PDA

View Full Version : Court halts Calif. gay marriages pending appeal



Eric Johnson
08-16-2010, 07:27 PM
--------------------
News Alert: Court halts Calif. gay marriages pending appeal

07:12 PM EDT Monday, August 16, 2010
--------------------

A federal appeals court put same-sex weddings in California on hold indefinitely Monday while it considers the constitutionality of the state's gay marriage ban. The decision, issued by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, trumps a lower court judge's order that would have allowed county clerks to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples on Wednesday.

For more information, visit washingtonpost.com:
http://link.email.washingtonpost.com/r/U38ITL/S33GYS/BKZZJZ/IHDSZV/ASR48/1G/t

M&K's Retrievers
08-16-2010, 07:35 PM
--------------------
News Alert: Court halts Calif. gay marriages pending appeal

07:12 PM EDT Monday, August 16, 2010
--------------------

A federal appeals court put same-sex weddings in California on hold indefinitely Monday while it considers the constitutionality of the state's gay marriage ban. The decision, issued by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, trumps a lower court judge's order that would have allowed county clerks to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples on Wednesday.

For more information, visit washingtonpost.com:
http://link.email.washingtonpost.com/r/U38ITL/S33GYS/BKZZJZ/IHDSZV/ASR48/1G/t

Perhaps the wishes of 7 million will be heard.

gman0046
08-16-2010, 08:14 PM
Any thoughts Yardley?

subroc
08-16-2010, 08:21 PM
I wouldn’t be surprised to see the Ninth Circuit hear this en banc in a few days in an attempt to over ride this three judge panel’s decision.

Eric Johnson
08-16-2010, 10:48 PM
While the 9th has a history of liberalism, is it the majority of the judges or is it just enough that it affects the 3 judge panels?

Eric

BonMallari
08-16-2010, 11:19 PM
Perhaps the wishes of 7 million will be heard.

or perhaps they know in their hearts that the Higher court will rule in favor of the original law and by allowing all the same sex couples to be married they will open up a mountain of bureaucratic paperwork trying to nullify all the marriages that were fraudulently done ;)


That makes too much sense ,couldnt be the answer, could it ?

M&K's Retrievers
08-17-2010, 12:18 AM
or perhaps they know in their hearts that the Higher court will rule in favor of the original law and by allowing all the same sex couples to be married they will open up a mountain of bureaucratic paperwork trying to nullify all the marriages that were fraudulently done ;)


That makes too much sense ,couldnt be the answer, could it ?

What was the question?:D

dnf777
08-17-2010, 05:56 AM
Our system of democracy does not allow for simple majority rule. By in large, yes, but it must also protect the civil liberties of minorities as they are guaranteed by the constitution. There are undoubtedly areas of the south (and north) that if put to a vote, would quite possible authorize slavery. The courts job is to sort through legislation, when it is challenged and strike down laws that unconstitutionally violate citizens civil rights.

subroc
08-17-2010, 06:02 AM
...There are undoubtedly areas of the south (and north) that if put to a vote, would quite possible authorize slavery...

yeh, I expect liberals would love to enslave conservatives...

duckheads
08-17-2010, 11:07 AM
yeh, I expect middle of the road independants would love to enslave conservatives...

there I fixed it for you. didn't want you to offend anyone! :razz:

subroc
08-17-2010, 11:42 AM
dnf777 didn't call everyone a racist slavery wanting degenerate, just those from the north and the south. He left out those from the east and the west.

