Fountain of Useless Information Comments - Brought to you by JoeUserhttp://singrdave.joeuser.com/rss/comments© 2006 - 2008 Stardock Corporation. All rights reserved.These are my random musings. Hopefully they will be witty, insightful, and frequently updated.en-us2008-09-08T14:23:352008-09-08T14:23:35http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/rss/rss.htmlStardock Rss Generator v1.0, Andrew Powellinfo@stardock.comapowell@stardock.comraylhhttp://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/174290With funds from which jobs are Americans to buy these products from China?

 

]]>http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/174290http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/174290Mon, 08 Sep 2008 10:23:36 -04002008-09-08T14:23:36raylh on China and Europe vs. the USraylhhttp://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/174290except that this is an arrangement that brings low-cost products to American shelves. Wal-Mart imports the majority of its merchandise from Chinese factories, and by itself provides thousands of jobs to Chinese workers. [/quote]

]]>http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/174290http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/174290Mon, 08 Sep 2008 10:23:36 -04002008-09-08T14:23:36raylh on China and Europe vs. the USraylhhttp://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/174290

quoting article
If by 2050 the Chinese and European economies are indeed larger than America’s, then this is no need for concern. The United States (US) has been the recipient of decades of economic supremacy, as it escaped World War II (WWII) with its economy largely intact. This was in opposition to Europe, whose land saw lots of fighting -- the economies of the nations of Europe suffered for it. Half of Europe was under the yoke of Communism. The destruction of Western Europe’s infrastructure took decades to restore, mostly through American largesse. Europe was bolstered from both economic and political expediency: America needed strong, robust Western European economies to counter the growing threat of the Soviet Union (USSR) and its Eastern European satellites. Though China did take some licks during WWII, their slow development was not caused by war but rather by their Communist Party’s reluctant embrace of capitalism. Their transition from a planned to a market economy has been relatively smooth and certainly quite extraordinary. China has become an economic powerhouse, with more than one billion producers and consumers, along with a rapidly rising standard of living.During the 1990s, America and China became stalwart trading partners. Under US President Bill Clinton, China became the primary off-shore, low-cost manufacturing hub for American products. Since then, the trade deficit with China has ballooned, in that America imports far more from China than they do from the US. This fact can be quite worrying, except that this is an arrangement that brings low-cost products to American shelves. Wal-Mart imports the majority of its merchandise from Chinese factories, and by itself provides thousands of jobs to Chinese workers. Author Thomas Friedman chronicled this interdependence in his book The World Is Flat, stating that without Chinese products the global economy would grind quickly to a halt. This trading arrangement -- raw materials to China and finished merchandise to America -- has sewn the Chinese and American economies together for mutual benefit.Through trade, European nations are also heavily invested in American success. Microsoft maintains a programming hub in Dublin, Ireland. While Dubliners have traditionally left Ireland for work, now they are able to stay in their home nation and command the same pay without uprooting their families to London or Seattle. This is a benefit to the Irish economy as well as Microsoft’s bottom line, as Irish computer programmers pay higher taxes and spend their money in-country. Microsoft and its Dublin employees are engaged in a mutually beneficial arrangement.Direct foreign investment is helping both China and the EU prosper. With the fall of the Soviet Union, many former Communist nations have joined the EU. By opening factories and markets in these former Soviet bloc nations to capitalism, these nations have also become the recipients of foreign direct investment. Always seeking another source of income, investors have flocked to Eastern European nations like Romania, Estonia, and Poland. The foreign money develops their infrastructure for mutual benefit. The city of Tallinn, Estonia, has become a manufacturing and trading hub for central and northern Europe. The added political stability afforded by Estonia’s EU membership makes investment in Estonia a much surer investment. All of Europe is on the rise, thanks to foreign direct investment.China has been as successful as Europe in using other people’s money. Investors salivate at the opportunity to break into a sales market more than a billion strong. Foreign investment firms invest heavily in China. From cellular phones to paper products, China is seeing the benefit of cheaper, more reliable products and services for its people, raising their living standards to where the Chinese people will demand better cars, furniture, and personal electronics. This increases demand for foreign products, bringing more parity to the trade deficit between America and China.China and the European Union (EU) are on the rise. This does not mean that the United States (US) is on the decline. Quite the contrary: this rising tide will raise all boats. All three political units have benefited from this economic development. Europe and China enjoy cultures of prosperity. Success brings peace; economic interdependence will reduce China’s potential to wage war with America. In addition to receiving millions of dollars in revenue from American product manufacturing, China holds the majority of American debt. China is confidently invested in America’s future. This prevents conflict with the US -- why would China shoot its golden goose? America’s future is brighter because of the economic rise of Europe and China.

