal ill will.


Observation: By publically pointing out the above and commenting about it, Parties C and D are in effect fanning the flames and thereby helping to generate more heat (always a good thing during the long, cold days of winter).


Final Conclusion: Since this is the "heated discussions" forum, all parties are being true to the designated theme by participating in the proper spirit and should therefore be congratulated.


So keep up the good work guys!

Cheers, Terry

.

[MassiveEffect]

You are the most logical person I know Terry. :):

[The Plainsman]

Republicans constantly pointing out Robert Byrd makes about as much sense as Democrats constantly pointing at Strom Thurmond. Sperm Thurmond, as he was affectionately known, is dead, and so is Byrd, although no one knows it yet. What both of these people did way back when is no longer relevant.

The issue is TODAY. Which of the two major parties today is favored by the racist crowd, the David Dukes of contemporary America? The Republicans. The GOP is the party that least looks like America in 2008, and that's a fact.

And when it comes to actual voting, it really does show a divide between the parties based on race/ethnicity: 95% of blacks voted Obama; 67% of Hispanics voted Obama; 63% of Asians voted Obama; 78% of white Jews voted Obama. The majority of women, the majority of people who are college graduates, the majority of people living in cities and suburbs voted Obama.

Straight white Christian males voted overwhelmingly for McCain, as did whites of both genders in the South, whites in rural areas, and people McCain's age. White women outside the South voted for Obama (thank God).

The problem for the GOP is that straight white Christian males, especially those with a high school education or less, are shrinking as a percentage of the electorate, and white seniors who grew up when segregation and discrimination were the order of the day are dying off. This leaves the GOP with a major league problem. How do they cater to their base of hard core evangelical, us against them, our way or the highway, the world is black and white with no gray areas conservatives, which is rooted in Dixie with all that that connotes, and convince the aforementioned groups which currently shun them to vote for them?

I'm going to enjoy watching the GOP twist and writhe over this dilemma. They will likely implode. The GOP really has only one way to go. Abandon the extreme right wing, particularly the evangelicals, and stop preaching hate and division by favoring candidates within their party who, like Sarah Palin, publicly proclaim that there are "real Americans" and people who aren't (i.e., anybody who disagrees with GOP orthodoxy or doesn't interpret the Bible literally). While these folks aren't going to vote Democrat even if the GOP hierarchy ditches them, I don't see the GOP having the balls to break their dependency on these divisive people. The GOP needs their own Obama, someone who publicly proclaims a desire to bring the country together. But the GOP has depended so long on wedge politics to win, now that the country's chaning demographics have made that strategy untenable, they don't have a leader who can even mouth the words "bring the country together." The GOP has the same message as always: "cut taxes on bidness," "government is the problem not the solution," and "America is a Christian nation." There is just one problem. Cutting taxes under Bush and deregulation are hugely responsible (along with a stupid and unnecessary war in Iraq) for our current fiscal crisis. After Bush cut taxes the price of gasoline went through the ceiling. Although I realize the one is not directly responsible for the other, both did occur and in that order. And now the terrible government is looked to as the solution rather than the problem. And I can't think of very many things more divisive than trying to turn this country into a theocracy.

I say again: The GOP will likely impode. The only way they will regain the White House is if the Obama administration is a miserable failure. The GOP probably sees an easier chore to work against Obama in the hope that he fails rather than doing anything to change their own orthodoxy and make their party truly inclusive.

[Terry Penrod]

.

Political-party bashing aside, demograhics don't lie and all trends point to a huge expansion in the coming decades of Hispanic Americans, who are evidently shunning extreme rightwing policies by the droves.

The black community (also expected to experience healthy growth) is already decidely moderate-middle to left-of-center and the majority of other voters in most densely populated, large urban areas are too.

So who DOES that leave to vote for the Republican Party in the foreseeable future?

As The Plainsman mentioned, it is a dwindling number of (mostly) older white males along with a wider mix of people in conservative rural areas along the Bible Belt and in a few other more isolated places scattered about.

Otherwise, the party's general voter base is evangelical and spread out in various geographic areas - urban, suburban and rural.

The point is that logistically these groups are relatively hard to reach because they are not conveniently concentrated in centralized urban centers. Moderates and liberals have a huge advantage in that way because they can focus most media resources on a handful of major markets and reach millions of their core supporters along with millions more who may be undecided.

Tough road ahead for the GOP huh?

That is if they continue pandering so much to ultra-conservative (mostly white) rightwingers.

They need to change AND soften (moderate) their core message, recruit a much more complete racial mix from top to bottom and do a better job of reaching females in general. They can not completely abandon their primary policies though. They have to remain strongly for fiscal responsibility / accountability, national security, progressive but controlled growth, and reasonably firm but more flexible "family values" (as in healthy, wholesome NOT anti-gay or perceived as sexist).

This must be done no matter how Obama fares over the next four years, but obviously they will have a much easier time if he fails. If he succeeds, I don't see anyway for the Republicans to win the next presidential election. However, they could do better in congressional, gubernatorial and local races - especially if America's financial problems linger on - and they could begin rebuilding a broader national base for 2016.

Cheers, Terry

[The Plainsman]

Here's an interesting blog post about the GOP's White Supremacism:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-jenkins/the-gops-white-supremacy_b_153823.html

[Mikell]

And anybody who watched the electoral map fill up in November 4 saw that the GOP is now a marginalized regional party. The party of the South, and a shrinking south too. North Carolina, Viriginia and Florida have already turned blue. Georgia will be next. In 2012, without McCain on the ticket, Arizona will go blue, and maybe even Texas, joining Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada, all of which flipped to blue in 2008. The entire West Coast and Northeast are permanently locked down as Democrat, along with the enlightened upper midwest (Minnesota, Wisconsin Iowa, and Illinois). No way will they ever vote for the Sarah Palin Party. GOP can still fight for Ohio and Indiana, I guess, LOL. Man, what's left for the GOP? The Dakotas? LOL. I've been to both North and South Dakota. About 200 people live in each state.

The GOP may not get back the White House--ever.

Were you asleep the last two elections? These things run in cycles. The GOP may not get back the White House---ever!? That's ridiculous. When taxes start going up and the Dems start pushing socialized medicine down our throats. When law abiding citizens are required to register a shotgun and have to register ammunition and pay a tax on it( There is already a bill in the California legislature), the Dems ride will be over. Then the whole process will start again.
Bush appointed a number of minorities to his cabinet and senior staff.


Alberto Gonzales: Attorney General
Colin Powell: Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and Secretary of State
Condoleeza Rice: National Security Advisor and Secretary of State
Norman Mineta: Secretary of Transportation
Carlos Gutierrez:Secretary of Commerce
Elaine Chao:Secretary of Labor

[The Plainsman]

Were you asleep the last two elections? These things run in cycles. The GOP may not get back the White House---ever!? That's ridiculous. When taxes start going up and the Dems start pushing socialized medicine down our throats. When law abiding citizens are required to register a shotgun and have to register ammunition and pay a tax on it( There is already a bill in the California legislature), the Dems ride will be over. Then the whole process will start again.
Bush appointed a number of minorities to his cabinet and senior staff.


Alberto Gonzales: Attorney General
Colin Powell: Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and Secretary of State
Condoleeza Rice: National Security Advisor and Secretary of State
Norman Mineta: Secretary of Transportation
Carlos Gutierrez:Secretary of Commerce
Elaine Chao:Secretary of Labor

Bush si gone. We're talking about what's left of the Republican Party. But here is the thing that will disrupt "the cycle": It's called demographics, Mikell. Demographics don't lie. The Republican Party appeals almost exclusively to whites. The percentage of whites in this country is shrinking not growing. Do the math. No listing of ex-Bush cabinet members changes the math in the general population. There will always be some minorities that vote Republican. There just aren't enough of them and the Republicans offer little that is appealing to most minorities.

The "real Americans" against "them" mentality of the current GOP turns off minorities and the majority of white women. Unless the GOP changes its stripes, it's dead in the water. I don't think the GOP is capable of abandoning their racist approach to winning elections. They don't know how to change. The release of the "Barack the Magic Negro" vid by a candidate for Republican National Committee chairman is the latest example of the Republican mentality toward anybody who isn't white.

[Terry Penrod]

.

Let us examine the three seniormost Bush officials that Mikell listed.

1. Alberto Gonzales: Attorney General

2. Colin Powell: Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and Secretary of State

3. Condoleeza Rice: National Security Advisor and Secretary of State

All represent key minority groups. BUT one quit in disgrace, one quit because he was duped into acting as a shill for Bush during the extremely ill-advised Iraq War "sales pitch", and the other assumed the hole left by him because Bush could count on her to obediently toe the party line - without fear of any dissent whatsoever.

More to the point is that two of these people (Rice and Gonzales) have decidedly conservative political views and in Powell's case, politics in general really never was his thing. That's the other reason he bailed midstream.

