Top Priorities

[saveliberty]

Most government programs make opting out of a traditional family easier. it makes it MORE likely to have a negative outcome for the child and family.

 

[Spoonman]

Flat Tax, end of story. Per person, not per family.

 

[antagon]

Flat Tax, end of story. Per person, not per family.

this is my nominee for retarded quote of the day.




the week.

 

[MaggieMae]

Your link doesn't work Maggie. Were these people on the government payroll?

Link worked fine for me (just checked), and yes, Karen Hughes was on the payroll. I'm sure the religious reps appointed for that mission were at least paid for their time.

 

[Foxfyre]

Most government programs make opting out of a traditional family easier. it makes it MORE likely to have a negative outcome for the child and family.

That's the thing. A priority of the federal government should be to promote the general welfare. Not provide it. Promote it. And the only way to do this is by promoting beneficial behavior fairly and equitably across the board without respect for race, ethnicity, religion, country of origin, socioeconomic status, political leanings, sexual orientation, or the state the person lives in.

Because the federal government has tried to jury rig social initiatives and tax structures, etc. it has effectively consigned whole groups to crushing poverty, unemployment, and crime, rat infested neighborhoods. And one way it did that was to make fathers irrelevent or even undesirable and thus weakened and discouraged traditional marriage and families. Most especially the black family.

 

[MaggieMae]

Okay so just that we're clear on this, you are referring to the closing of one counterterrorism center inside a much larger branch of the military, which is inside of the much larger branch of the DoD, which is inside of the much larger structure of he IC (intelligence community). That's not at all what you claimed, which is:



Bush didn't eliminate "the counterterrorism branch," he abolished Clarke's specific center. Before we debate the merits of that decision honestly, let's make sure we both are realistic in what actually took place instead of using rhetoric. Is that okay with you?

Also before we get into the meat of this, I'd like to get some clarification on this:



At what point was Richard Clarke not in a "desk job?"

I can see you want to be picky, and sorry, but my recollection of those events isn't crystal clear without going to material saved on disks or an extensive Google search for the clear facts, which can't be picked apart. I don't intend to get into a donnybrook with you over this, although I do believe that everything I stated (paraphrased) was revealed during the 911 Commission hearings, including the fact that Condi Rice considerably downsized Richard Clarke's mission and accomplishments to date. That too was made clear at the time. I called it a "desk job," but you can call it anything you want.

The BA preferred not to have anything Clinton-esque that occurred regarding counterterrorism (or anything else) prior to the 911 as their model. That too was common knowledge.

Not trying to be picky, just trying to make sure we're talking about the same thing.

If you don't wish to back up your statements with anything other than "common knowledge" there really isn't anything else to discuss. You have your version, your boogeyman, and your hero. Frankly I think Clarke was mostly full of shit and he was part of the problem. He never advocated a military solution to terrorism and we all know how that worked out. There was a very good reason to remove Clarke from his role as a primary counterterrorism figure, he failed miserably.

Military solutions have worked to quell terrorism? Really? Where? When?

 

[MaggieMae]

She was President Bush's emissary to meet and negotiate with a very large and prestigious group of religious leaders who had petitioned the President in matters of promoting Middle East peace. But so far as I know, none of those folks were on the government payroll or volunteers for the government.

So since Maggie's link didn't work I don't know if she is erroneously referring to that or something else. I'll wait until Maggie can speak for herself on that though.

Yea, I've looked an I can't find anything. I think Maggie Mae is trying to troll us.

oddly that link works fine for me. i really dont care much about stuff like this, but it was convened by congress and probably nibbled on congress' national conference on citizenship budget, being that their seal is on the document. charitable sponsors are named, and religious leaders from christian, muslim and jewish backgrounds got together...

As leaders in the fields of religion, community service, academia,
and public service, you have come here today to promote collaboration among Christians,
Jews, Muslims, and people of all faiths...

the people's titles and the names of the organizations did crack me up...