YardleyLabs
08-17-2010, 12:25 PM
Any thoughts Yardley?
The initial judge stayed his own decision to provide time for the Appeals Court to decide whether they wanted to continue the stay pending a full hearing or to set aside Prop 8 pending a full hearing. What they did was not surprising. They also accelerated the normal calendar to allow arguments on the appeal to be presented on 12/9. My expectation would be that Prop 8 will remain in place until there is a final Supreme Court decision. There is actually a new argument on the table for the appeal that is interesting -- one of standing. The State of California decided not to appeal the original decision (a deicion that might be reversed based on the outcome of the next election). There is a question on whether or not any of the supporters of Prop 8 have the standing to file an appeal at all. Either the Appeals Court or the Supreme Court could end up overturning Prop 8 based solely on this question of standing without ever ruling on the 14th amendment application. That could be preferable to the Supreme Court which just extended the reach of the 14th amendment with their ruling on Chicago's gun possession laws. However, my expectation is that the SCOTUS will ultimately uphold Prop 8 no matter what based on ideological belief. The real question then will be what logic they use to support their decision since I suspect they would prefer not to have a broad precedent affecting either the 14th amendment or questions of gender equality since the current law -- Prop 8 and by extension the Defense of Marriage Act -- actually represent a form of gender discrimination. The SCOTUS might ultimately decide that this is not an area of Federal jurisdiction at all, but reserved to the states under the 10th amendment. That would allow them to make a statement in support of state's rights without ruling on other, more sensitive issues.

dnf777
08-17-2010, 01:25 PM
dnf777 didn't call everyone a racist slavery wanting degenerate, just those from the north and the south. He left out those from the east and the west.

I didn't call anyone a racist slavery wanting degenerate. I said there are undoubtedly areas where if put to a vote, it would pass. How 'bout David Duke's district?

Besides, the point is, a simple majority is not the end-all in a Constitutional democracy. If you don't believe my example in 2010, ok, let's try Alabama in 1950. What do you think a popular vote regarding separate schools and restrooms would yield? I don't mean to pick on Alabama, but Selma happened to come to mind. Simple majorities aren't always right.

subroc
08-17-2010, 01:56 PM
60 years ago? really?

yeh, I know what you mean, after all 145 years ago the nation ended slavery. all those southeners and northeners have just been waiting to bring slavery back.

you are way beyond silly!

dnf777
08-17-2010, 02:34 PM
60 years ago? really?

yeh, I know what you mean, after all 145 years ago the nation ended slavery. all those southeners and northeners have just been waiting to bring slavery back.

you are way beyond silly!

You are totall missing (ignoring the point).

Are you saying since we ended slavery 145 years ago, the treatment of African-Americans has all been peachy since then? You have no problem with Dred Scott and separate but equal? That is ok with you?

BonMallari
08-17-2010, 02:38 PM
However, my expectation is that the SCOTUS will ultimately uphold Prop 8 no matter what based on ideological belief. The real question then will be what logic they use to support their decision since I suspect they would prefer not to have a broad precedent affecting either the 14th amendment or questions of gender equality since the current law -- Prop 8 and by extension the Defense of Marriage Act -- actually represent a form of gender discrimination. The SCOTUS might ultimately decide that this is not an area of Federal jurisdiction at all, but reserved to the states under the 10th amendment. That would allow them to make a statement in support of state's rights without ruling on other, more sensitive issues.


Ding ding ding...winner winner:D:D

subroc
08-17-2010, 03:21 PM
You are totall missing (ignoring the point).

Are you saying since we ended slavery 145 years ago, the treatment of African-Americans has all been peachy since then? You have no problem with Dred Scott and separate but equal? That is ok with you?

since the end of the civil war, we have gone through 145 years of history. in that time we have as a nation fought a war that ended slavery and "eliminated" systemic racism from our nation.

YardleyLabs
08-17-2010, 04:21 PM
since the end of the civil war, we have gone through 145 years of history. in that time we have as a nation fought a war that ended slavery and "eliminated" systemic racism from our nation.
We have eliminated de jure racism (although that battle continued past the 1960's), but not systematic racism. We eliminate systematic racism when educational, social, and economic opportunities are not influenced by race. We are not even close yet.

dnf777
08-17-2010, 04:25 PM
since the end of the civil war, we have gone through 145 years of history. in that time we have as a nation fought a war that ended slavery and "eliminated" systemic racism from our nation.

Incredible.