Even more relevant is the fact that the core political views of these and most other conservative Republican politicans no longer aligns with America's voter base. The only voters that support them unflaggingly are the people that Plainsman listed above and their numbers are in fact dwindling while the other side is gaining in population VERY fast.

The bottom-line here is that token pandering to racial minorities, women, gays, most people in large urban areas and a growing number of white moderates like myself just won't cut it any more.

No matter what happens in the next four years under Barack Obama, those facts will not change. The extreme rightwing agenda will still be a BIG turn off for the majority of voters in this country. So unless the Republican Party lets go of it, their chances of retaking power are slim to none.

Like I said before, they need to change their core message, rhetoric and tone - and they must stop pandering so much to the ultra conservative evangelical right. If they don't, kiss that party goodbye.

Cheers, Terry

[Mikell]

Obama won because he was new blood. That's what the GOP needs.
But to say the Republicans will never get the White House again, ever, is ludicrous and very short sighted. Neither party has held the office more than two terms since FDR. If the GOP is so bad, why don't the Dems win every presidential election? Because of stupid, racist voters?
Please.

[Mikell]

"The bottom-line here is that token pandering to racial minorities, women, gays, most people in large urban areas and a growing number of white moderates like myself just won't cut it any more."

Sounds exactly like the Democratic Party.

[Nagumo]

Bush si gone. We're talking about what's left of the Republican Party. But here is the thing that will disrupt "the cycle": It's called demographics, Mikell. Demographics don't lie. The Republican Party appeals almost exclusively to whites. The percentage of whites in this country is shrinking not growing. Do the math. No listing of ex-Bush cabinet members changes the math in the general population. There will always be some minorities that vote Republican. There just aren't enough of them and the Republicans offer little that is appealing to most minorities.

The "real Americans" against "them" mentality of the current GOP turns off minorities and the majority of white women. Unless the GOP changes its stripes, it's dead in the water. I don't think the GOP is capable of abandoning their racist approach to winning elections. They don't know how to change. The release of the "Barack the Magic Negro" vid by a candidate for Republican National Committee chairman is the latest example of the Republican mentality toward anybody who isn't white.


And that's backed up by the other tracks on there poking fun at other minorities as well.

He might as well have just picked up some old Johnny Rebel tunes and played "Move Them Niggers North". Same message and at least the language is true to the message. I got the feeling on one too many occasions that if it were still acceptable the many in the GOP during the campaign would have called Obama a ****** long ago. They were certainly quite animated about his heritage. The fact that they tried to peg him as Muslim shows exactly what their mentality is. It doesn't matter that he's Christian and not Muslim. What matters is that they tried to slant an entire religion that is practiced by billions by associating it with the fringe nutters. To them I say look inwards as Tim McVey was a Christian terrorist. Does that mean Christianity is evil? By their thinking it does. The rest of us realize that nutters exist everywhere and you can't judge an entire group of people by the most extreme idiots.

[Terry Penrod]

.



Obama won because he was new blood. That's what the GOP needs.

But to say the Republicans will never get the White House again, ever, is ludicrous and very short sighted. Neither party has held the office more than two terms since FDR. If the GOP is so bad, why don't the Dems win every presidential election? Because of stupid, racist voters?

Please.

Mikell, past history has nothing to do with this.

It is the CURRENT far-right leaning version of the Republican Party that is in sharp contrast with the majority of voters in America today and (according to all estimates) a rapidly growing number of hispanics and blacks.

So it doesn't matter one bit what the party may have done prior to this period. All that matters is what they do in the near future and that had better include a significant change to their core message and strategy.

Cheers, Terry

[Terry Penrod]

.

"The bottom-line here is that token pandering to racial minorities, women, gays, most people in large urban areas and a growing number of white moderates like myself just won't cut it any more."

Sounds exactly like the Democratic Party.

So, President Barack Obama is just a little token pandering to racial minorities huh?

I suppose his main opponent in the primaries Hillary Clinton was just a bone of appeasement they threw at women too.

Riiiiiiiiiiight.

Sorry Mikell, but the Democratic Party appeals far, far more right now to people of ALL colors. But when it comes to racial minorities, young voters in general and women under the age of 60, the overwhelming majority relates much more closely to it than the GOP of today.

Here's something else to consider -

Of the last three First Ladies, which one was a high-powered political mover and which ones were relatively demure housewives? Moreover how would you depict the upcoming First Lady?

Do you see the trend here?

Not just the latest Democratic Presidents but also the First Ladies are extremely dynamic, high-profile people that have accomplished a lot in their own right.

Heck, Hillary may actually be smarter than Bill and Michelle ain't no dummy either.

The point?

That women and racial minorities are taking REAL power in the Democratic Party, while older white men continue to dominate the Republican Party at the very highest levels.

Cheers, Terry

[Mikell]

That goes for the Democrats as well. They could lose their hold just as easily as they got it. I've already said the process is cyclical.

"But here is the thing that will disrupt "the cycle": It's called demographics, Mikell. Demographics don't lie. The Republican Party appeals almost exclusively to whites."

No demographics don't lie. They do change. Any state could go from blue to red or red to blue. Even Texas has had Democratic governors.

You are basing the GOP on Bush alone. Or at least mostly.

[Nagumo]

Think of it this way Mikell. Historically The Democratic party was the conservative party and Republican's were the liberals. We also had the Whig party at that time. But eventually the parties philosophies came full circle. Do you really expect me to vote for the party as it was back in the 1800's? No, I vote based upon what each respective candidate and party's ideals are today. And today the GOP consists of too many myopic, xenophobic, racist, sexist, and opinionated busy bodies too be useful to the bulk of the US demographic. Nobody is saying that the Democrats are some holy grail or that they anywhere approaching perfection. Anyone with an ounce of commons sense knows that there is a reason that the Democratically controlled congress had a lower approval percentage than even Bush. We're just saying that the GOP needs to do some serious restructuring and cutting of necrotic flesh to get back in power with the trend we are seeing in US demographics.

A prime example of how out of touch with the population the GOP is was the final leg of the election race. McCain's own camp told him to run 100% negative attack ads during the last leg as they openly admitted they would lose if they ran on the issues. That pretty much tells you how out of date the GOP's policies are with today's US population.

[Terry Penrod]

.

That goes for the Democrats as well. They could lose their hold just as easily as they got it. I've already said the process is cyclical.

"But here is the thing that will disrupt "the cycle": It's called demographics, Mikell. Demographics don't lie. The Republican Party appeals almost exclusively to whites."

No demographics don't lie. They do change. Any state couldgo from blue to red or red to blue. Even Texas has had Democratic governors.

Yes Mikell, we all know that.

But what we're saying is the current cycle will be a very long one IF the GOP continues down the same path.

That's because ALL population growth in America over the next decade is expected to come from the very groups that historically and currently support the Democrats by a huge margin.

In sharp contrast, the core support for the GOP is getting smaller. So they MUST start appealing to a much broader range of demographics if they want to win any more big elections.

It's a simple matter of numbers.

Cheers, Terry

[Nagumo]

That's because ALL population growth in America over the next decade is expected to come from the very groups that historically and currently support the Democrats by a huge margin.

By and large, that is the very reason we've seen so many vocal extremists that are the GOP's core constituency. The hardcore right wing religious conservative white base is seeing their stranglehold on government wither away as minority population grows, religious tethers break, and many whites become more open minded and socially aware of the strenuous bonds of current race relations in America.

[Terry Penrod]

.

By and large, that is the very reason we've seen so many vocal extremists that are the GOP's core constituency. The hardcore right wing religious conservative white base is seeing their stranglehold on government wither away as minority population grows, religious tethers break, and many whites become more open minded and socially aware of the strenuous bonds of current race relations in America.

I would say that the election of Barack Obama as president pretty much popped the final balloon of denial that racial minorites would always remain a step behind.

So what we have now is proof positive that blacks, hispanics and women can rise to the highest positions of power in America PLUS an undeniable population-growth trend that threatens whites as the majority.

Now, as more and more people of color assume power, they could possibly begin swinging more toward the center and yes, right of center. But IMO that will take at least a full generation to happen - if it happens at all.

In the meantime, the Republican Party has to stop alienating minorites, moderates (both left leaning and right leaning) and women if they are to have any hope of winning the White House back.

Cheers, Terry

[Mikell]

.

I would say that the election of Barack Obama as president pretty much popped the final balloon of denial that racial minorites would always remain a step behind.

So what we have now is proof positive that blacks, hispanics and women can rise to the highest positions of power in America PLUS an undeniable population-growth trend that threatens whites as the majority.
Cheers, Terry


What we also have is the end of minorities (including women) blaming white men for every problem in their lives. We have proof that affirmative action is not necessary. I hope we can finally end this hyphenated American bullsh*t and all just be Americans.
But mark my words, if there is a scandal or Obama screws the pooch it will be worse than before.