]]>http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/174290http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/174290Mon, 08 Sep 2008 10:23:36 -04002008-09-08T14:23:36raylh on China and Europe vs. the USraylhhttp://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/174290
quoting article
If by 2050 the Chinese and European economies are indeed larger than America’s, then this is no need for concern. The United States (US) has been the recipient of decades of economic supremacy, as it escaped World War II (WWII) with its economy largely intact. This was in opposition to Europe, whose land saw lots of fighting -- the economies of the nations of Europe suffered for it. Half of Europe was under the yoke of Communism. The destruction of Western Europe’s infrastructure took decades to restore, mostly through American largesse. Europe was bolstered from both economic and political expediency: America needed strong, robust Western European economies to counter the growing threat of the Soviet Union (USSR) and its Eastern European satellites. Though China did take some licks during WWII, their slow development was not caused by war but rather by their Communist Party’s reluctant embrace of capitalism. Their transition from a planned to a market economy has been relatively smooth and certainly quite extraordinary. China has become an economic powerhouse, with more than one billion producers and consumers, along with a rapidly rising standard of living.During the 1990s, America and China became stalwart trading partners. Under US President Bill Clinton, China became the primary off-shore, low-cost manufacturing hub for American products. Since then, the trade deficit with China has ballooned, in that America imports far more from China than they do from the US. This fact can be quite worrying, except that this is an arrangement that brings low-cost products to American shelves. Wal-Mart imports the majority of its merchandise from Chinese factories, and by itself provides thousands of jobs to Chinese workers. Author Thomas Friedman chronicled this interdependence in his book The World Is Flat, stating that without Chinese products the global economy would grind quickly to a halt. This trading arrangement -- raw materials to China and finished merchandise to America -- has sewn the Chinese and American economies together for mutual benefit.Through trade, European nations are also heavily invested in American success. Microsoft maintains a programming hub in Dublin, Ireland. While Dubliners have traditionally left Ireland for work, now they are able to stay in their home nation and command the same pay without uprooting their families to London or Seattle. This is a benefit to the Irish economy as well as Microsoft’s bottom line, as Irish computer programmers pay higher taxes and spend their money in-country. Microsoft and its Dublin employees are engaged in a mutually beneficial arrangement.Direct foreign investment is helping both China and the EU prosper. With the fall of the Soviet Union, many former Communist nations have joined the EU. By opening factories and markets in these former Soviet bloc nations to capitalism, these nations have also become the recipients of foreign direct investment. Always seeking another source of income, investors have flocked to Eastern European nations like Romania, Estonia, and Poland. The foreign money develops their infrastructure for mutual benefit. The city of Tallinn, Estonia, has become a manufacturing and trading hub for central and northern Europe. The added political stability afforded by Estonia’s EU membership makes investment in Estonia a much surer investment. All of Europe is on the rise, thanks to foreign direct investment.China has been as successful as Europe in using other people’s money. Investors salivate at the opportunity to break into a sales market more than a billion strong. Foreign investment firms invest heavily in China. From cellular phones to paper products, China is seeing the benefit of cheaper, more reliable products and services for its people, raising their living standards to where the Chinese people will demand better cars, furniture, and personal electronics. This increases demand for foreign products, bringing more parity to the trade deficit between America and China.China and the European Union (EU) are on the rise. This does not mean that the United States (US) is on the decline. Quite the contrary: this rising tide will raise all boats. All three political units have benefited from this economic development. Europe and China enjoy cultures of prosperity. Success brings peace; economic interdependence will reduce China’s potential to wage war with America. In addition to receiving millions of dollars in revenue from American product manufacturing, China holds the majority of American debt. China is confidently invested in America’s future. This prevents conflict with the US -- why would China shoot its golden goose? America’s future is brighter because of the economic rise of Europe and China.

]]>http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/174290http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/174290Mon, 08 Sep 2008 10:23:36 -04002008-09-08T14:23:36raylh on China and Europe vs. the USModeratemanhttp://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/318846If I were going to vote for someone and one of these anti-American multi millionaire actors or actresses would endorse that candidate, I would have to start looking for another candidate. If Hollywood likes them, there must be something wrong with them!

BTW good to "see" you

]]>http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/318846http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/318846Mon, 08 Sep 2008 10:23:36 -04002008-09-08T14:23:36Moderateman on DNC Convention as a Celebrity HavenLocamamahttp://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/318846Hi singrdave.  Glad to see you back.  I would never base my vote on what celebrity is endorsing a candidate.  Half of them never even graduated from high school.  At least, I made that momentous accomplishment - lol.  I really don't see why their opinions should hold any more weight than the average citizen. 

]]>http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/318846http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/318846Mon, 08 Sep 2008 10:23:36 -04002008-09-08T14:23:36Locamama on DNC Convention as a Celebrity HavenScaldingHotSouphttp://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/119963

Wow, congrats, Kim Jong-il! You have moved in to the big leagues, along with "The Environment" and "The War on Terror".

Humm, since when was South Korea not listed in "The War on Terror"? jk.

]]>http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/119963http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/119963Mon, 08 Sep 2008 10:23:36 -04002008-09-08T14:23:36ScaldingHotSoup on Rogue Nationeoddoynehttp://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175370hey, brother, it's doyne.  sorry about having disappeared.  I've been in and out of the country doing the work thing.  shoot me a message when you get a chance.  See if we can't get together.

 

    -Doyne

]]>http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175370http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175370Mon, 08 Sep 2008 10:23:36 -04002008-09-08T14:23:36eoddoyne on Middle School BluesCyndi44mhttp://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175370
My daughter got into this rut and we took away her computor time, cell phone, phone in general until her grades improved and she was more organized and she is now an A/B student.
I hope this helps]]>http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175370http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175370Mon, 08 Sep 2008 10:23:36 -04002008-09-08T14:23:36Cyndi44m on Middle School BluesCyndi44mhttp://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/92338
I totally agree with you it sometimes is like my son does not even feel it he does not even acknowledge when he is wet it has gotten worse lately he does have ADHD and is on medication that is working very well for him but it is unexeptable to keep peeing his pants only during the day never at night at age 7.