I don't know how to respond to that.

subroc
08-17-2010, 04:56 PM
...We eliminate systematic racism when educational, social, and economic opportunities are not influenced by race. We are not even close yet.

Identify where you see this? What corporation operates this way? What government agency operates this way? What groups operate this way?

Theoretical nonsense...

subroc
08-17-2010, 04:57 PM
Incredible.

I don't know how to respond to that.

no need to respond race baiter...

YardleyLabs
08-17-2010, 05:12 PM
Identify where you see this? What corporation operates this way? What government agency operates this way? What groups operate this way?

Theoretical nonsense...
I don't understand what you are saying (honest question, not an argument). Operates what way? In a way that promotes racially influenced opportunity or in a way that prevents racially influenced opportunity? Or are you questioning my definition of systematic racism as existing where systems that affect opportunity are themselves influenced by race? What is theoretical nonsense?

dnf777
08-17-2010, 05:48 PM
no need to respond race baiter...

If you don't think racism and segregation exists since the Civil War, you're not nearly as smart as I've given you credit for.

For starters, here's an entire book by Stephen Budiansky documenting in well referenced historical accounts of the systematic terror carried out (some state-sponsored) to ensure black men and women never achieved equality--All AFTER Appomattox, as the name implies.


http://www.budiansky.com/the_bloody_shirt.html

This is a regrettable chapter in our nation's history, its no wonder many know nothing about it.

Cody Covey
08-17-2010, 06:15 PM
We have eliminated de jure racism (although that battle continued past the 1960's), but not systematic racism. We eliminate systematic racism when educational, social, and economic opportunities are not influenced by race. We are not even close yet.

But those opportunities are to "help" the minorities. So are you saying we have come full circle and now the white folk are being subjected to systematic racism? Somehow i think you aren't.

YardleyLabs
08-17-2010, 07:23 PM
But those opportunities are to "help" the minorities. So are you saying we have come full circle and now the white folk are being subjected to systematic racism? Somehow i think you aren't.
Discrimination, as a matter of law, is measured in two ways: discriminatory process or discriminatory result. In the case of a discriminatory result, the perpetrator must show that the process is essential to fulfill the requirements of the job and that the result is an accurate reflection of differences in capabilities of people in the potential applicant pool. Otherwise, the process needs to be modified to eliminate the discriminatory result.

Obviously, where one group is benefiting from a discriminatory process, that group will be harmed by the elimination of their privilege, That is not the same as being discriminated against. It simply means that they will no longer be the beneficiaries of discrimination. The prerequisite for being a beneficiary of "help" is that you are already the beneficiary of harm.

subroc
08-17-2010, 07:53 PM
ÖWe eliminate systematic racism when educational, social, and economic opportunities are not influenced by race. We are not even close yet.


Identify where you see this? What corporation operates this way? What government agency operates this way? What groups operate this way?


I don't understand what you are saying (honest question, not an argument). Operates what way? In a way that promotes racially influenced opportunity or in a way that prevents racially influenced opportunity? Or are you questioning my definition of systematic racism as existing where systems that affect opportunity are themselves influenced by race? What is theoretical nonsense?

Operates in a racist way or advocates racism or allows racism. How can racism exist in a systemic way if in the United States there is a legal remedy for virtually every known possibility of racist behavior?

That is the point.

You speak of economic opportunities, identify where economic opportunities are limited because of race alone at the systemic level? If racism is identified in an individualís behavior (one loan officer refuses to loan to blacks) or systemic level (no blacks can get loans in this 70 billion dollar financial institution) are there legal remedies for the aggrieved parties of racism if it can be sited and proved? If there are, it isnít systemic specifically because there is a remedy.

What educational opportunities are limited by race? Donít identify someone in some predominantly ďblack communityĒ or poor community because that wonít wash. Anyone in the same community of any race or ethnicity or gender would receive the same educational opportunity. We are talking race here. Where is the racial limit?

What social opportunities are limited by race at a systemic level? Donít site one or two examples of some organization that at sometime in the past had a racist policy, letís talk today and how one is limited by race from social opportunities.