[Nagumo]

We have proof that affirmative action is not necessary.

Not really. I agree with your other sentiments though, not with this one. Racism/sexism is still very prevalent in a behind-the-scenes type of way. Until minorities hold positions of power in accordance with their population inside of the US, it's all ********. Hell, it wasn't but a few years ago that Publix lost a lawsuit proving that women were deliberately held back when it came to position and "upgrades" within the company (I say "upgrades" as that is the same term Publix used to describe employee increases in position).

[Terry Penrod]

.

I know this may sound like a broken record, but education reform geared specifically to eliminate the student achievement gap is a far, far better way to achieve true equality in America than any type of quota system.

There are still way too many poor school districts that suffer from low teacher standards, overcrowded classrooms, antiquated curriculae, and generally terrible conditions.

These problems can not be solved with vouchers or by throwing good money after bad either. They require REAL reforms at the school district level to redesign public education from the ground up with full cooperation between the board trustees, superintendents, administrators, teachers, parents, local politicians and the community / constituency at large.

It HAS to be a total effort that encompasses every single aspect of the system from smart financing and budget accountability to campus redesign, raising teacher standards and revamping the curriculum to align with today's realities.

ONLY when we have fixed our broken schools and truly leveled the playing field for all students regardless of race, gender, economic status or geographic location can we ever expect to produce a generation of graduates that can compete fairly head-to-head in this world.

Of course, we also need to strictly enforce equal rights laws for all sectors with NO exceptions period. But that is a very hard thing to do and it alone will never solve the root problem.

Instead we must attack the cause, which is a huge achievement gap stemming directly from a public school system that's both outdated and extremely slanted toward predominantly white children from middle to upper-income homes.

Now, you may say, "Hey I pay a lot more taxes than the average family in center-city ghettoes and poor rural disticts. Why shouldn't my kids get all these advantages?"

Here's why.

By maintaining such an enormous disparity of standards between public school districts based SOLELY on average household incomes, we GUARANTEE that true racial equality will never ever be fully achieved AND we guarantee that millions of kids in each new generation will keep growing up without the essential tools they need to excel on their own.

This in turn guarantees that America will always have a massive welfare population, higher crime rates, sharp racial divides, and other associated problems - ALL of which cost astronomical amounts of tax money, reduce the overall quality of life in this nation, and assure that our workforce is less capable than it could and should be.

Moreover, it perpetuates the need to have quota systems and THAT is why we have to solve the root problem no matter what it takes.

It isn't socialism or charity for the sake of some ideological cause. It is a pragmatic matter of long-term national survival.

Cheers, Terry

.

[Mikell]

.
Instead we must attack the cause, which is a huge achievement gap stemming directly from a public school system that's both outdated and extremely slanted toward predominantly white children from middle to upper-income homes.
Cheers, Terry

That is simply not true. The reason there are under performing schools is that there are under performing students with under performing parents. Children from middle to upper income homes do better because their parents usually did better. How is the public school system slanted towards whites?
That's like criticizing Asian students for wrecking the grade curve. If you want a school system that works, do not allow foreign nationals to attend US public schools illegally.

[Nagumo]

That is simply not true. The reason there are under performing schools is that there are under performing students with under performing parents. Children from middle to upper income homes do better because their parents usually did better. How is the public school system slanted towards whites?
That's like criticizing Asian students for wrecking the grade curve. If you want a school system that works, do not allow foreign nationals to attend US public schools illegally.


You're so off base it's not even funny. Talk to an actual teacher with three plus decades of experience inside of the public education system like my own mother. Schools have no budget, they rely heavily upon donations from local businesses and parents to make up for an extraordinary deficit. By and large black communities are impoverished and can not afford to donate to the degree many white, Hispanic, and Latino communities can. Many schools in black neighborhoods don't have enough books to give the students in class and none to take home! That certainly isn't conducive for learning anything. These schools have nothing. They don't have modern computer, no supplies, no extra curricular programs, and no college preparation courses.

I've seen the deficit myself. My mother has worked at schools in areas of great diversity. In the schools in Broward that are in primarily black neighborhoods, the parents are actually more involved with the school and their children. However, because the funding for schools is so poor, an the parents can not afford to give much money, the conditions are horrible and the school had no supplies, most certainly nothing modern. Compared to the public school in the white area with the wealthier parents, where the school would take in millions from PTA donations. Of course that school had better teacher student ratios, modern equipment, all sorts of extra curricular activities, and had students that achieved higher grades. What it also had were parents that couldn't
be bothered with doing anything but throwing money at schools. The notion that somehow black parents are poor parents is horrifically bigoted and flat out as racist as they come. Poverty does not make a poor parent just like wealth does not make a good parent. Race plays no role as there are good and bad parents of all races, creeds, and genders.

I'd also suggest you Google the following three sets of boolean strings

schools racially biased
aptitude tests racially biased
FCAT racially biased

to see just how off base you are with your statements. The racial makeup of a school has been proven to play a large factor in discrepencies in state funding. People are even suing over it!

Wisconsin school funding policies tolerate a huge funding gap between urban schools with large numbers of minority students and predominantly white suburban schools, according to a report released Monday (January 15, 2000) by the Milwaukee-based education reform group Rethinking Schools.

- http://www.weac.org/News/2000-01/jan01/rethink.htm

Yup, no bias there.


Children from middle to upper income homes do better because their parents usually did better.

Yeah, I guess the fact that most of the people with that kind of money send their children to private academy's and prep schools eluded you.

[Mikell]

I grew up in a small rural town and on welfare for the first 18 years of my life. I think I'm qualified to speak on the subject.
If those schools aren't getting funding is that the fault of whites?
You know what I see in the poor sections of town that I don't see in the upper middle class sections in Austin? On site day care centers paid for by the taxpayers. Now some groups are paying poor students(mostly minority) to attend class.
The Austin school district sent over 63 million dollars to the state this year as part of the "share the wealth" program. Most of that money goes to cover the cost of educating illegal foreign nationals and providing translators for their parents. That's where the money goes.

"The notion that somehow black parents are poor parents is horrifically bigoted and flat out as racist as they come. Poverty does not make a poor parent just like wealth does not make a good parent. Race plays no role as there are good and bad parents of all races, creeds, and genders."

Put the booze down. I said nothing of the kind.

[Terry Penrod]

.

That is simply not true. The reason there are under performing schools is that there are under performing students with under performing parents. Children from middle to upper income homes do better because their parents usually did better. How is the public school system slanted towards whites?

That's like criticizing Asian students for wrecking the grade curve. If you want a school system that works, do not allow foreign nationals to attend US public schools illegally.

You really need to do your homework Mikell.

This subject is one I have spent a LOT of time researching in great depth while working directly with the founder and executive staff of the most respected independent educational reform organization in America, CRSS.

Matter of fact, the founder of CRSS, Dr. Donald McAdams wrote the book on it.

Published by Teachers College Press in January 2006 and titled “What School Boards Can Do: Reform Governance for Urban Schools”, it is the most widely recognized published work on this topic. The foreword was written by Dr. Rod Paige, former U.S. Secretary of Education, who also had a hand in the initial concept that CRSS is based on.

Additionally, I have worked closely with the CRSS senior board members (a Who's Who of experts in the field of education) and their primary funding partner The Broad Foundation.

With several other direct links to major groups including the American Association of School Administrators, Brookings Institution: Brown Center on Education Policy, Council of the Great City Schools, Education Commission of the States, Education Trust, National Center for Educational Accountability, National Center for Educational Achievement / Just for the Kids, National School Boards Association, Public Education Network, Teach For America, and many others - I have done my homework.

Here's the thing - White kids from wealthier homes have several BIG advantages and most of them go on to achieve more in life than the majority of kids from poor minority homes.

Think about this - On average, white children from better neighborhoods do better in school and later in life than white kids from poverty stricken areas and it is NOT just the parents that make a difference.

It is a complex combination of distinct advantages including more successful parents / role models, more secure homes, better food, etc. along with access to better schools, better libraries, better everything.

One begets the other. Poor communities, poor parents, poor role models and poor schools yield relatively poor students.

If you force kids from the poorest homes and the worst neighborhoods to attend the worst schools, (regardless of color) most of them will fail. The deck as they say is completely stacked against them from the moment they are born.

Conversely, if you send kids from the best homes and wealthiest neighborhoods to the best schools, most of them will succeed - at least much moreso than their poor counterparts. That's because the deck is stacked in their favor straight down the line.

There has been a huge amount of excellent research done on this Mikell and I have seen much of it. More importantly, I have seen the results of an aggressive progam to stimulate public education reform in over 100 diverse American school disticts to date. That progam (called Reform Governance in Action) is specifically geared to close the student achievement gap and it flat-out works.

Similar programs funded by Michael Dell, Bill and Melinda Gates, and numerouss others are also getting the same kind of undeniable results. They know the facts about this and so do I.