How is everything now that your son is older? Can you give me hope?]]>http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/92338http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/92338Mon, 08 Sep 2008 10:23:36 -04002008-09-08T14:23:36Cyndi44m on Wetting Pants at 7 Years OldPaladin77http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/163001Your argument is that people refusing to accept facts disprove the facts.

Not at all my dear friend. I believe the point is that we are being told that the majority of people believe in global climate change. Our friend was pointing out that if that were true then why is it that people are not heading for the hills. I know you being of a vastly superior intellect might not make the connection being as it is so base in its logic. But it is food for thought. I have a small real estate business in Florida and it seems that we are still getting thousands of people a week looking for homes here. When I mention global warming and the fact that in less than ten years even central Florida will be under 20 feet of water they laugh. This goes along with our friend up north. I don’t think people actually believe Mr. Gore or his minions of doom and gloom.]]>http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/163001http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/163001Mon, 08 Sep 2008 10:23:36 -04002008-09-08T14:23:36Paladin77 on Sea Levels vs. Oceanfront Property Valuesmidn8thttp://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/110883
thats whole point of golobalzation to equal out.

which really means you will end up with all countrys eventual just being 2nd world countrys.

problem tho is alot of country will not globzli example china has made statement saying that they will out srouce but will 100% cut back on all import and will require there country to be none dependent on othere countrys.

example be food they are pushing to creat farm land and to cut back on there food imports to be total self suffectent will thats bad for USA becuase its there major to almost only export to china.

also poor countrys can not importent form rich 1st world countrys they can not afford the goods, its been proven time and time agin, its reason USA has a almost 500 billion trade defict with china.

when you talk trade defice that means money going out none taxable buy the usa and not comming back into the system.

just being lost.

this is also reaosn USA ecnomey has been falling, more and more money is printed leave country is used to back up othere countrys currecy by them buying out usa debit and in gernal owning countyrs curnecy and goverment.

which cuase inflaation and lose of faith in the dollar.

its good for 3rd world not so good for 2nd world and horriable for 1st world countrys.

but in gernaily 3rd world and 2nd world will never improve using golbozation, beucase in time as they do improve jobs and export abilty will just leave there country and go to anthere cheaper place.


what it dose allow for is for govmernet with larger mitlarty abilty to push there weight around on smaller goverments, becuase they can then destory there whole markets by saying we will not trade with you any more if you do not change you govemrent or way you do things.

it really just destorys sovertinty of all countrys.

houseing market is anthere from of where golobizlation has hurt othere countrys then just USA, feddy and so forth have down trade for housing loans in Erup and in USA when company went or go bank rupt here it will also desotry loans in those countrys.

its happen befor now othere country can if they want require USA to pay for those lossages.

goblization can cuz lots of tension, and has been knowing to creat wars.

also if you get majority of all your exports from one coutnry like USA dose from china, it can give abilty for a 3rd world or 2nd world country to hold 1st world country hostage.

as china has done to USA, there is alot of cases where things china has done could be consider acts of war, one of the biggest is the spy ring where china actully pays chinese students or citizens in usa to, portest aginst deomcary, and to cuase riots, or the stealing of technology from and mitlarty secerts usa really can not do anything about it becuase china can just cut usa lose from its exports, and econmey in usa would fall apart, goods and cost would rise, horriabley.

globlzation can help the people in 3rd world country but major reason for a people to be poor or to suffer is not due to trade or anything like that majority of reasons people are forced to live in protery or to be poor or salves is usally due to the state or goverment that runs it.

in gerneral though thats the JOB of the UN to see that needs of the people of the world are meet.

we can use africa as an example alot of people there live in provety due to not enough food, one of the main reasons, well living in africa is kind of like, moving your fmaily to death vally, there is very few places in area that will be albe to grow food, or large farms or huge crops. with out abilty to grow or to make huge supplys of food you lose your abilty to provide for large populations, africa has huge populations of people.

I should also note that, africa has problem with state contrl majority of govemrents in africa are croupt, and are more likly to mass murder then to feed there own populations, or to burn down there crops if family is lucky enough to have any.

why dosnt any one help country wise mostly becuase theres nothing worth while in there, and any time one govemrent trys to ploice the world, it is demmed to be no better then a natiz state, or an emipre and is usally looked down apon by the rest of the world.

like I said its job of the UN to deal with globzation, free trade, and state country goverments.]]>http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/110883http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/110883Mon, 08 Sep 2008 10:23:36 -04002008-09-08T14:23:36midn8t on Globalization!The_Politicohttp://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/163001All of Florida would be abandoned.

So by your logic since people refused to believe that the world was round then Christopher Columbus didn't discover America.

Your argument is that people refusing to accept facts disprove the facts. ]]>http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/163001http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/163001Mon, 08 Sep 2008 10:23:36 -04002008-09-08T14:23:36The_Politico on Sea Levels vs. Oceanfront Property Valuesemily711http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175370
I had a similar experience when I tried teaching middle school math. I had the lowest of the low kids. Many of them were borderline mentally disabled. I was given 6 classes with no planning session and this was my first year teaching. I ended up quitting after 2 weeks. It was a very hard thing to do but my sanity was being compromised. I may have been able to make it if I were able to pull myself together but I was beyond that point. I got to the point where I had to just concentrate on walking. I couldn't tell you which way was up or down much less make common sense decisions. There was no common sense.