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, CEO, American Society for Muslim Advancement; Rev. Dr. Gloria Ward Wright, Educator and Pastor, A.M.E. Zion Church; Rabbi Irving Greenberg, President, Jewish Life Network/Steinhardt Foundation... sounds like the start of a bad joke.

edit: this was march, 2006

The point is, to Bush's credit, he thought peaceful coexistence among religions, even Islam, was necessary and dispatched Karen Hughes to establish a group of renowned religious leaders (including the now infamous Imam, feisal Rauf, to advocate for that common cause. Now Obama wants to do something similar and it's a baaaaaaaaad thing. Figures.

 

[MaggieMae]

Yea, I've looked an I can't find anything. I think Maggie Mae is trying to troll us.

oddly that link works fine for me. i really dont care much about stuff like this, but it was convened by congress and probably nibbled on congress' national conference on citizenship budget, being that their seal is on the document. charitable sponsors are named, and religious leaders from christian, muslim and jewish backgrounds got together...

As leaders in the fields of religion, community service, academia,
and public service, you have come here today to promote collaboration among Christians,
Jews, Muslims, and people of all faiths...

the people's titles and the names of the organizations did crack me up...

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, CEO, American Society for Muslim Advancement; Rev. Dr. Gloria Ward Wright, Educator and Pastor, A.M.E. Zion Church; Rabbi Irving Greenberg, President, Jewish Life Network/Steinhardt Foundation... sounds like the start of a bad joke.

edit: this was march, 2006

Does make one wonder when they don't come up with organizations anybody has ever heard of. The link still doesn't work for me, but based on your comments, can I assume that this was close to what I mentioned earlier? A bunch of religious leaders with stuff on their mind who got together to be heard? Not religious folk put on the payroll or put into unpaid positions of authority in the government?

The link I posted was the quick reference to the PDF file. Since you can't bring up that one, here's the link to the full PDF report.

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON FAITH AND SERVICE
http://www.civicenterprises.net/pdfs/interfaith_program.pdf

 

[MaggieMae]

Does make one wonder when they don't come up with organizations anybody has ever heard of. The link still doesn't work for me, but based on your comments, can I assume that this was close to what I mentioned earlier? A bunch of religious leaders with stuff on their mind who got together to be heard? Not religious folk put on the payroll or put into unpaid positions of authority in the government?

i think this is in the grey area right in between these options. this conference did cost the taxpayer some cash. in the process some government folks probably learned something that they didnt know before. you've got to remember congressmen and senators come out of the real world and then have to sit on a committee to discuss arab-israeli peace objectives. maybe you've got to video conference with king abdullah for that (also on the agenda at the conference ) this is also a lobbying opportunity for faith-based orgs to sink their teeth in... in the name of a more morally conscious america. if there isn't a conference like this going on this week, for agribusiness to zoological studies, you're not on capitol hill.

i think millions are spent on stuff like this every year, but thats government, well the US government.

The Bush Administration spent millions annually on marriage promotion initiatives. I don't know if any statistical studies have been done to show how much effect any of them had.

PublicEye.org - The Website of Political Research Associates

 

[MaggieMae]

Flat Tax, end of story. Per person, not per family.

this is my nominee for retarded quote of the day.




the week.

I second that. Would the Douger Family be exempt?

 

[MaggieMae]

Most government programs make opting out of a traditional family easier. it makes it MORE likely to have a negative outcome for the child and family.

That's the thing. A priority of the federal government should be to promote the general welfare. Not provide it. Promote it. And the only way to do this is by promoting beneficial behavior fairly and equitably across the board without respect for race, ethnicity, religion, country of origin, socioeconomic status, political leanings, sexual orientation, or the state the person lives in.

Because the federal government has tried to jury rig social initiatives and tax structures, etc. it has effectively consigned whole groups to crushing poverty, unemployment, and crime, rat infested neighborhoods. And one way it did that was to make fathers irrelevent or even undesirable and thus weakened and discouraged traditional marriage and families. Most especially the black family.