The average comparative test scores, grades, graduation rates, post-grad income levels, and other directly related statistics don't lie and I'm here to tell you that your understanding of this problem is sorely lacking.

Cheers, Terry

.

[Mikell]

"Think about this - On average, white children from better neighborhoods do better in school and later in life than white kids from poverty stricken areas and it is NOT just the parents that make a difference."

Let's leave color out of this for a minute. Middle and upper class people tend to be better educated. Educated people tend to make more money. People with more money tend to support their children's schools monetarily. There is nothing government can or should do about that.

[Nagumo]

"Think about this - On average, white children from better neighborhoods do better in school and later in life than white kids from poverty stricken areas and it is NOT just the parents that make a difference."

Let's leave color out of this for a minute. Middle and upper class people tend to be better educated. Educated people tend to make more money. People with more money tend to support their children's schools monetarily. There is nothing government can or should do about that.



Really? :\


So government should not try to raise the bar on education so that people without loads of money can have the same educational opportunities as those who do have everything? In case you hadn't noticed, that isn't working. The numbers of impoverished are rising steadily, and when they can't make a legit living they turn to crime. That affects me, you, and everyone else. Don't even get me started upon how our lack of emphasis on education has led to a downturn in the US economy, a downturn in our GDP, and a major downturn in our importance to the global community. To say your position is myopic is the understatement of the year.

[Terry Penrod]

.

"Think about this - On average, white children from better neighborhoods do better in school and later in life than white kids from poverty stricken areas and it is NOT just the parents that make a difference."

Let's leave color out of this for a minute. Middle and upper class people tend to be better educated. Educated people tend to make more money. People with more money tend to support their children's schools monetarily. There is nothing government can or should do about that.

Nobody here is suggesting that the government interfere with any of those things Mikell.

BTW, Reform Governance in Action, Teach For America, and similar highly effective programs receive ZERO government funding. They are all 100% financed and otherwise supported by private foundations, corporations, wealthy philanthropists, and individual concerned citizens like myself.

Here is the basic problem -

Most of America's public schools today (rich, poor and in between) are still based on a model that was designed over 100 years ago - specifically to provide a cursory education to lower/middle-class kids - most of whom were destined to toil in the country's rapidly expanding manufacturing complex as factory workers.

Well, the world has change a LOT since then and America's schools now trail most Western nations (very badly in some cases) - nations we must compete directly against in this new global economy. The campus designs, curriculum, teaching methods, everything is outdated and in the poorest communities, things are even worse - much worse.

As Nags said, the conditions in our poorest schools are appalling and NO amount of parental involvement is going to magically transform them into effective, modern institutes of learning. More to the point, those parents do not HAVE any money to donate and most are barely educated themselves. So how pray tell do you propose we give all those millions of poorer (legal) students a fighting chance for success in life?

The solution MUST come in the form of a fully coordinated series of reforms that include - amongst MANY other things - reasonable funding levels.

That said, I agree with you completely that we should NOT be paying for the educational, housing, medical or other needs of illegal aliens. We have FAR too many poverty-stricken (legal) children of our own to educate and care for.

Now, the vast majority of all those (legal) children who get the short end of the educational stick are racial minorities in America's poorest urban centers. And it is they who also face the stiffest test in life to overcome a whole bunch of other obstacles like heavily crime-ridden neighborbhoods, constant exposure to street drugs, rampant prostitution, violent gangs, poor diet, poor healthcare, poor you name it.

As a society of supposely equal citizens, it is a national disgrace. But even more compelling is that the longer we allow this multi-generational cycle to continue, the longer we will have huge welfare doles, high crime, and a poorly trained workforce.

Again, one thing begets the other.

Cheers, Terry

.

[Nagumo]

And it is they who also face the stiffest test in life to overcome a whole bunch of other obstacles like heavily crime-ridden neighborbhoods, constant exposure to street drugs, rampant prostitution, violent gangs, poor diet, poor healthcare, poor you name it.

And those things mentioned are symptoms of our failed educational systems and the policies that have lead to that failure.

America today has a larger prison population per capita than anywhere else in the world (including places like China and north Korea). Most offenders are incarcerated on drug charges. Could it be that the waves of impoverished are out there selling drugs to actually make a living beyond some pathetic menial minimum wage job due to a lack of education? All the while the taxpayers foot the bill for a prison system that is well beyond capacity with no end in sight because the public school system is completely failing a tremendous portion of this country, and is an ongoing joke for the rest of the world. Only the students from the best public and private schools are up to par with other industrialized nations. Meanwhile the bulk of people have no access to these institutions and the prison population and crime rates show it in spades.

As an example of how far the cuts to budgets have gone. The entire Orange County school system in Central Florida (the largest system in Central Florida) is getting ready to nix all sports programs as they have already cut all other activities (music programs, art programs, and any and all extracurricular activities). How is that helping our children to grow and learn? How does that help our nation? There is far more to education than just reading and writing.

[Terry Penrod]

.

You got that right Nags.

I can tell you from personal experience just how big a difference there is in moving from one of the best school districts in America just to a better than average one.

The curriculum suddenly went backwards two full years and even the top honors classes were well behind the regular ones at my old school. The teachers were also dreadfully boring, uninspiring and acted like robots compared to the wonderful tutors I had come to know.

From in-depth humanities courses that included classical art, music, theater, etc. and very advanced science, math, history and literature classes to great sports programs, cafeteria food and general school spirit, EVERYTHING was decidedly better at my old school. The class sizes were smaller too and our average students scored much higher across the board.

Well, as bad as that was, we then moved to any even crappier (but still far above the poorest) school districts and again, everything was significantly worse.

Finally, I had the opportunity to witness first hand just how bad a dirt-poor urban school district can be when a few of us honors students volunteered to participate in an experimental local "exchange" program.

It was a total shock how much better in every way my really crappy (but mostly white suburban) school was than the predominantly black, center-city hellhole I attended for one semester.

How those kids could ever be expected to compete against my classmates - let alone the ones from my former schools or exclusive private ones - is beyond me.

Now, add a long list of other severe disadvantages on top of that pathetic excuse for an education and you tell me if we should be the least bit surprised that poor minority schools consistently turn out welfare leeches, drug addicts, street hookers, underaged unwed mothers, violent gang members, and other "social problems" by the droves.

Add up the total cost of all those problems and then compare it to what it would cost to hire a larger staff of better teachers and more qualified guidance counselors, to provide proper teaching aids and serve better food to those same kids. I guarantee you we would save a fortune per generation and before long, we would no longer need a racial quota system at all.

More to the point, the average graduates would be far better equipped to compete in a global economy and much more likely to become good, responsible parents and productive, law-abiding taxpayers.

Garbage In Garbage Out... one begets the other.

Cheers, Terry

.

[Mighty Pirate]

Very interesting thread and I'd like to add my tuppence worth. As a parent of two boys, education concerns me. The fact that I'm happy with the solution I have found is no reason for me to ignore the very real problems that pervade our modern society. Reading these comments makes me realise how alike the problems are despite other differences in our societies.

The demand for unskilled labour in the western job market has shrunk drastically since the 1960s causing mass unemployment that has trapped millions of people -who would otherwise work - into appalling poverty and the destructive cycle of welfare dependency. The social problems produced by this are absorbing more and more of our government's social welfare/health/police budgets. Is this a winning strategy for the future? I don't think so.

Time for a radical re-think - perhaps even looking into what worked in the past and analysing why. I think Terry has nailed it - just wish it were as easy to implement as it is to read it.

Parental apathy must never blind us to their children's potential contribution to our society even if that means rescuing them at cost and great effort. The cycle needs to be broken if society is to be made healthy.

[Nagumo]

Parental apathy must never blind us to their children's potential contribution to our society even if that means rescuing them at cost and great effort.

The thing is that the cost is outweighed by the benefits. We can continue to fail at treating the symptoms while our coffers run bare, population grows apathetic and uneducated, unemployment rises, crime rates soar, and the overall quality of life for the bulk of the population lies in the gutter. Or, we can spend some money now, take the pain of restructuring the educational system, and reap the eventual reward of an enlightened population, decreased unemployment, lower crime rates, and a better overall quality of life for all.

You are correct, this needs to be nipped in the bud now before this educational crisis reaches epidemic levels. Part of having a social conscience is realizing that helping everyone to get the best education possible is also helping yourself.

[Mighty Pirate]

None of my friends have worked in welfare as I have and they simply can't imagine the depth of despair that is experienced by whole communities who simply can't imagine life being any different to the nightmare it has always been.

Mankind is capable of imagining rockets to the moon and other wonderful achievements. Yet we seem incapable of creating an inclusive society that promotes happiness, encourages effort, rewards achievement, and glorifies diversity. I try not to let it depress me as I live my comfortable white middle-class life. The solution is not to destroy the system that creates wealth, but to spend the taxes productively and wisely.