Remember, if there are legal remedies, our nation has already addressed the issue.

There can be no expectation on someoneís individual behavior. If someone is a racist, that isnít a systemic issue.

YardleyLabs
08-17-2010, 09:17 PM
Operates in a racist way or advocates racism or allows racism. How can racism exist in a systemic way if in the United States there is a legal remedy for virtually every known possibility of racist behavior?

That is the point.

You speak of economic opportunities, identify where economic opportunities are limited because of race alone at the systemic level? If racism is identified in an individualís behavior (one loan officer refuses to loan to blacks) or systemic level (no blacks can get loans in this 70 billion dollar financial institution) are there legal remedies for the aggrieved parties of racism if it can be sited and proved? If there are, it isnít systemic specifically because there is a remedy.

What educational opportunities are limited by race? Donít identify someone in some predominantly ďblack communityĒ or poor community because that wonít wash. Anyone in the same community of any race or ethnicity or gender would receive the same educational opportunity. We are talking race here. Where is the racial limit?

What social opportunities are limited by race at a systemic level? Donít site one or two examples of some organization that at sometime in the past had a racist policy, letís talk today and how one is limited by race from social opportunities.

Remember, if there are legal remedies, our nation has already addressed the issue.

There can be no expectation on someoneís individual behavior. If someone is a racist, that isnít a systemic issue.

No one said that racism was measurable by race alone. Like hip dysplasia, systematic racism operates through multiple factors. It begins with residential segregation. Regardless of how many laws have been passed, residential neighborhoods have become more segregated over time. With that, despite an end to legal segregation of schools, schools are more segregated than ever before. The segregation is not simply racial, it is also economic. The two go hand in hand and are self reinforcing.

subroc
08-17-2010, 09:22 PM
Weasel words used to support an unsupportable position.

I am out...

road kill
08-17-2010, 09:23 PM
Weasel words used to support an unsupportable position.

I am out...

It's nothing new.....



RK

YardleyLabs
08-17-2010, 09:32 PM
Weasel words used to support an unsupportable position.

I am out...
It's probably easier to walk out than to admit what is obvious whether you use fancy statistical analysis or simply eyes that stay open.

depittydawg
08-17-2010, 09:39 PM
since the end of the civil war, we have gone through 145 years of history. in that time we have as a nation fought a war that ended slavery and "eliminated" systemic racism from our nation.

I would say we've come a long way. But racism is alive and well in America. In today's climate it is directed very effectively at two groups. Muslims, and Hispanics. Racism is rooted in fear and propagated covertly by our political leadership as they endeavor to gain election advantages.

M&K's Retrievers
08-17-2010, 10:57 PM
I would say we've come a long way. But racism is alive and well in America. In today's climate it is directed very effectively at two groups. Muslims, and Hispanics. Racism is rooted in fear and propagated covertly by our political leadership as they endeavor to gain election advantages.

See a lot of this in Oregon do ya?:rolleyes:

depittydawg
08-17-2010, 10:59 PM
See a lot of this in Oregon do ya?:rolleyes:

Not to much in Oregon. But it seems rampant elsewhere. Az comes to mind.

M&K's Retrievers
08-17-2010, 11:08 PM
Not to much in Oregon. But it seems rampant elsewhere. Az comes to mind.

And you would know this how?

subroc
08-17-2010, 11:09 PM
Not to much in Oregon. But it seems rampant elsewhere. Az comes to mind.

racism? in Arizona? against Hispanics? really?

so border security equals racism?

the Hispanic peoples are loved and welcomed in the United States. There is no racism directed at them.

The issue in Arizona is border security. anyone of any race, creed or national origon that crosses that border illegaly will get treated (and should) the same...as a criminal.

Is everything a racial issue to lefties?

depittydawg
08-17-2010, 11:19 PM
And you would know this how?

Just watching the news unfold my friend. Probably distorted. But to an outsider, it is what it is.

dnf777
08-18-2010, 12:01 AM
Weasel words used to support an unsupportable position.