If you can explain how the government is supposed to "promote" anything without putting some money toward it, I'm all eyes. The government can't ORDER families to behave, and as I believe even you said at some point, you can't legislate emotions. Of course we could just clone the perfect parents and send them out like soldiers to clean up the riffraff and create stronger families, armed with a set of orders...or else.

 

[Foxfyre]

If you guys want to flame somebody, I would really REALLY appreciate your taking it to the Flame Zone. There are plenty of food fights on USMB without starting one here.

Now back on topic, it seems obvious from our straw poll here that the vast majority of us think the government's #1 one and maybe only priority right now should be the economy and jobs.

How much do you think the economy was helped and how many jobs were created with these expenditures from the Stimulus Package?:

$5 million to create a geothermal energy system at a shopping mall in Tennessee that “has been losing tenants for years and is mostly empty.”

$5,000 per person subsidy to buy electric golf carts.

$500,000 to Arizona State University to study the genetic makeup of ants.

$1.2 million to convert an abandoned train station in New Jersey into a museum.

$390,000 to the State University of New York at Buffalo to “study young adults who drink malt liquor and smoke marijuana.”

$210,000 to the University of Hawaii to “study the learning patterns of honeybees.”

$554,763 to replace windows at a visitor center at Mount St. Helen in Washington State that has been closed since 2007. The U.S. Forest Service has no plans to reopen it.

$233,000 to the University of California at San Diego to study why Africans don’t vote. Of the 12 jobs created, seven are Africans in Africa.

$144,541 to Wake Forest University for a project to “see how monkeys react under the influence of cocaine.”

$762,372 for a Georgia Tech assistant professor to “study improvised music” and “hopefully also create satisfying works of art.”

Was The Stimulus Really Full of Wasteful Spending? Spending Crisis

 

[MaggieMae]

I'm bored.

 

[Foxfyre]

Most government programs make opting out of a traditional family easier. it makes it MORE likely to have a negative outcome for the child and family.

That's the thing. A priority of the federal government should be to promote the general welfare. Not provide it. Promote it. And the only way to do this is by promoting beneficial behavior fairly and equitably across the board without respect for race, ethnicity, religion, country of origin, socioeconomic status, political leanings, sexual orientation, or the state the person lives in.

Because the federal government has tried to jury rig social initiatives and tax structures, etc. it has effectively consigned whole groups to crushing poverty, unemployment, and crime, rat infested neighborhoods. And one way it did that was to make fathers irrelevent or even undesirable and thus weakened and discouraged traditional marriage and families. Most especially the black family.

If you can explain how the government is supposed to "promote" anything without putting some money toward it, I'm all eyes. The government can't ORDER families to behave, and as I believe even you said at some point, you can't legislate emotions. Of course we could just clone the perfect parents and send them out like soldiers to clean up the riffraff and create stronger families, armed with a set of orders...or else.

In this case I'm suggesting that the government simply take less and allow Americans in traditional families keep more. They don't have to put any money at all into it in order to do that. But by encouraging traditional families they are promoting the general welfare by promoting less child poverty, a stronger tax base, better schools, more stable and less crime ridden neighborhoods, and generally a more pleasant and satisfying quality of life. Doesn't require one thin dime from the government to do that.

And the government doesn't have to kick in a single dime to promote benevolence and private charities. All it has to do to promote that is to take less and allow those who take care of the less fortunate to keep more of what they earn.

And it doesn't require a single government nickle to promote home ownership. All it has to do to promote that is to take less and allow those who buy homes to keep more of what they earn.

 

[asterism]

The President is ending the war in Iraq. He's set the Israeli Palestinian peace talks as a priority. He's been responsive to the oil spill, he addressed health care reform, he's on the economy. He's addressed DADT.

I'd say he's working hard with very little bipartisan support. He's completely on target with his campaign promises.