[Terry Penrod]

.



The thing is that the cost is outweighed by the benefits. We can continue to fail at treating the symptoms while our coffers run bare, population grows apathetic and uneducated, unemployment rises, crime rates soar, and the overall quality of life for the bulk of the population lies in the gutter. Or, we can spend some money now, take the pain of restructuring the educational system, and reap the eventual reward of an enlightened population, decreased unemployment, lower crime rates, and a better overall quality of life for all.

You are correct, this needs to be nipped in the bud now before this educational crisis reaches epidemic levels. Part of having a social conscience is realizing that helping everyone to get the best education possible is also helping yourself.



Exactly Nags.

True education reform is a very, very wise investment - for America's future as a leader and as a competitor on the world stage.

So is healthcare reform because all the quality education in the world won't save a country that has a huge number of sick people.

Our citizens (ALL of them) must be provided - at the very least - decent healthcare and a good education.

Everything the government does beyond that (other than providing basic infrastructure, national security, law enforcement, etc.) is IMO a luxury.

And here's the really interesting thing - This is a purely self-serving solution that will finance itself.

If we provide those two basic advantages to all of our children, along with decent food at public schools, we will without doubt sharply reduce welfare dependency, prison populations, street crime, and a whole list of other problems that currently plague America within a generation or two.

Once that occurs and America is back on track in terms of a well educated, healthy population, we won't need to keep worrying about the rising costs of all those expensive programs. That's because our people will be highly competitive, productive, employable and generally self-supporting. They and their kids will en masse repay the entire investment with interest.

Cheers, Terry

[Terry Penrod]

.



None of my friends have worked in welfare as I have and they simply can't imagine the depth of despair that is experienced by whole communities who simply can't imagine life being any different to the nightmare it has always been.

Mankind is capable of imagining rockets to the moon and other wonderful achievements. Yet we seem incapable of creating an inclusive society that promotes happiness, encourages effort, rewards achievement, and glorifies diversity. I try not to let it depress me as I live my comfortable white middle-class life. The solution is not to destroy the system that creates wealth, but to spend the taxes productively and wisely.



Yes, selfishness and greed combined with extreme shortsightedness and apathy is a sure-fire formula for societal collapse isn't it MP?

Cheers, Terry

[The Plainsman]

"Think about this - On average, white children from better neighborhoods do better in school and later in life than white kids from poverty stricken areas and it is NOT just the parents that make a difference."

Let's leave color out of this for a minute. Middle and upper class people tend to be better educated. Educated people tend to make more money. People with more money tend to support their children's schools monetarily. There is nothing government can or should do about that.


This is true, Mikell, but such a situation allowed to persist will eventually corrode a society from within. Something has to be done to give the children of the poor better opportunities. If not government, then who? Charity? That's the GOP's mantra. Right now, the GOP has zero credibility. They pushed deregulated markets as the Holy Grail. In theory, they could be right. The problem is that once you insert human beings, with all our flaws, our inability to resist greed and the temptation to commit fraud or even murder, to make more and more money, into any paper theory, you can throw expected theoretical outcomes out the window. Unregulated markets by definition breed corruption, because human beings by nature cannot resist temptation. Haven't you heard of Bernard Madoff?

So the idea of letting the poor fester, as if they aren't going to resent it and eventually do something ugly about it, is pure foolishness.

[Nagumo]

This is true, Mikell, but such a situation allowed to persist will eventually corrode a society from within. Something has to be done to give the children of the poor better opportunities. If not government, then who? Charity? That's the GOP's mantra. Right now, the GOP has zero credibility. They pushed deregulated markets as the Holy Grail. In theory, they could be right. The problem is that once you insert human beings, with all our flaws, our inability to resist greed and the temptation to commit fraud or even murder, to make more and more money, into any paper theory, you can throw expected theoretical outcomes out the window. Unregulated markets by definition breed corruption, because human beings by nature cannot resist temptation. Haven't you heard of Bernard Madoff?

So the idea of letting the poor fester, as if they aren't going to resent it and eventually do something ugly about it, is pure foolishness.


This is what more people need to hear, like it or not. Every form of government looks good on paper, we only see the flaws once men are inserted into the equation. Unfortunately, that stinker of an add-on is what drives every government.

[Terry Penrod]

.

I agree too, but also want to keep stressing the simple logic of reducing welfare dependancy, crime, etc.

As a society, we must maintain a healthy population that is both capable and optimistic. Education that's geared to provide relevant tools for today's world and basic healthcare are absolutely essential if we are ever to break the cycle of poverty and ignorance.

Hopeful, enlighted people who aren't constantly worried about getting sick tend to be FAR more productive and law abiding than apathetic, resentful, ignorant, unhealthy people.

For every dollar we now spend on entitlement programs and prisons we should be spending two on improving our ailing public school and healthcare systems.

In the simplest possible terms, it is a very wise investment. One directly impacts the other and the long-term net savings will more than justify the short-term sacrifice. Continuing to treat the symptoms with woefully inadquate bandaids willl never ever fix the problem and that problem will only get worse.

Cheers, Terry

.

[Nagumo]

.

I agree to, but also want to keep stressing the simple logic of reducing welfare dependancy, crime, etc.

As a society, we must maintain a healthy population that is both capable and optimistic. Education that's geared to provide relevant tools for today's world and basic healthcare are absolutely essential if we are ever to break the cycle of poverty and ignorance.

Hopeful, enlighted people who aren't constantly worried about getting sick tend to be FAR more productive and law abiding than apathetic, resentful, ignorant, unhealthy people.

For every dollar we now spend on entitlement programs and prisons we should be spending two on improving our ailing public school and healthcare systems.

In the simplest possible terms, it is a very wise investment. One directly impacts the other and the long-term net savings will more than justify the short-term sacrifice. Continuing to treat the symptoms with woefully inadquate bandaids willl never ever fix the problem and that problem will only get worse.

Cheers, Terry


What else can I say but, you're preaching to the choir. Unfortunately the unwashed masses are apathetic and ignorant enough as to miss this vitally crucial message (evidenced in whole by two terms of George Bush).

[Terry Penrod]

.

No Nags.

I am talking about generally well educated, reasonably intelligent middle and upper class citizens, business owners, corporate and government leaders who are neither unwashed nor ignorant.

Many of them are however extremely shortsighted and/or selfish, which blinds them to the simple fact that we will never solve these huge perpetual problems with short-term remedies that do nothing to eliminate the root causes.

If we neglected our own children at home and at school like we do whole sectors of our population, most parents wouldn't be surprised if they grew up to be lazy, dishonest slobs. Many do anyway, but take away decent schools, food, healthcare, etc. and we're virtually guaranteeing that at the very least, the majority of these underprivileged kids will fall far below their potential.

Moreover, many of them will continue to be a real drag on society all their lives PLUS they will pass the same poor standards onto their kids. So the sad, ugly (and expensive) cycle just keeps going and going and going...

Cheers, Terry

[Nagumo]

.

No Nags.

I am talking about generally well educated, reasonably intelligent middle and upper class citizens, business owners, corporate and government leaders who are neither unwashed nor ignorant.

Many of them are however extremely shortsighted and/or selfish, which blinds them to the simple fact that we will never solve these huge perpetual problems with short-term remedies that do nothing to eliminate the root causes.

If we neglected our own children at home and at school like we do whole sectors of our population, most parents wouldn't be surprised if they grew up to be lazy, dishonest slobs. Many do anyway, but take away decent schools, food, healthcare, etc. and we're virtually guaranteeing that at the very least, the majority of these underprivileged kids will fall far below their potential.

Moreover, many of them will continue to be a real drag on society all their lives PLUS they will pass the same poor standards onto their kids. So the sad, ugly (and expensive) cycle just keeps going and going and going...

Cheers, Terry



And, once again, I say you are preaching to the choir. The people you speak of will never do what is in anything but their own interest. It's far more than myopic, it's damning to say the least.

[Terry Penrod]

.

Oh I never presume to know who is reading or who might read in the future my words when posting on public forums Nags.

Point being that all message boards have lurkers, newcomers and regular members who don't always express their opinion on every topic. So I tend to write replies in threads like this to a very general audience - both seen and unseen.

Chat rooms and PMs are different though. For them I write directly and specifically to/for individuals or small, well-defined groups.

Cheers, Terry

[Nagumo]

True. Maybe I'm being a bit short sighted myself. It's just that I've become quite the cynic over my 34 years of existence on this planet we have come to know as Earth.

[Terry Penrod]

.

True. Maybe I'm being a bit short sighted myself. It's just that I've become quite the cynic over my 34 years of existence on this planet we have come to know as Earth.

Having been around even longer Nags, I've gone through several periods of being very cynical - yet somehow I have always managed to keep alive at least a small glimmer of hope / optimism about the human race.