I am out...

When you know you're wrong, sometimes the best thing to do is don your hat and quietly walk away. We understand.

subroc
08-18-2010, 12:07 AM
race baiter

dnf777
08-18-2010, 12:15 AM
race baiter

You so fun-nee! me laugh--long time!

M&K's Retrievers
08-18-2010, 12:27 AM
Just watching the news unfold my friend. Probably distorted. But to an outsider, it is what it is.

Only a liberal can confuse illegal immigration problems with racism. Again, your in Oregon. What the hell do you know about it? Apparently nothing.

depittydawg
08-18-2010, 01:32 AM
Only a liberal can confuse illegal immigration problems with racism. Again, your in Oregon. What the hell do you know about it? Apparently nothing.

Probably more than you my friend. I have worked with all races, and also worked in Banking for a few years. I got a good look at the culture that these workers are forced to live in. It is nothing like what you and others continually complain about. It isn't even close to what the Az politicians are trying to sell you.
I have met probably hundreds of Hispanics, many I'm sure are illegals. I've never met one who wasn't a hard worker. Do you know why they are here illegally? Do you know when the immigration laws were changed so they are now denied work visa's? Did you ever ask yourself, who benefits from their lack of legal status? Think about these things and you will catch a glimpse of what is actually going on here. It's nothing like you read about and hear about in the blogoshpere and Fox Noise Network. These people represent the lowest class of worker in the western hemisphere. They have no rights. They have no status. They have no avenue for grievances. If short, they are exploited at every turn. For this, they also earn persecution from the right wing.

M&K's Retrievers
08-18-2010, 02:22 AM
Probably more than you my friend. I have worked with all races, and also worked in Banking for a few years. I got a good look at the culture that these workers are forced to live in. It is nothing like what you and others continually complain about. It isn't even close to what the Az politicians are trying to sell you.
I have met probably hundreds of Hispanics, many I'm sure are illegals. I've never met one who wasn't a hard worker. Do you know why they are here illegally? Do you know when the immigration laws were changed so they are now denied work visa's? Did you ever ask yourself, who benefits from their lack of legal status? Think about these things and you will catch a glimpse of what is actually going on here. It's nothing like you read about and hear about in the blogoshpere and Fox Noise Network. These people represent the lowest class of worker in the western hemisphere. T[B]hey have no rights. They have no status. They have no avenue for grievances. If short, they are exploited at every turn. For this, they also earn persecution from the right wing.

Could this be because they are here illegally? Oh. Quit calling me your friend cause I'm not.

Eric Johnson
08-18-2010, 02:53 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/16/AR2010081604254.html?wpisrc=nl_pmopinions

http://tinyurl.com/287ctft

Prop. 8 ruling ignores precedent, evidence and common sense

By Edwin Meese III

Even some who support same-sex marriage worry that, in striking down California's voter-approved proposition defining marriage as between one man and one woman, U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker went too far. They are right -- and not the only ones who should be concerned. Walker's ruling is indefensible as a matter of law wholly apart from its result.

By refusing to acknowledge binding Supreme Court precedent, substantial evidence produced at trial that was contrary to the holding and plain common sense, the ruling exhibits none of the requirements of a traditional decision. This opinion is arbitrary and capricious, and its alarming legal methodology and overtly policy-driven tenor are too extreme to stand.

-more-

troy schwab
08-18-2010, 03:12 PM
Probably more than you my friend. I have worked with all races, and also worked in Banking for a few years. I got a good look at the culture that these workers are forced to live in. It is nothing like what you and others continually complain about. It isn't even close to what the Az politicians are trying to sell you.
I have met probably hundreds of Hispanics, many I'm sure are illegals. I've never met one who wasn't a hard worker. Do you know why they are here illegally? Do you know when the immigration laws were changed so they are now denied work visa's? Did you ever ask yourself, who benefits from their lack of legal status? Think about these things and you will catch a glimpse of what is actually going on here. It's nothing like you read about and hear about in the blogoshpere and Fox Noise Network. These people represent the lowest class of worker in the western hemisphere. They have no rights. They have no status. They have no avenue for grievances. If short, they are exploited at every turn. For this, they also earn persecution from the right wing.