So, I totally understand the conflict that you went through in pulling your child out. You do not want to teach him to just give up when the going gets tough, but you are concerned about his mental well being. Maybe he was capable of pulling it off, but once he got into a certain mind frame, no matter what you do, he's beyond the pail.

You want your child to succeed but you also want him to be happy. Rest assured that you did what you had to do. Maybe he was failing but that doesn't make him a failure. It takes great strength to rise up after you've fallen. It takes more strength to do that than to ride on the coat tails of prior success.]]>http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175370http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175370Mon, 08 Sep 2008 10:23:36 -04002008-09-08T14:23:36emily711 on Middle School BluesAlexZellohttp://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/161534 Middle East conflict]]>http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/161534http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/161534Mon, 08 Sep 2008 10:23:36 -04002008-09-08T14:23:36AlexZello on Best. Economy. Ever.AlexZellohttp://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/161534http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/161534http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/161534Mon, 08 Sep 2008 10:23:36 -04002008-09-08T14:23:36AlexZello on Best. Economy. Ever.pseudosoldierhttp://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175370 Dave,

I wouldn't worry about him learning the wrong lesson re: parents bailing him out. You're not bailing him out, but assisting him in adressing this issue. He has to know that he can turn to you when he feels overwhelmed like this and so, so down on himself. Additionally, as has been pointed out before, the state of his education was in peril and he will still be attending school (and I feel doing much better with a different curriculum).

And you read right: he was taking Chinese and Spanish. At the same time.


I find it hard enough to try Iraqi and Farsi at the same time, and I'm already a 3/2+ (on the reinstated DLPT IV) Arabic linguist with a 130 on the DLAB. Maybe they don't count Spanish as a language because it's not a CAT IV?

Craziness. As you pointed out, 11 classes would be unrealistic for a college student: at Virginia Tech (at least at the time I was there), you'd be carrying something like 30+ credit hours, attending over 30 hours of class a week, and doing certainly over 30 hours of homework/study as well. I knew only a handful of people at the college who regularly did more than 20 credit hours/semester, and they tended to be ultra-competent, Type A, nose-to-the-grindstone, overachieving types; they often had double majors and ridiculous GPAs, so really don't stack up with your typical 12-year old.

Poor Ben. I hope that the transition to the other school will go smoothly for him, and that he recovers well from this. He's a good kid, and I hate to hear that he's so sad.]]>http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175370http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175370Mon, 08 Sep 2008 10:23:36 -04002008-09-08T14:23:36pseudosoldier on Middle School BluesDr Guyhttp://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175324
So who's going to come out ahead in this? McCain? Or the Talking Class?

The Talking class is not running.

]]>http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175324http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175324Mon, 08 Sep 2008 10:23:36 -04002008-09-08T14:23:36Dr Guy on We the SheepleDr Guyhttp://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175324Did anyone say he didn't? ;~D

I did kinda (and a mea culpa). I said he had MS. SOrry Fellows.]]>http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175324http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175324Mon, 08 Sep 2008 10:23:36 -04002008-09-08T14:23:36Dr Guy on We the SheepleParaTed2khttp://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175324Actually, MJF has Parkinson's disease.

Did anyone say he didn't? ;~D]]>http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175324http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175324Mon, 08 Sep 2008 10:23:36 -04002008-09-08T14:23:36ParaTed2k on We the SheepleDaiwahttp://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175324http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175324http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175324Mon, 08 Sep 2008 10:23:36 -04002008-09-08T14:23:36Daiwa on We the SheepleParaTed2khttp://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175324That said, and not meaning to get off topic, the man is truly a wind-bag in my opinion. His comments about Michael J. Fox faking his epilepsy for example.

Another situation taken out of context. Rush Limbaugh never said that Michael J. Fox faked anything. He merely reported the fact that Fox went off his Parkinson's medication before he appeared before the Senate so that his shakiness would impact the committee.

Again, if Michael J. Fox is willing to put himself into the political arena, he shouldn't complain if someone challenges what he says and does. The fact is, Michael J. Fox does use his disease to promote his causes, and that is his right. It doesn't make him immune to scrutiny... especially if his claims are less than factual.

]]>http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175324http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175324Mon, 08 Sep 2008 10:23:36 -04002008-09-08T14:23:36ParaTed2k on We the SheepleDr Guyhttp://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175324
His comments about Michael J. Fox faking his epilepsy for example.

He never said that either (and Fox does not have Epilepsy, but MS).  What he did say was that Fox went off his medications to do commercials for the democrats in 06.  A fact later admitted to by some of Fox's handlers.  However, the democrats and some of the media did portray the story as you just stated.  In essence, they lied again.

]]>http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175324http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175324Mon, 08 Sep 2008 10:23:36 -04002008-09-08T14:23:36Dr Guy on We the SheepleMitch Alatorrehttp://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175324

The hosts on Talk radio have their own ideology and as such espouse them to their audience. The audience in turn either turns them on or turns them off. Pretty simple. The Daily KOS crowd spends it's days hoping for a loss that will never come so they convolute the facts to fit their needs. Stalin would be so proud...


McCain will be strong on Natl security which is far and away the most important issue facing the USA. If we lose then none of the other BS being spewed really matters now does it.