More to the point though, I believe that appealing to people's selfish nature is the way to get them aboard with the idea that significant education and healthcare reforms are actualy shrewd investments that will save them tax dollars and make America stronger in the long run - while also helping to reduce some worrisome problems that affect them... like crime and drugs.

The other big factor that often taints opinions on this subject is fear. People are afraid of increased competition for their jobs, their social privileges, their class standing.

To them I say, get over it. A healthier, smarter America will be a better place for ALL of us to live in the near and far future. That means more jobs, better jobs, better schools, better health, and a higher average standard of liiving for one and all.

Let our great grandchildren decide whether or not they prefer living in a country that's both strong and fair. One where race and gender no longer determine a person's fate and where EVERY child gets a good education. Where EVERY citizen can count on getting decent basic healthcare. Where EVERY person feels more secure.

Cheers, Terry

[Mighty Pirate]

Education alone is not the solution. Employment has to be available for people to develop self-esteem and become self-reliant. A system where there is no minimum wage, and an over-supply of workers will create what you have in America - the working poor and a black market economy in which the (sometimes illegal) hourly paid casual workers cannot earn enough in a week to drag themselves out of the poverty trap.

This is not a great system. Sure, there's plenty of visible wealth and conspicuous consumption at the top of the employment triangle but the workers, those under-paid, possibly under-educated humble folk are entitled to a bigger slice of the pie. Taxation and market-place regulation are the only ways to ensure that the fat cats don't grab all the cream in life. This runs contrary to the simplistic ideology of letting the market decide how everyone lives. I think that's governance by negligance.

I know I sound like a commie or a pinko (as my father called me) but I believe in unionism. The rich manufacturers wouldn't be rich without the workers. And without legislation there would be no workplace safety laws. We know this because that's how it used to be. People never voluntarily surrender their wealth or power.

Allowing a greater spread of the wealth would permit greater level of home ownership/consumerism/and independence and encourage greater civic pride and social involvement which can only be a good thing.

The Republican mantra militates against this outcome. Every man for himself usually results in a stampede and people being crushed underfoot. Is that really the best model for a democratic capitalist state? Only the fittest survive and charity can feed the rest?

As the number of disadvantaged grows their power to disrupt and the likelihood that they will increases. Welfare dependence is a social cancer that can ony be cured by employment opportunities, and employment must offer a livable income that permits savings. Parents must be able to see that their children have the opportunity to do better than themselves.

Compassionate capitalism isn't about endless welfare, it's about creating the environment for the under-performing members of a society to achieve more. And that's going to require greater taxation, targeted spending and a lot of energy to combat the inertia that settles over depressed communities.

Good luck in finding these visionaries. Although perhaps in Obama America has done?

[Nagumo]

Employment is available though. It's the education factor keeping the masses from achieving that employment.

[Terry Penrod]

.

Not just employment, but OPPORTUNITY.

Opportunity to learn, explore, discover, create, invent, grow, collaborate, teach and improve from the bottom up and back again.

We do NOT need or want even more permanent, government-controlled jobs.

We need a workforce that is brimming with people who are confident in their own individual abilities to compete at whatever career they want to pursue.

We need people that have pride in themselves and who possess the tools needed to succeed in life - no matter which poltical party is in charge.

Not just life on the job but in life itself - as citizens, neighbors, parents, as human beings that have true equal rights and the freedom to pursue happiness with the fewest possible arbitrary manmade obstacles in their way.

Cheers, Terry

[The Plainsman]

I just don't want to hear anymore ******** about the "free market." Ain't nothing free. All that ******** about supply side economics. Biggest crock of **** I've ever heard.

We need regulation. We need it because human beings, being human beings, are corruptible. Period.

And this country has to stand for something other than "everything is for sale for the right price." Turn Social Security over to those crooks on Wall Street? Are you kidding me? Are you out of your ******* mind?

Republican conservatives disgust me. I'd trust a welfare queen before I'd trust one of them.

I am so happy to see the GOP become a marginalized, regional party. If it wasn't for white guys in the South, the GOP would literally disappear. No other group likes them. Don't they realize it? I read today that 9 in 10 whites in places like Arkansas and Mississippi voted for McCain. If you take out the south, approximately half or more of whites voted for Obama. The south is all alone with their plantations, Confederate flag and fond memories of slavery and segregation. The historical Southern "way of life." Keep the "nigras" in their place. Contrast the Arkansas's and Mississippi's and Oklahoma's with the Vermonts and Maines, where whites make up 95% plus of the state population. Almost no blacks in Vermont and Maine, yet Obama doubled McCain's vote in those states on November 4. Why are those white people so completely different than whites in some Southern states?

Nothing personal to you guys who live in the South. I have family down there. But that part of the country has always given me the creeps. I'd send my daughter to college in Vermont but I'd never send her to college in a place like Tennessee. I don't want her influenced by that ****. The mentality in too many parts of the South is just ******* unreal. If race isn't the most important thing in their lives it's religion.

[Terry Penrod]

.

I'm not ready to condemn so many people throughout the south Plainsman. I know far too many southerners personally who do NOT have such a strong racist or religious bias.

Unfortunately, they do tend to be younger and in the minority. But their numbers are growing as this current generation of older whites that were born before the civil rights movement dies out.

Fact is that all of America has become highly mobile and you're now just as likely to meet a northern transplant in cities like Atlanta, Charlotte, Tampa, Miami, Dallas and here in Houston as a native southerner.

Cheers, Terry

[Nagumo]

Jesus Plainsman, I'm a Southerner too! I was raised by my white mother and grandmother too love peoples of all shapes, sexes, and colors! Please, don't make racist/sexist comments in order to support your own beliefs! There's enough BS in this world without creating your own!

[The Plainsman]

I apologize if I've offended southerners. I did try not to by using words such as "most" or "some." I just wanted to point out that as a party, without certain segments of the South, the Republicans would become less relevant than the American Communist Party. I hate the Republican Party. I absolutely hate them. That doesn't mean i love the Democrats. I've been a registered Independent for more than 20 years. I tend to vote for Independent Party candidates and Democrats. But Harry Reid is a ******* WASTE!!!!

BUt I'll take a "******* waste" of a human being like Harry Reid over the Republicans. The GOP is the party of the infamous "southern strategy" first employed by Richard Nixon to turn traditional white southerners who were almost exclusively Democrats into Republicans by coded and sometimes open appeals to racism. I'm just disappointed at how deep racist thinking is still embedded in certain parts of the south. How do you have a state in this country in which 9 out of 10 whites vote against Barack Obama in 2008? Man, that's virulent racism. Or it's staggering ignorance. Either way, it is just terrible. And I blame the Republican Party.

Let's be honest. In these difficult times, with an administration that was clearly a disaster by any measure, were Barack Obama white, the election of 2008 would've been a 49 state landslide, like Reagan against Mondale in 1984.

[Lou Cypher]

If Barack Obama was white he would have lost.

Lou :globe:

[Nagumo]

If Barack Obama was white he would have lost.

Lou :globe:

I seriously doubt that. There was no way any Republican was going to win after the 8 years we suffered under Bush. Especially when the most "normal" option included Palin as part of the package!

[Terry Penrod]

.

If Barack Obama had been born in America to two white parents instead of one, he would have had a very different childhood and grown up to become a very different person.

Assuming he still went on to study at Harvard Law and graduated with such high honors, who knows if he would even have entered public service, teaching and politics?

For argument's sake though, let's say he did follow the same career path and ran for president against a large field of better known candidates - including Hillary Clinton.

Would his whiteness have kept him from standing out so sharply in contrast to all the other white faces? Yes it would have. But his ideas, positions, youth, intelligence and eloquence would presumably have still been intact.

The question then is how much of an "advantage" was his color in this past campaign and would taking it away have been enough to give the nomination to Clinton? Would we now have a woman about to take the presidential oath of office for the first time in history instead of the first black man?

Or was his color a disadvantage and would being white have actually made it easier for him to win? Honestly, I don't know and at this point, I really don't care.

One thing I feel fairly certain of though - McCain's bid was doomed simply because he represents the same party as the highly unpopular Bush and he did in fact strongly support several of Bush's least popular policies. His choice of running mate was also extremely poor. Yes, Palin gave him a brief shot in the arm, but then she immediately became a national joke.

The rest is history.

Cheers, Terry

[The Plainsman]

Here's the GOP's chances of a come back:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ed-kilgore/can-the-gop-expand-its-de_b_155697.html

They think they can expand their base by trumpeting the same sh*t from yesteryear, the same sh*t that almost every demographic group except one particular one in the south has now rejected as wrong. The same tired old anit-immigrant, anti-poor, anti-labor, anti-gays, anti-public schools, anti-government, anti-social security, anti-medicare, anti-global warming, anti-environment, hate-filled diatriabes spouted daily by the Rush Limbaughs, Sean Hannitys, Laura Ingrahams, Michelle Malkins, Bill O'Reillys, Michael Savages, Ann Coulters and James Dobsons of their world.