BOO FREAKIN HOO........ Cry me a damn river....... They dont pay taxes either...... therefore they should have NO recourse.... they deserve persecution....... illegals are just that ..... ILLEGALS.

gman0046
08-18-2010, 07:19 PM
Dippy, you worked in a bank? What did you do?

road kill
08-18-2010, 07:27 PM
Dippy, you worked in a bank? What did you do?

Swept the floor, empty the trash cans, cleaned the head.



RK

Cody Covey
08-18-2010, 08:06 PM
No one said that racism was measurable by race alone. Like hip dysplasia, systematic racism operates through multiple factors. It begins with residential segregation. Regardless of how many laws have been passed, residential neighborhoods have become more segregated over time. With that, despite an end to legal segregation of schools, schools are more segregated than ever before. The segregation is not simply racial, it is also economic. The two go hand in hand and are self reinforcing.

So because the poor can't live with the rich we are racist? You know that everyone makes choices correct? You know that, while maybe not rich, those people in the "ghettos" have every opportunity to get out if the make the correct decisions. Not the easy ones or the cool ones that all their friends are doing but tthe ones that will get them somewhere in the long run.

Not all decisions are easy regards,,,

M&K's Retrievers
08-18-2010, 08:08 PM
Swept the floor, empty the trash cans, cleaned the head.



RK

Only approve loans if they can't pay them back.

YardleyLabs
08-18-2010, 08:21 PM
So because the poor can't live with the rich we are racist? You know that everyone makes choices correct? You know that, while maybe not rich, those people in the "ghettos" have every opportunity to get out if the make the correct decisions. Not the easy ones or the cool ones that all their friends are doing but tthe ones that will get them somewhere in the long run.

Not all decisions are easy regards,,,
My father's rule of the house was that whoever cut the cake got last pick of the pieces. When our educational system operates the same way we will be on the road to ending institutionalized privilege, and with it institutionalized racism.

Nor_Cal_Angler
08-18-2010, 08:47 PM
Institutionalized priviledge......lol

Institutionalized racisim....lol

Because of the educational system....lol

NCA

Hew
08-18-2010, 09:23 PM
My father's rule of the house was that whoever cut the cake got last pick of the pieces. LOL. That was the rule in our house, too. Nobody wanted to be the cutter. When our educational system operates the same way we will be on the road to ending institutionalized privilege, says the Ivy League grad who apprently only got into that school because of institutionalized privilege. Oh, you earned your way in and came from meager means? Then institutionalized privilege doesn't really exist? Which is it? and with it institutionalized racism.
I don't think the educational system is either the chicken or the egg when affixing causes for racism today. Many predominately black cities have some of the highest per capita education spending in the entire country. Black schools within school districts receive the same funding as their white counterparts. The input to the schools (facilities, funding, admin., etc.) is largely equal, but there is indeed a disparity in the output from the schools (dropout rate, standardized test scores, etc.). That disparity isn't necessarily the fault of the education system, though. I think it's more of an environment problem. A student from a broken home, living in the projects, surrounded by under-achievers and drugs, and dodging gang bangers and other assorted predators on the way to school comes from a different planet than most other children and has no practical ability to take advantage of the education opportunities afforded. Changing the environment they live in is the lynchpin; not spending even more money trying to educate students who don't seemingly want to be educated.