My thoughts are the primary was rigged and we get whom the MSM chose and the Leftists voted for and the least able to beat the Biatch or the Bro Socialists... Can ANYONE find a single conservative that voted for McAmnesty? I can't. Mitt along with Fred were beaten by the MSM and open primaries period...


Speaking of which why doesnt the MSM talk about the race/gender war raging in the Demoncrap party? Nevermind we ALL know why...


Stalin once said if he had Hollywood on his side he would rule the world. He is smiling in his grave today...


The Civil War is coming...]]>http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175324http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175324Mon, 08 Sep 2008 10:23:36 -04002008-09-08T14:23:36Mitch Alatorre on We the SheepleArtysimhttp://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175324
If you are going to take Rush Limbaugh to task, at least do it on a point of fact. As Dr. Guy pointed out, Rush did no such thing. This was one of those things that the incompetent press took completely out of context, and some Democrat pundits ran with.

If I've erred then you have my apologies! I will however try to find a source to back up my assertions. If I can't then I am indeed genuinely mistaken. That said, and not meaning to get off topic, the man is truly a wind-bag in my opinion. His comments about Michael J. Fox faking his epilepsy for example. I did hear that first-hand and there is no excuse for saying such a thing. None whatsoever. Anywho. All the Rush-isms in the world won't change this discussion for the better so I will just drop it I suppose

]]>http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175324http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175324Mon, 08 Sep 2008 10:23:36 -04002008-09-08T14:23:36Artysim on We the SheepleParaTed2khttp://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175324Rush called these dissenting vets cowards, and a lot of other really nasty and completely unnecessary things.

If you are going to take Rush Limbaugh to task, at least do it on a point of fact. As Dr. Guy pointed out, Rush did no such thing. This was one of those things that the incompetent press took completely out of context, and some Democrat pundits ran with.

If "people" like Jesse MacBeth are going to be held up as heroes by the left, they deserve to be called to task for it.]]>http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175324http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175324Mon, 08 Sep 2008 10:23:36 -04002008-09-08T14:23:36ParaTed2k on We the SheepleDr Guyhttp://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175324
The event I am talking about was more one of hypocrisy..... Rush called these dissenting vets cowards,

No he did not.  He never used those words about any vets. What he did say was "Phony Soldiers". When he made the comment, in talking to a caller, he did not qualify it - at that time - with who the phony soldiers were.  However that morning, earlier he had been talking about Jesse MacBeth - a man convicted of - claiming to be a soldier in Iraq (he washed out of boot camp in 3 weeks).  After that call, he then again discussed Jesse MacBeth calling him again a phony soldier.

However since he did not say "the phony soldiers like Jesse MacBeth..." he was immediately condemned for calling all soldiers who are against the war "phony".  The last is a stretch since he also did not say "the phony soldiers who served and are now against the war....".  And since he has always supported - through words and deeds - all real soldiers.

It really does not make your case (as that is as far as I got in your response) to repeat lies, half truths, and statements taken out of context.  If you REALLY dont like Rush, find a REAL reason, not a lie.

]]>http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175324http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175324Mon, 08 Sep 2008 10:23:36 -04002008-09-08T14:23:36Dr Guy on We the SheepleJythierhttp://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175370http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175370http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175370Mon, 08 Sep 2008 10:23:36 -04002008-09-08T14:23:36Jythier on Middle School BluesArtysimhttp://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175324
Let's be very clear. I may not agree with Rush (or anyone else spouting their opinions on air) but the real issue is this....WHY CAN'T they "attack" or "smear" someone JUST because they were military? Is it okay to trash other people and just not "veterans"? C'mon, that's ridiculous. I want the leadership of my country to have a record that can withstand intense scrutiny. Don't give someone a by just because they served in the military. Short of bashing a soldier BECAUSE they were in service to their country....all's fair in love and war (Politics too!)

Life- you're absolutely right, there is no such thing as a licence to be free from scrutiny. In the particular instance I was talking about though, context matters. The event I am talking about was more one of hypocrisy..... Rush called these dissenting vets cowards, and a lot of other really nasty and completely unnecessary things. All coming from a man who did his damned best to avoid ever wearing a uniform or doing the job that he was screaming needed to be done by others. Now, just because they are vets doesn't mean they are above reproach, but these are individuals who have actually gone to Iraq and fought the very war that Rush was so fond of. And this is a man who at every turn has spoken about supporting the troops. But if some of those troops (who did the very job he said needed doing) happen to have a differing viewpoint, suddenly they become scum. No consideration, no listening to their viewpoint.

For me it's not an issue of political affiliation- There are some folks here on JU... for whom I have a great deal of respect... that have served in the gulf and other wars and have political viewpoints completely the opposite of mine. But because they've been there and I haven't, and because they've fought in wars and I haven't, they deserve to be listened to and their viewpoint on these issues seriously considered, because they've actually experienced it, and I haven't.

It's the same thing as the fact that I live pretty damned close to the arctic and can personally attest to the very real problem of possible extinction for the polar bears. Because I've personally witnessed it and live and talk to the people who live in the arctic and have seen the effects of climate change, in theory someone who has never been north of the 60th parallel should at least heed my words (HA! I just made me laugh)

]]>http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175324http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175324Mon, 08 Sep 2008 10:23:36 -04002008-09-08T14:23:36Artysim on We the SheepleParaTed2khttp://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175324Let's be very clear. I may not agree with Rush (or anyone else spouting their opinions on air) but the real issue is this....WHY CAN'T they "attack" or "smear" someone JUST because they were military? Is it okay to trash other people and just not "veterans"? C'mon, that's ridiculous. I want the leadership of my country to have a record that can withstand intense scrutiny. Don't give someone a by just because they served in the military. Short of bashing a soldier BECAUSE they were in service to their country....all's fair in love and war (Politics too!)