They still don't get it. WE DON'T WANT THEM. WE DON'T TRUST THEM. WE DON'T LIKE THEM. WE DON'T AGREE WITH ANY OF THEIR SH*T!

Government is NOT the enemy! Government preserved the Union! Government abolished slavery! Government eliminated legal segregation in schools, in housing, in the military! Government overthrew state laws that prevented people of different races from marrying each other! Government ensures freedom of religion AND the right to bear arms! Government will prevent this country from becoming a godforsaken theocracy! Government is bailing out private industry and all their deregulated failures! Government saved the world from the Nazis! It's the government that prevents our water and food from being totally ******* toxic! It's the government that stops the private sector from importing toys and pajamas for our kids from countries that don't give a ****! Government forces all those BIDNESS MEN from sellling us homes and apartments filled with asbestos and lead paint. Government prevents BIDNESS MEN from profiting from insider trading while we little people get ******. It is government that forces accountability and transparency and at least some measure of fairness that would not exist were there no government.

I'm much more afraid of certain private citizens and private corporations and religious fruitcakes than I've ever feared the government.

I like the government. It's not perfect by any stretch, but BIDNESS MEN, left totally unwatched and unregulated are far worse.

The next time some right wing nut proclaims the government is sh*t, ask him if he's going to call Merrill Lynch or IBM when his house catches on fire or some freak kidnaps one of his kids. I wonder if he'll call his stockbroker. :rolleyes:

[Terry Penrod]

.

Or put more succinctly, (mostly white) conservative Republicans are FOR keeping as much money and power in the hands of (mostly white) conservative Republicans.

Cheers, Terry

[chip5541]

Wow Plainsman... Do you even know what a free market is? Because it sure isn't what you were ranting on. For all your hatred you seemed to direct in your post it is pretty clear you don't get it. Funny how it was the Bush admin that tried to get some oversight of Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac and what did the Democrats and some Republicans do? Call them racist and resorted to personal attacks and saying they are lynching black people. Going so far as to block and kind of oversight which was the catalyst to what is going on now. You want to blame people for the currant mess, you need to start one of the chief architects, Barney Frank and the others that blocked any kind of oversight.
Funny how you mention that the next time someone grabs your kid... and yet you also say I send my daughter to Vermont and yet it is the Liberals in Vermont that have blocked Jessica's law and Liberal Judges who let pedophiles off with probation and no jail time, no matter how heinous the crime.
Personally, I would rather belong to a party that knows right from wrong and even if they fail, at least they try to do better as opposed to the alternative.

I would also like to say, please do not turn this site into a Huffington Post crap site. Nothing good comes from a site that wishes death on people (yes, I am well aware of Michael Savage and I don't like him or post links to his site). That site promotes nothing but hatred and bigotry for anyone that does think lock step with them.

[chip5541]

.

Or put more succinctly, (mostly white) conservative Republicans are FOR keeping as much money and power in the hands of (mostly white) conservative Republicans.

Cheers, Terry

Here, let me grab my paint brush as well and "Or put more succinctly, (mostly white) Liberal Democrats are FOR keeping as much money and power in the hands of (mostly white) Liberal Democrats" case in point what is going on with Burris.

[chip5541]

Here's the GOP's chances of a come back:

huffingtonsitesucks.com

They think they can expand their base by trumpeting the same sh*t from yesteryear, the same sh*t that almost every demographic group except one particular one in the south has now rejected as wrong. The same tired old anit-immigrant, anti-poor, anti-labor, anti-gays, anti-public schools, anti-government, anti-social security, anti-medicare, anti-global warming, anti-environment, hate-filled diatriabes spouted daily by the Rush Limbaughs, Sean Hannitys, Laura Ingrahams, Michelle Malkins, Bill O'Reillys, Michael Savages, Ann Coulters and James Dobsons of their world.

Liar, plain and simple. You have every one of these rants wrong (with teh exception of Savage. I don't care for him as well.)

They still don't get it. WE DON'T WANT THEM. WE DON'T TRUST THEM. WE DON'T LIKE THEM. WE DON'T AGREE WITH ANY OF THEIR SH*T!

Government is NOT the enemy! Government preserved the Union! Government abolished slavery! Government eliminated legal segregation in schools, in housing, in the military! Government overthrew state laws that prevented people of different races from marrying each other! Government ensures freedom of religion AND the right to bear arms! Government will prevent this country from becoming a godforsaken theocracy! Government is bailing out private industry and all their deregulated failures! Government saved the world from the Nazis! It's the government that prevents our water and food from being totally ******* toxic! It's the government that stops the private sector from importing toys and pajamas for our kids from countries that don't give a ****! Government forces all those BIDNESS MEN from sellling us homes and apartments filled with asbestos and lead paint. Government prevents BIDNESS MEN from profiting from insider trading while we little people get ******. It is government that forces accountability and transparency and at least some measure of fairness that would not exist were there no government.

More crap. The Government means nothing without the people of this country.

I'm much more afraid of certain private citizens and private corporations and religious fruitcakes than I've ever feared the government.

Of this I agree to a point.

I like the government. It's not perfect by any stretch, but BIDNESS MEN, left totally unwatched and unregulated are far worse.

The next time some right wing nut proclaims the government is sh*t, ask him if he's going to call Merrill Lynch or IBM when his house catches on fire or some freak kidnaps one of his kids. I wonder if he'll call his stockbroker. :rolleyes:

For the last 8 years I have not heard the government is crap except from Liberal Democrats.


anit-immigrant
Conservatives are not against immigrants, just illegal ones. First if someone is illegal then they are open to abuse by being paid under teh table and not offered any kind of protections if tehy get hurt on teh job. Second, having illegal aliens coming across the boarder with, lets face it, a disease that would have been caught coming through teh proper channels then we could see an outbreak of almost any kind of disease which actually we had not long ago.
anti-poor
Yeah right. Lets not forget that the Bush admin has actually increased spending for the poor in this and other coutries over that of Clinton.
anti-labor
Source?
anti-gays
They have not said anything hateful towards gays and lesbians. Just because most Americans want to keep marriage between a man and a woman does not mean they are anti gay.
anti-public schools
You just made this up
anti-government
The core beliefs by Republicans is less Government, not more. We don't need or want a Granny state like New York has.
anti-social security
Say what? Bush warned that SS was going to go broke and he came up with a plan that would allow a person to invest 3% of his SS in stocks. How is that anti anything?
anti-medicare
Again, the admin was trying to get a handle on out of control spending and to give SS a new lease on life. Like it or not we cannot support everyone.
anti-global warming
The Kioto Protocol was a joke and man made global warming is not science but politics. Unless maybe you want everyone to go kill all teh cows and Moose because there farts are too dangerous to let them live.
anti-environment
What are you talking about? Offshore drilling? or Drilling in teh Alaska preserve? Let me know which and I will respond.

[Terry Penrod]

.

Here, let me grab my paint brush as well and "Or put more succinctly, (mostly white) Liberal Democrats are FOR keeping as much money and power in the hands of (mostly white) Liberal Democrats" case in point what is going on with Burris.

Oh look, how clever of you Chip.

You've replaced the words "conservative Republicans" with the words "liberal Democrats" in my above comment...

to sheepishly draw attention away from the disgustingly corrupt record of the current administration.

How typical. How trite.

Cheers, Terry

[chip5541]

.



Oh look, how clever of you Chip.

You've replaced the words "conservative Republicans" with the words "liberal Democrats" in my above comment...

to sheepishly draw attention away from the disgustingly corrupt record of the current administration.

How typical. How trite.

Cheers, Terry

Oh look how you didn't say the currant administration in your original post.

[Terry Penrod]

.

...

For the last 8 years I have not heard the government is crap except from Liberal Democrats.

Utter nonsense Chip.

You've heard it from me and many other moderate, longtime registered Republicans who have been totally turned off by the endless lies, half-truths, manipluations, horrible decisions and just plain stupid mistakes of the Bush administration and his conservative cronies.

People who like myself have NEVER before voted to put a Democrat in the White House. People like myself that voted TWICE for Bush and now regret it every single day. People like myself who woke up and realized that America's reputation was being ruined around the world while its domestic policies became more and more totalitarian. People like myself who voted for a change (ANY change) from the abysmal failures of these past eight long, intorable years.

Cheers, Terry

[Terry Penrod]

.

Oh look how you didn't say the currant administration in your original post.

You're damned right I didn't restrict my original comment just to the current administration Chip.

It applied equally to rank and file conservatives straight down the line from top to bottom.

But hey, thanks for reminding me to spell out the fact that they are acting as a unified force AGAINST true equality in America. They are (whether by conscious design or by association) perpetuating a society that protects the privileges of white people above all else.

Thank goodness, we finally at long last have a president who is not another white, conservative man. Maybe now the world can begin forgiving us for the past eight years of horribly condescending, ruinous U.S. foreign policy and divisive "us or them" rhetoric.

