The Republican Thread

[BigSqwert]

Were there school districts around the country getting bullied into not airing Bush's speech?

[southsideirish71]

Were there school districts around the country getting bullied into not airing Bush's speech?

 

No, I don't remember of any school refusing to air this based on pressure. Any school district that does this is silly and shouldn't do it. A presidential address to children about school is a good thing. You don't have to identify with the party, its about the office.

 

But then again I haven't seen any congressional hearings or Obama officials being called to testify about the funding for this event.

 

Interesting the NEA must be a complete different animal depending on what party the speech comes from. The speech is pretty damn close. Yet here are the 2 different sound bytes of reactions by the same organization.

 

2009

September 6, 2009 -- the NEA wrote: "We applaud President Obama for delivering this message to students."

 

1991

October 10, 1991 -- the National Education Association said it could not "endorse a president who spends $26,000 dollars of taxpayers' money on a staged media event... while cutting school lunch funds for our neediest youngsters."

Edited September 9, 2009 by southsideirish71

[Balta1701]

You know, for a while there I was so proud of this site for not having bought in to the lunacy on the conversion of America's children to Commies...

[lostfan]

You know, for a while there I was so proud of this site for not having bought in to the lunacy on the conversion of America's children to Commies...

In fairness, SSI isn't really doing that

[NorthSideSox72]

No, I don't remember of any school refusing to air this based on pressure. Any school district that does this is silly and shouldn't do it. A presidential address to children about school is a good thing. You don't have to identify with the party, its about the office.

 

But then again I haven't seen any congressional hearings or Obama officials being called to testify about the funding for this event.

 

Interesting the NEA must be a complete different animal depending on what party the speech comes from. The speech is pretty damn close. Yet here are the 2 different sound bytes of reactions by the same organization.

 

2009

 

1991

That's NEA being a lobbying group, they can yell and scream all they want, I don't care what they think of either one really. And I agree its silly in both cases to take issue with it.

 

[Controlled Chaos]

Listening to a Liar

Thomas Sowell

Tuesday, September 08, 2009

 

The most important thing about what anyone says are not the words themselves but the credibility of the person who says them.

 

The words of convicted swindler Bernie Madoff were apparently quite convincing to many people who were regarded as knowledgeable and sophisticated. If you go by words, you can be led into anything.

 

No doubt millions of people will be listening to the words of President Barack Obama Wednesday night when he makes a televised address to a joint session of Congress on his medical care plans. But, if they think that the words he says are what matters, they can be led into something much worse than being swindled out of their money.

 

One plain fact should outweigh all the words of Barack Obama and all the impressive trappings of the setting in which he says them: He tried to rush Congress into passing a massive government takeover of the nation's medical care before the August recess-- for a program that would not take effect until 2013!

 

Whatever President Obama is, he is not stupid. If the urgency to pass the medical care legislation was to deal with a problem immediately, then why postpone the date when the legislation goes into effect for years-- more specifically, until the year after the next Presidential election?

 

If this is such an urgently needed program, why wait for years to put it into effect? And if the public is going to benefit from this, why not let them experience those benefits before the next Presidential election?

 

If it is not urgent that the legislation goes into effect immediately, then why don't we have time to go through the normal process of holding Congressional hearings on the pros and cons, accompanied by public discussions of its innumerable provisions? What sense does it make to "hurry up and wait" on something that is literally a matter of life and death?

 

If we do not believe that the President is stupid, then what do we believe? The only reasonable alternative seems to be that he wanted to get this massive government takeover of medical care passed into law before the public understood what was in it.

 

Moreover, he wanted to get re-elected in 2012 before the public experienced what its actual consequences would be.

 

Unfortunately, this way of doing things is all too typical of the way this administration has acted on a wide range of issues.

 

Consider the "stimulus" legislation. Here the administration was successful in rushing a massive spending bill through Congress in just two days-- after which it sat on the President's desk for three days, while he was away on vacation. But, like the medical care legislation, the "stimulus" legislation takes effect slowly.

 

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that it will be September 2010 before even three-quarters of the money will be spent. Some economists expect that it will not all be spent by the end of 2010.

 

What was the rush to pass it, then? It was not to get that money out into the economy as fast as possible. It was to get that money-- and the power that goes with it-- into the hands of the government. Power is what politics is all about.

 

The worst thing that could happen, from the standpoint of those seeking more government power over the economy, would be for the economy to begin recovering on its own while months were being spent debating the need for a "stimulus" bill. As the President's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, said, you can't let a crisis "go to waste" when "it's an opportunity to do things you could not do before."

 

There are lots of people in the Obama administration who want to do things that have not been done before-- and to do them before the public realizes what is happening.

 

The proliferation of White House "czars" in charge of everything from financial issues to media issues is more of the same circumvention of the public and of the Constitution. Czars don't have to be confirmed by the Senate, the way Cabinet members must be, even though czars may wield more power, so you may never know what these people are like, until it is too late.

 

What Barack Obama says Wednesday night is not nearly as important as what he has been doing-- and how he has been doing it.

 

 

 

Copyright © 2009 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

 

 

[lostfan]

You have to rush major bills and push Congress to do them otherwise it doesn't get done and there are several reasons why. He wants healthcare passed in his first term (assuming he gets re-elected) and he is going to have to do immigration next. If he DOESN'T push healthcare, it becomes summer 2010, and before you know it - midterm elections, and people in Congress (especially the House) get focused on re-election then and you'll just be talking over their heads, and you'll be lucky if you can get another major initiative through. After midterm elections there is no guarantee his majority will be as strong and he's certainly not going to just sit back and get pummeled on healthcare and be a big factor in weakening or losing the majority (cuz he campaigned on doing healthcare and dragged his feet and got nothing accomplished).