True! We all know military members we would be excited to vote for if they ran for public office... but we all know plenty of military members who wouldn't get our vote even for Dog Catcher.

Vet status is a plus, but is in no way the end all be all of a person's qualifications.
]]>http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175324http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175324Mon, 08 Sep 2008 10:23:36 -04002008-09-08T14:23:36ParaTed2k on We the Sheeplelifehappenshttp://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175324
And to top it off he attacks and smears veterans who actually did fight in the war, and spoke out against it once they were no longer in uniform


Let's be very clear. I may not agree with Rush (or anyone else spouting their opinions on air) but the real issue is this....WHY CAN'T they "attack" or "smear" someone JUST because they were military? Is it okay to trash other people and just not "veterans"? C'mon, that's ridiculous. I want the leadership of my country to have a record that can withstand intense scrutiny. Don't give someone a by just because they served in the military. Short of bashing a soldier BECAUSE they were in service to their country....all's fair in love and war (Politics too!)]]>http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175324http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175324Mon, 08 Sep 2008 10:23:36 -04002008-09-08T14:23:36lifehappens on We the SheepleParaTed2khttp://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175324Other than that, I really like the guy. I suspect his real support is a mile wide and an inch deep once push comes to shove. There's not a candidate running I could feel good about voting for.

That's the thing, I like him too. I would love to meet him, and I have a lot of respect for him as a person. I just don't think much of him as a politician and even less as a presidential candidate.]]>http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175324http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175324Mon, 08 Sep 2008 10:23:36 -04002008-09-08T14:23:36ParaTed2k on We the SheepleDr Guyhttp://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175324
Conservative talk radio has never had the "influence" that it's detractors have claimed (remember the talk about "doing something about Rush Limbaugh" in Congress? from Hillary, even?) or that it's supporters have sometimes assumed. It spoke to some deep concerns and covictions that were already held by the electorate.

What he said (and better than I).

]]>http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175324http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175324Mon, 08 Sep 2008 10:23:36 -04002008-09-08T14:23:36Dr Guy on We the SheepleDaiwahttp://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175324 Conservative talk radio has never had the "influence" that it's detractors have claimed (remember the talk about "doing something about Rush Limbaugh" in Congress? from Hillary, even?) or that it's supporters have sometimes assumed. It spoke to some deep concerns and covictions that were already held by the electorate. That electorate has become disillusioned by the failure of politicians espousing conservative principles to "walk the talk." I certainly have. I support McCain's position on Iraq, but on virtually every other important issue he is an out-and-out socialist, more liberal Democrat than centrist Republican. He has no respect for exercising individual freedoms or freedom of political speech. His approach to election "reform" has amounted to doing everything possible to stack the deck in favor of incumbents. His stance on illegal immigration is a disgrace to our Constitution, not that he cares that much about the document, and an affront to every legal immigrant. An election between him and either Clinton or Obama will be about nothing more than the war on terror and health care, since there are virtually no differences among the three of them otherwise.

Other than that, I really like the guy. I suspect his real support is a mile wide and an inch deep once push comes to shove. There's not a candidate running I could feel good about voting for.]]>http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175324http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175324Mon, 08 Sep 2008 10:23:36 -04002008-09-08T14:23:36Daiwa on We the SheepleDr Guyhttp://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175370UP to midnight?  I understand your concerns about pulling him, but that is just ridiculous!

Children need to learn.  But they have to have time to be children as well.  Mine never were in the national spelling bee, but they got good grades, and had fun being kids.

 

]]>http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175370http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175370Mon, 08 Sep 2008 10:23:36 -04002008-09-08T14:23:36Dr Guy on Middle School Bluesforeverserenityhttp://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175370 I totally second (and third) everything Tova and Loca have said!

I am really amazed that the school refused to work with you at all. There is no excuse for them being so inflexible! For a school such as that, they need to re-vamp their support system!

I've had a bit of a difficult school year myself with our 13 year old who is also in middle school. He has been having a hard time due to his slacking up because he thought he had time and could make up his grades. He was getting Ds - a mistake he's learning from. He then had an accident/injury, broken arm, surgery, physical therapy. That was quite an eventful situation for us. His grades got even worse, all Fs! During this entire period, I worked with his teachers, who were all very accommodating. Giving him home assignments, and oral stuff to do because he couldn't write. One teacher even had the other students take turns and write his notes for him! I was so grateful for that! We gave up on his getting his grades better for that semester last year. Now, he's turned almost all but one of those Fs to As and Bs! The one class he's having trouble with is (Science) the one teacher who was difficult and wouldn't work with me. I've even told the teacher that he may have given up on my son, but I refuse to, that' probably sealed his faith with him, but I'm not giving up on him! And I'm also not giving up on the teacher either! I'm going to get back to him to follow up with what is going on because here in Florida, high school science is important for the start of high school. My son said he's bored in the class and it's not interesting. I know he does get distracted too, so I'm not blaming the teacher. But I do not like the fact that he doesn't seem to be trying. I'm able to go on the school website and see what's going on with my child's other classes, if he missed assignments, what is upcoming, etc. The Science class has nothing on their program!