Cheers, Terry

[chip5541]

.



You're damned right I didn't restrict my original comment just to the current administration Chip.

It applied equally to rank and file conservatives straight down the line from top to bottom.

Hmm, now why does this sound familiar? Oh yeah, you nailed me for making a blanket statement about democrats.

But hey, thanks for reminding me to spell out the fact that they are acting as a unified force AGAINST true equality in America. They are (whether by conscious design or by association) perpetuating a society that protects the privileges of white people above all else.

Thank goodness, we finally at long last have a president who is not another white, conservative man. Maybe now the world can begin forgiving us for the past eight years of horribly condescending, ruinous U.S. foreign policy and divisive "us or them" rhetoric.

Cheers, Terry

Oh yes, Thank goodness now maybe we can go back to having just small bombings in teh US (WTC1), our Embassies and ships around the world. That was when we were liked.

[Terry Penrod]

.

...
Oh yes, Thank goodness now maybe we can go back to having just small bombings in teh US (WTC1), our Embassies and ships around the world. That was when we were liked.

Oh how witty Chip.

Sarcasm about the good old days of idyllic American life before 9/11.

Here's the thing -

Before Bush took office, the U.S. still had a higher degree of trust with our allies and a lot more general respect around the world. Our economy was also doing pretty well, we had no budget deficit and people had jobs.

Now, the amount of sheer animosity aimed toward us and distrust of us is shocking. And given that we are conducting two wars as well as a broad campaign against terrorists across the planet, our resources are stretched well beyond their limits.

Wars aside, during Bush's eight years in office, very little progress was made on the development of alternate fuels, cleaner technologies, mass transit and high-mileage vehicles. No, instead we continued down the same dead end fossil-fuel path giving huge tax breaks to Big Oil and doing nothing at all to break our suicidal addiction to OPEC.

Moreover Chip, we have failed miserably in the critical areas of education and healthcare reform, while pissing away another eight years on fixing our massive illegal immigration problem. If you would like to know how we "might" have paid for the former, just add up all costs related to the War in Iraq (so far) and that would have been more than enough to modernize all the schools in America's 100 largest urban districts with plenty left over for an extensive renewable energy R&D program, significantly better healthcare subsidies for the poor, some badly needed maintenance for our infrastructure, and a healthy tax break for the working middle class. (At least we got that last item, but now we really can't afford it.)

You talk as if Bush actually did a good job as president and I'm sorry to inform you that he did NOT. He has been a terrible president both from our American perspective and from that of the world at large.

In practically every way, America is FAR worse off now than when Bush took office. Yet here you are defending him, his cronies, his party and those who blindly followed him into Iraq.

Thankfully, as every single poll clearly shows, the vast majority of Americans and other free people in allied nations around the world disagree with you completely.

Cheers, Terry

[The Plainsman]

Chip, did you take pride in casting a vote for McCain and...OMG, Palin? How can you sleep at night?

[Terry Penrod]

.

Chip thought that Sarah Palin was a super duper choice as McCain's running mate.

Cheers, Terry

[chip5541]

Chip, did you take pride in casting a vote for McCain and...OMG, Palin? How can you sleep at night?

Yup and I don't sleep. 11pm - 7am night audit then 8am to 6-7pm taking care of the kids. For the 2 hours I sleep pretty darn well.

[Terry Penrod]

.

Yup and I don't sleep. 11pm - 7am night audit then 8am to 6-7pm taking care of the kids. For the 2 hours I sleep pretty darn well.

Jeesh Chip, no wonder you get so cranky sometimes.

Cheers, Terry

[chip5541]

.



Jeesh Chip, no wonder you get so cranky sometimes.

Cheers, Terry

Cranky is putting it mildly sometimes.

[Mighty Pirate]

It's always difficult deciding who was a good leader and who wasn't - especially when one's personal loyalties are involved. As a foreigner and a very interested observer, I can say that I consider G W Bush's administration to have been woeful.

He inherited a healthy economy and has ruined it.

Under his watch the world has suffered yet another economic melt-down that can be laid fairly at the feet of America. We are all suffering now.

He has started two wars that are still not finished. Many innocent, ordinary people have been killed in their own countries - Iraq and Afghanistan - through no fault of their own.

Ask yourself, have the stated objectives of these wars been achieved? Are they likely to be achieved? Would you be any worse off if they hadn't happened?

Did you believe in WMD? I did, but not for long.

GW either knowingly lied about WMD in which case he is deceitful and a bad man or he was duped in which case he is too stupid to be in office. Which one is worse?

Did he handle emergencies well - 9/11 and Katrina?

Does he handle diplomatic relations well? Is he a representative of the best America has? Does he make you all proud or do you cringe? Personally I enjoy laughing at his Bushisms.

Under his administration what has he done to improve life for Americans?

What legacy will his administration leave behind?

I have no idea how Obama will go but I'm not expecting the same fumbling rhetoric as GW or the same sex antics as Clinton. I am expecting the poor man to be worn out trying to fix things and beseiged by people expecting miracles yesterday. But, like a lot of foreigners, I am expecting Barak Obama to rebuild diplomatic friendship bridges between America and it's neighbours. You simply can't stand up and say intimidating things to other sovereign nations such as 'if you're not with us, you're with the terrorists' as GW did when no one answered his call to invade Iraq. It's going to be interesting to watch.

[pcfreak]

I pretty much agree with everything you said there. Especially about the uphill struggle Obama is going to have when he takes office. I hope that Obama can mend the many broken bridges that Bush has caused.

I always considered Bush to be the worst threat to world peace in modern times. He thought the world revolved around the US and clearly showed this every time he opened his mouth. I can't wait for Labour to be voted out here in the UK and then we will have got rid of the worst UK & US governments in modern times. That will be something worth celebrating!

[Mighty Pirate]

Getting off-topic for a minute.... (sorry, it's just what I do) :D:

I keep in touch with UK politics by reading an English paper every week. It's a special international edition covering the previous week's news. Gets very depressing sometimes I can tell you. :(:

But on our recent trip back (took the kids to meet all the old rellies before they start dying) we were very jealous of your cheap holidays in Europe, couldn't get over how lime green the grass was, how rude the sales assistants were, how impossible it was to find a parking space, how crappy the fruit and veggies were in the supermarkets, or how damn impossible it was to find a pub that would feed our kids. Castles and museums were FAN.TAS.TIC..... :thumbup: And we'd love to come back - for a visit. But it does seem as if the English are losing their ability to see clearly who they are. Do they look backwards to the past (bulldog spirit, WW2, etc) or do they look forward and create a new multi-cultural ID as part of Europe? So hard to judge the national mood from just a newspaper. I'm glad Blair has gone - that man's voice drove me nuts - all those pauses...

[pcfreak]

I think that the British national identity has taken a massive beating since the days of Margaret Thatcher, and there are many reasons for this. I think we still see ourselves as very much still an island nation, and we worry about Euro and US meddling in our affairs.

Our government has given up too much of it's independance to both the US and Brussels. Our government argues that this can only benefit our nation, but we have faced bans on our weights and measures system, have the threat of the euro currency hanging over us, have had European courts interfere with our judicial system and much more meddling by EuroCrats. Hell, the EU even tried stopping green-grocers here from selling bent bananas because of EU restrictions on what a banana should look like!:eek: Don't believe me? Here's a quick linkie - http://www.davidsumberg.com/fruit_and_veg.htm. Then there was the 'pint' debacle. When we buy a beer in a pub, we buy a pint, or for the ladies a half pint. The EU tried to have us buy our beer in ml and litres! The great British pint is part of our heritage!

Then there is the US issue, many of us Brits believe that our government gives in much too easily to US diplomatic pressure and has become the US's lapdog. We need to reaffirm our independence, and stop pandering to both the EU and the US.

I also think that the massive influx of immigrants has had a massive effect on the areas in which they settle, regards national identity. In my town, we have a large Eastern European and Iraqi/Irani population of immigrants. Now in the villages where they have settled, the cohesion of the community has been broken. This is mirrored in many other towns and cities in the UK. In some places there is a ban on celebrating traditional British events in schools and public workplaces, so as not to offend immigrants. St. Georges day is one example, Christmas is another. In some places here in the UK, flying the St. Georges or Union flag is associated with racism by council leaders and bans have been put in place by them. Sheer lunacy. Then Christmas and Easter have been banned from being celebrated in some schools, so as not to offend followers of other religions! Again, sheer lunacy!

At the end of the day, our government is so pre-occupied with appeasing every other nation, they forget that we also need to remain British! They need to work at giving our nation something to be proud of, and let us once again celebrate our heritage. I am not ashamed to call myself British, but I think my government is!

Cheers'

Stuart

[Terry Penrod]

.

Give 'em hell Stuart... good post!

Cheers, Terry