dback
08-18-2010, 11:14 PM
Probably more than you my friend. I have worked with all races, and also worked in Banking for a few years. I got a good look at the culture that these workers are forced to live in. It is nothing like what you and others continually complain about. Maybe you could take a moment and enlighten us all to the "culture that these workers are forced to live in." It isn't even close to what the Az politicians are trying to sell you. Again...be specific.....I'd like to know where I'm being led astray
I have met probably hundreds of Hispanics, many I'm sure are illegals. I've never met one who wasn't a hard worker.If one is "illegal"....what does the quality of ones work ethic or lack thereof have to do with ones presence here "illegally"? Do you know why they are here illegally?Because the conditions here (both living and working) are 1000% better then their native country? Does that make them any less "illegal"? Do you know when the immigration laws were changed so they are now denied work visa's? Some research on your behalf would be in order. I can take you to visit literally thousands of workers any day of the week, here on temporary work permits. Your statement is completely incorrect. Did you ever ask yourself, who benefits from their lack of legal status? I know Democrats have the most to gain by allowing as many to come to the US as possible. Think about these things and you will catch a glimpse of what is actually going on here. It's nothing like you read about and hear about in the blogoshpere and Fox Noise Network. These people represent the lowest class of worker in the western hemisphere. They have no rights. They have no status. They have no avenue for grievances. If short, they are exploited at every turn. Anyone (especially in Arizona) with "illegals" in his employ is risking jail time, law suits and severe fines. I personally know of an individual here who will pay for the rest of his life because of a job related injury to an "illegal". Over site of 'guest worker' programs "LEGALS" are administered by the Dept of Labor and they have very strict requirements of employers....pay scale, required housing, transportation to and from native country, workmans comp, food and working conditions are all heavily regulated. Again, your statements are baseless. For this, they also earn persecution from the right wing. I realize you want to make some sort of dig at the "right wing" with this comment, however, here is the problem with your thesis. Some 70% of ALL Americans would like to see some type of 'border security' and well defined, enforced, immigration policy that does not include outright "amnesty". Unless you are suggesting 70% of Americans are republican or 'right wing'.....there are, likewise, numerous Democrats "persecuting" illegals.

........................

YardleyLabs
08-19-2010, 06:22 AM
Originally Posted by YardleyLabs http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?p=662969#post662969)
My father's rule of the house was that whoever cut the cake got last pick of the pieces. LOL. That was the rule in our house, too. Nobody wanted to be the cutter. When our educational system operates the same way we will be on the road to ending institutionalized privilege, says the Ivy League grad who apprently only got into that school because of institutionalized privilege. Oh, you earned your way in and came from meager means? Then institutionalized privilege doesn't really exist? Which is it? and with it institutionalized racism.
I don't think the educational system is either the chicken or the egg when affixing causes for racism today. Many predominately black cities have some of the highest per capita education spending in the entire country. Black schools within school districts receive the same funding as their white counterparts. The input to the schools (facilities, funding, admin., etc.) is largely equal, but there is indeed a disparity in the output from the schools (dropout rate, standardized test scores, etc.). That disparity isn't necessarily the fault of the education system, though. I think it's more of an environment problem. A student from a broken home, living in the projects, surrounded by under-achievers and drugs, and dodging gang bangers and other assorted predators on the way to school comes from a different planet than most other children and has no practical ability to take advantage of the education opportunities afforded. Changing the environment they live in is the lynchpin; not spending even more money trying to educate students who don't seemingly want to be educated.
I absolutely got in because of institutionalized privilege. I attended an elementary school that was legally segregated. Had I been black I would have been lucky to read based on the quality of the school they were permitted to attend. Following that, we left the country and my parents moved to Sicily where public education was virtually non-existent. My parents could have sent me to the school 60 miles away operated by the US Navy for a tuition of $16/year and an education that was worth every penny. Instead, courtesy of Union Carbide and my parents, I attended a boarding school in Switzerland where I received an extraordinary education in an environment that was probably about 30% non-white and lines of color, religion and nationality were virtually absent. My children benefited even more from institutionalized privilege, beginning with two parents, both educated in Ivy League schools, and both with advanced degrees. They attended extraordinary schools beginning with great day care starting at age 2 1/2 and ending with attendance at NYU and Brown paid fully by their parents without financial assistance. Both also graduated with significant savings accounts from the incomes they earned from the jobs they were required to have beginning at the age of 14. Both also had jobs for which they had been recruited actively before they ever graduated from college.