Anyway, it's never easy with kids, as you know, and being there is what we can do for them and you are doing a great job! ]]>http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175370http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175370Mon, 08 Sep 2008 10:23:36 -04002008-09-08T14:23:36foreverserenity on Middle School BluesZoologist03http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175370
There's a difference between advanced and impossible. Advanced challenges you but doesn't destroy you. I did college prep through high school, but it was nowhere near that crazy.

Pulling him out was the best thing you could do, in my opinion. You should always push yourself, but never bury yourself under that kind of stress.


I'm in college and I don't even work that hard. Insane. A public school education can get you into a decent school. I'm at Miami University...that's a pretty decent one, or so I hear. Expensive, anyway...it better count for something.

~Zoo]]>http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175370http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175370Mon, 08 Sep 2008 10:23:36 -04002008-09-08T14:23:36Zoologist03 on Middle School BluesParaTed2khttp://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175324These are somehow bad things?

Absolutely.]]>http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175324http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175324Mon, 08 Sep 2008 10:23:36 -04002008-09-08T14:23:36ParaTed2k on We the SheepleLocamamahttp://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175370I think you did the right thing.  I think leaving him in a school where he was consistently, struggling, not succeeding and not receiving the help he needs would have been a mistake. 

I hope he finds his place in his new schools. 

]]>http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175370http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175370Mon, 08 Sep 2008 10:23:36 -04002008-09-08T14:23:36Locamama on Middle School BluesSanChoninohttp://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175324The answer is, because they say the things their paymasters want them to say, and do it with a glib, smug, sensational style that for some passes as a form of charm. They are not experts in any way shape or form. They do not deserve to have their voice broadcast to every corner of the union across different media. The upside of this is that the news has been filled with so many talking heads, so many gasbags that love to share their opinions with us (instead of real investigative journalism like the old days) that people are finally catching on. People are catching on that many of these talking head experts are anything but, and so they are tuning out and maybe, hopefully forming their own opinions rather than depend of some vacuous media personalities to tell them what they should believe! At least one can hope....

Preach it, brother. Amen and amen!]]>http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175324http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175324Mon, 08 Sep 2008 10:23:36 -04002008-09-08T14:23:36SanChonino on We the SheepleDr Guyhttp://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175324The answer is, because they say the things their paymasters want them to say

You have it backwards. Regardless of any other qualifications, they have their jobs because they say what the paymasters (i.e., the advertisers and by extension the audience) want to hear.

That was demonstrated loudly and convincingly by the failure Air America and greenstone.]]>http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175324http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175324Mon, 08 Sep 2008 10:23:36 -04002008-09-08T14:23:36Dr Guy on We the SheepleDr Guyhttp://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175324
And he has voted against the Bush tax cuts, vowed to close Gitmo, and bought into global warming hook, line, and sinker.


These are somehow bad things?

~Zoo

To some yes. Taxes are all about control. Who has it. A true conservative (and I am not saying any running are or are not) wants more money in the pockets of those who make it. Higher taxes mean more government which is bad.

Closing Gitmo is just fluff. It does not address the underlying issue and is a nice campaign slogan but shows no depth in thought to those espousing it. It is neither conservative or liberal.

Global warming is a sham - not the actual issue, but the political one. It has nothing to do with what is happening in the world, and what is causing it, and everything to do with who again has control over your life. So again, it is a liberal versus conservative issue]]>http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175324http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175324Mon, 08 Sep 2008 10:23:36 -04002008-09-08T14:23:36Dr Guy on We the SheepleArtysimhttp://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175324singrdave,

You ask why certain pundits seem to be having a waning effect on the masses as of late- letsa take a closer look-

Ann Coulter- advocated invading muslim countries, killing their leaders and forcibly converting everyone to christianity. Yup, real christian of her. She has used every opportunity to spurn hatred towards anyone and everyone who does not toe the neocon line, regardless of their reasoning, even going so far as saying that liberals are the real terrorists and should be thrown in places like Gitmo. And she has been given such expansive media access because she is a renowned expert on the subject of..........? Please tell me, I'd like to know!

Rush Limbaugh- one of the biggest advocates of the Iraq war, yet he himself has never worn the uniform. Did get a deferment from vietnam due to a pimple on his ass (technically it was a boil if ya wanna get specific). So, although he has never worn the uniform or fought for his country he has the gall to tell other people they need to go and fight and die while he sits in his cushy chair. And to top it off he attacks and smears veterans who actually did fight in the war, and spoke out against it once they were no longer in uniform (fulfilling their legal obligations as ya can't speak against uncle sam while working for him) And he is an expert on the subject of.......? Same as above, please let me know why this "expert" has a microphone!

Sean Hannity..... ah seany boy. He's the least worst of the three so-called 'pundits' here but I'd like to know the reason why he has a licence to pontificate to the masses. Same as Glenn Beck- why have these men been given a voice in the national media?

The answer is, because they say the things their paymasters want them to say, and do it with a glib, smug, sensational style that for some passes as a form of charm. They are not experts in any way shape or form. They do not deserve to have their voice broadcast to every corner of the union across different media. The upside of this is that the news has been filled with so many talking heads, so many gasbags that love to share their opinions with us (instead of real investigative journalism like the old days) that people are finally catching on. People are catching on that many of these talking head experts are anything but, and so they are tuning out and maybe, hopefully forming their own opinions rather than depend of some vacuous media personalities to tell them what they should believe! At least one can hope....