•Passing the "largest" economic stimulus bill in American history.
•Ordering the closing of Guantanamo Bay military detention facility and abolishing "enhanced interrogation techniques."
•Setting a fixed timetable for withdrawing U.S. combat forces from Iraq.
•Ordering 21,000 additional troops to Afghanistan and enlisting, with modest new assistance, European allies in a new multi-layered strategy there and in Pakistan, and setting a timetable for a drawdown of our troops.
•Signing laws to expand children's health insurance (financed by a 61-cent per pack increase in the federal cigarette tax the adviser did not tout).
•Banned offshore drilling until parameters for deep well safety procedures are clarified.
•Put a hold on Artic oil exploratory digging until environmental impacts are clear.
•Passed health care reform.
•signed a hate crime bill .

And this is why I opposed him in 2008 and I oppose him now.

I'm ignoring the debatable spin issues here, like Gitmo, Afghanistan, CHiP financed by cigarettes (I smoke to heal kids?), Iraq (drawdown based on a timeline and not the mission? heh!) unless you'd like to explain how they are good things.

 

[asterism]

Hate crimes not only target an individual but they send a terrorist message that 'your kind' are not wanted here to the rest of the minority community.

Liberal activists picketed my workplace and it caused them to cancel my contract. Chants from the crowd were clearly meant to disenfranchise people crossing that picket line.

Hate crime?

 

[asterism]

No legislation is going to change bigotry and prejudice, Sky. Only changing people's hearts will do that. I doubt a single unkind, cruel, or hateful act will be averted just because it is officially labeled a 'hate crime'.

I bet if GLAD or other such advocacy groups had used their collective voices to call on President Obama to ditch all the side issues that could wait and to focus on what government can do to create a more secure business friendly environment so that people can get back to work, there would be a whole bunch of people very grateful to the gay and lesbian community.

I disagree with you. You're too late. We have hate crime law. It now covers gays, lesbians and transgendered people as well as every other race, religion, ethnicity and disability. I celebrate that. Perhaps you don't know what it's like to be targeted for hate crimes. I do.

You can't expect GLAD to tow the GOP party line, but you cn expect Log Cabin Republicans to do your bidding on supporting big business.

We have our own issues as well as the same economic concerns every American has.

I don't fault the President for the state of the economy.

Ok so now we are on the path to gay marriage and gay adoption. What's next for the GLBT activists?

 

[asterism]

I can see you want to be picky, and sorry, but my recollection of those events isn't crystal clear without going to material saved on disks or an extensive Google search for the clear facts, which can't be picked apart. I don't intend to get into a donnybrook with you over this, although I do believe that everything I stated (paraphrased) was revealed during the 911 Commission hearings, including the fact that Condi Rice considerably downsized Richard Clarke's mission and accomplishments to date. That too was made clear at the time. I called it a "desk job," but you can call it anything you want.

The BA preferred not to have anything Clinton-esque that occurred regarding counterterrorism (or anything else) prior to the 911 as their model. That too was common knowledge.

Not trying to be picky, just trying to make sure we're talking about the same thing.

If you don't wish to back up your statements with anything other than "common knowledge" there really isn't anything else to discuss. You have your version, your boogeyman, and your hero. Frankly I think Clarke was mostly full of shit and he was part of the problem. He never advocated a military solution to terrorism and we all know how that worked out. There was a very good reason to remove Clarke from his role as a primary counterterrorism figure, he failed miserably.

Military solutions have worked to quell terrorism? Really? Where? When?

Iraq.

Zarqawi is not only dead, but unable to pull another 9/11.

 

[antagon]

The point is, to Bush's credit, he thought peaceful coexistence among religions, even Islam, was necessary and dispatched Karen Hughes to establish a group of renowned religious leaders (including the now infamous Imam, feisal Rauf, to advocate for that common cause. Now Obama wants to do something similar and it's a baaaaaaaaad thing. Figures.

this thread has covered a lot of turf, but the same statement i made earlier applies:

this is the pick and choose nature of partisan political criticism.

 

[antagon]

Military solutions have worked to quell terrorism? Really? Where? When?

Iraq.

Zarqawi is not only dead, but unable to pull another 9/11.

so we should spend billions to invade countries, precipitate resistance and attract regional terrorists to destabilize our efforts?

please don't feel offended if i dont think this has 'worked'.