 

Does pushing healthcare now affect his re-election chances? Of course it does. That's just reality though. Modern politics is a perpetual campaign season.

[Balta1701]

George W. Bush's tax cuts were passed in the spring of his first year. No Child Left Behind was passed during the summer. The Patriot Act was passed immediately after 9/11. The AUMF for Afghanistan was passed immediately after 9/11. Clearly, these were rushed and therefore they can only be bad things. All should be repealed.

[Cknolls]

Wonder if this will run on the front page of the Washington Post tomorrow?......Oh wait its a democrat..so I guess we know the answer.

 

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSF..._no_special.asp

 

And this is only 10 years old.

 

 

[Controlled Chaos]

 

 

 

http://biggovernment.com/2009/09/10/chaos-...glory/#more-274

Edited September 10, 2009 by Controlled Chaos

[Cknolls]

 

 

 

http://biggovernment.com/2009/09/10/chaos-...glory/#more-274

 

 

They're just community organizers.

[lostfan]

Have any of you here read Levin's book "Conservative Manifesto" (title paraphrased, it's longer but I don't remember what it is)? A co-worker recommended it and he said he does a good job of laying out conservative ideology without all the annoying name-calling and mocking you'd get in a book written by someone like Coulter.

[ThunderBolt]

I like Levin. He screams too much, but he's actually a man with solid ideas behind his talking points unlike others in his profession.

[kapkomet]

Have any of you here read Levin's book "Conservative Manifesto" (title paraphrased, it's longer but I don't remember what it is)? A co-worker recommended it and he said he does a good job of laying out conservative ideology without all the annoying name-calling and mocking you'd get in a book written by someone like Coulter.

Liberty and Tyranny. I have it but have not read it. I will probably read it in the next couple of days though, goodness knows I got time.

[lostfan]

I like Levin. He screams too much, but he's actually a man with solid ideas behind his talking points unlike others in his profession.

Can't hear him screaming through the book pages. lol. My co-worker uses the word "statist" a lot (doesn't really get into using words like "liberal" or "progressive" as pejoratives") and I figure he picked that up from Levin.

 

 

Liberty and Tyranny. I have it but have not read it. I will probably read it in the next couple of days though, goodness knows I got time.

Yeah that's it. I was reading some reviews on Amazon and they all sounded pretty positive but I figured those were mostly conservatives and fans of his and they'd all be biased. I just want to find a book written by a conservative that sticks to breaking down conservative ideas, when they start bashing I just tune out.

[NorthSideSox72]

Can't hear him screaming through the book pages. lol. My co-worker uses the word "statist" a lot (doesn't really get into using words like "liberal" or "progressive" as pejoratives") and I figure he picked that up from Levin.

 

 

 

Yeah that's it. I was reading some reviews on Amazon and they all sounded pretty positive but I figured those were mostly conservatives and fans of his and they'd all be biased. I just want to find a book written by a conservative that sticks to breaking down conservative ideas, when they start bashing I just tune out.

A number of my more conservative friends have been recommending I read Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, lately. I've already read it as it turns out. The small government conservatives (not the screechy preachy social agendaites) are of the opinion that is where we are headed.

 

[ThunderBolt]

A number of my more conservative friends have been recommending I read Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, lately. I've already read it as it turns out. The small government conservatives (not the screechy preachy social agendaites) are of the opinion that is where we are headed.

The Ayn Rand thing is one Glenn Beck's big talking ponts.

[kapkomet]

Can't hear him screaming through the book pages. lol. My co-worker uses the word "statist" a lot (doesn't really get into using words like "liberal" or "progressive" as pejoratives") and I figure he picked that up from Levin.

 

 

 

Yeah that's it. I was reading some reviews on Amazon and they all sounded pretty positive but I figured those were mostly conservatives and fans of his and they'd all be biased. I just want to find a book written by a conservative that sticks to breaking down conservative ideas, when they start bashing I just tune out.

The reason I got it is because from what I understand it's not the screaming through the pages - he doesn't talk about himself or his views. He lays a straight case of here's conservatism, here's modern day liberalism (aka, statist), and take it or leave it.

 

Anyway, I got some other stuff that I'm trying to get through while I'm sitting here doing nothing while I heal up. I'll try to get to that one, too and tell you what I think.

 

[Balta1701]

The reason I got it is because from what I understand it's not the screaming through the pages - he doesn't talk about himself or his views. He lays a straight case of here's conservatism, here's modern day liberalism (aka, statist), and take it or leave it.

 

Anyway, I got some other stuff that I'm trying to get through while I'm sitting here doing nothing while I heal up. I'll try to get to that one, too and tell you what I think.

Mark2Market?

[lostfan]

Mark2Market?

[Rex Kickass]

A number of my more conservative friends have been recommending I read Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, lately. I've already read it as it turns out. The small government conservatives (not the screechy preachy social agendaites) are of the opinion that is where we are headed.

 

Ayn Rand is the big hero of libertarians. Was really into it when I was younger. Objectivists believe that there is virtue in selfishness.

[Cknolls]

Mark2Market?

 

 

LOL

[ThunderBolt]

Beck played his hand perfectly. A day after the 1st video, which was followed by ACORN calling in an aberration, a frame-job, and a onetime occurrence. A second video, this one from Washington DC, was released. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,549241,00.html

[kapkomet]

Mark2Market?

I hate you.

 

Hey - I can post that now, if you want. But that's so a year ago now.

 

[mr_genius]

Is there some huge protest in Washington today? CNN is showing some BIG crowds. By far the biggest 'tea party' protest yet.