 

 

]]>http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175324http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175324Mon, 08 Sep 2008 10:23:36 -04002008-09-08T14:23:36Artysim on We the SheepleCikomyrhttp://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175324These are somehow bad things?

~Zoo

some conservative can't put into their mind that their exact view of what is the best conservative attitude is not the same than other's.]]>http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175324http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175324Mon, 08 Sep 2008 10:23:36 -04002008-09-08T14:23:36Cikomyr on We the SheepleZoologist03http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175324And he has voted against the Bush tax cuts, vowed to close Gitmo, and bought into global warming hook, line, and sinker.

These are somehow bad things?

~Zoo]]>http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175324http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175324Mon, 08 Sep 2008 10:23:36 -04002008-09-08T14:23:36Zoologist03 on We the SheepleTova7http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175370First of all, imho, you DID THE RIGHT THING!

My son is in 6th grade this year at a public school.  He tests in the "gifted" levels.  But I don't put him in the gifted programs, know why?  It adds even more homework than he has now.  And frankly, he's smart, but I wouldn't call him gifted.

As for "never get into good schools without advanced classes."  That's bull and somewhere deep down you know it right?  How many Americans that you look at now and think, "Wow.  Hope my son grows up to be like that."  Went to charter schools?  I'm willing to bet most of them went to ~gasp~ good ol public school.

As for what you're teaching your son?  Well, first, you taught him you aren't afraid to admit when you're wrong.  You were wrong about the charter school for whatever reason.  Second, you are showing him that when something isn't working, you don't quit, you find another way to do it.  He isn't quitting school, he's finding another one where he can learn and not be over run therefor able to move on with life.  But third, and imo most important, you have supported him.  He knows you want the best for him, and when things got too crazy you stepped in to help him out.  That's what parents do!  Yeah, we need to let our kids make decisions and let them fail sometimes...but this wasn't a kid problem he could fix, it was an adult problem.  And YOU, and only you, could fix it.....and you did.

Good on ya!

Sounds like sound parenting to me.

 

]]>http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175370http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175370Mon, 08 Sep 2008 10:23:36 -04002008-09-08T14:23:36Tova7 on Middle School BluesDr Guyhttp://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175324(or something like that. It's hearsay I've read on this forum)

You can actually go to his site and get it from the horses mouth. I beleive that is the gist of what he did say.

To understand Rush, you have to understand he is a conservative that wants Republicans to be such, not a Republican who wants all conservatives to be so. As such, he does jump all over what he calls RINOs. IN truth to him, a RINO is a non-conservative Republican - like Olympia Snow et. al.

Hannity on the other hand is a republican. So "speak no evil" of republicans is his motto and his "concern" about McCain has been much more muted than Rush's.]]>http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175324http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175324Mon, 08 Sep 2008 10:23:36 -04002008-09-08T14:23:36Dr Guy on We the SheepleParaTed2khttp://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175324Oh, I'm not saying it's over for conservative talk radio, not by a long shot. The dittoheads will keep listening and callers will still proclaim Hannity a "great American". But last night's results tell me that Talk Radio doesn't have the influence they think they have.

That's the point, they never claimed to have that much control.

The dittoheads will keep listening


If it's only 'dittoheads' listening, why does Rush's show get better ratings than Air America, even in liberal markets?]]>http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175324http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175324Mon, 08 Sep 2008 10:23:36 -04002008-09-08T14:23:36ParaTed2k on We the SheepleCikomyrhttp://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175324
(or something like that. It's hearsay I've read on this forum)

But the more I see it, the more I watch republican voters choosing him, and the more I see republican-controled media bashing him. The more I see high-standing republican (a.k.a. the establishment) trying to make him loose.

I think McCain is not liked by a lot BECAUSE he's not liked by the establishment.]]>http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175324http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175324Mon, 08 Sep 2008 10:23:36 -04002008-09-08T14:23:36Cikomyr on We the SheepleDr Guyhttp://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175324
Do the pundits really know what's best?

I think I see the problem. The answer is a resounding NO.  They only know what is best for themselves.  Each has an agenda and is trying to push it.  The big difference is that some are honest about having an agenda (talk radio), and some are just deceptive and trying to fool (not do what is best) the rest of us.

Or are they so out-of-touch with Mr. and Mrs. Millard America (of Young America, MN) and so bloated with their own self-importance that they cannot see who's the best candidate? Is McCain what the people want or what they need?

There is no Mr. and Mrs. America.  There are millions of them.  Some are more conservative, some are less.  Some are liberal, some are moderate.  Talk radio plays to a section of the country that was not only ignored, but denigrated for many years by the MSM - hard core conservatives.  But they are hardly in the majority.  You see it here, where many who will never vote for Hillary or Obama, still trash talk talk radio.  Because while they are conservative, they are not as conservative as the talk show hosts.

McCain, as others have alluded to, is appealing to many moderates, as well as some conservatives, and that is why he is doing so well.  The conservative vote is being split (indeed, if you add Romney and Huckabee, it bests McCain).  It is not that everyone loves him, just that more people do than either (not both) of the other main contenders.

]]>http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175324http://singrdave.joeuser.com/article/175324Mon, 08 Sep 2008 10:23:36 -04002008-09-08T14:23:36Dr Guy on We the Sheeple