I agree with most of your comments. There is no question that both my kids benefit from being very hard working, physically able, and very bright. However, where they are today would have been very different had they been born to a single mom in the south Bronx. However, a strong early education system, accompanied by an educational system that provides extensive supports outside of the classroom can make a difference. This is already being seen in places like Newark, which has been successful in dramatically increasing high school graduation rates by focusing more on early education. It is not a substitute for all the other advantages my children received, but it does help.

ducknwork
08-19-2010, 07:26 AM
However, where they are today would have been very different had they been born to a single mom in the south Bronx.

And who's fault is it that the child from the south Bronx faces a much steeper mountain than your children? I think this is where we will differ on opinion.

IMO, it is the fault of the people that brought a child into the world in that situation and can't or won't do anything to better themselves or the lives of their kids. They were/are not responsible enough and their kids will suffer for it. It all has to start with personal responsibility, not the govt being forced to do the job that parents refuse to do.

In a nutshell--
I believe it is the responsibility of the parents to step up and be responsible for the outcome of their children.
You believe the govt is responsible for taking care of the kids, which in no way betters the parents and allows them to continue to be deadbeats/bad parents.

Jim Wetzler
08-19-2010, 08:44 AM
I work for a local defense contractor that employs a very large number of non white single mothers. Most of these live in the 'hood, why, that's where their people live. They would not move out in the sticks for all the money hanging on trees. Their children go to the local schools, many of which make the local black scholars list yearly.
Why?
They demand accountability from their children and work tirelessly to achieve this. while many don't have a strong male figure around, that does not stop these women from nuturing and pushing their kids to not become victims of the streets. While it doesn't work for all , its worked for them.

YardleyLabs
08-19-2010, 09:49 AM
And who's fault is it that the child from the south Bronx faces a much steeper mountain than your children? I think this is where we will differ on opinion.

IMO, it is the fault of the people that brought a child into the world in that situation and can't or won't do anything to better themselves or the lives of their kids. They were/are not responsible enough and their kids will suffer for it. It all has to start with personal responsibility, not the govt being forced to do the job that parents refuse to do.

In a nutshell--
I believe it is the responsibility of the parents to step up and be responsible for the outcome of their children.
You believe the govt is responsible for taking care of the kids, which in no way betters the parents and allows them to continue to be deadbeats/bad parents.
Of all the people who might be "at fault" for the circumstances in which children are born, it is certainly not the kids themselves. When we know that the opportunities that they have available to them when they are young will play an inordinate role in determining what opportunities they will have when they are adults, then your approach guarantees the perpetuation of systematic privilege.

Julie R.
08-19-2010, 09:59 AM
Of all the people who might be "at fault" for the circumstances in which children are born, it is certainly not the kids themselves. When we know that the opportunities that they have available to them when they are young will play an inordinate role in determining what opportunities they will have when they are adults, then your approach guarantees the perpetuation of systematic privilege.

and your approach guarantees exponential entitlement as more people that won't give a damn about raising them properly will spawn children for checks and let the government raise them.

YardleyLabs
08-19-2010, 10:20 AM
and your approach guarantees exponential entitlement as more people that won't give a damn about raising them properly will spawn children for checks and let the government raise them.
Really? I never thought of school services as an aphrodisiac for parents.

Julie R.
08-19-2010, 10:28 AM
School services might not be an aphrodisiac, but free money from the government certainly is.

dnf777
08-19-2010, 10:37 AM
Really? I never thought of school services as an aphrodisiac for parents.

Never been to a late night PTA meeting?

YardleyLabs
08-19-2010, 11:12 AM
School services might not be an aphrodisiac, but free money from the government certainly is.
Where did I even come close to suggesting free money? I suggested intensified education and educational support services to help bridge the educational opportunity gap that currently exists in this country.

ducknwork
08-19-2010, 12:24 PM
Of all the people who might be "at fault" for the circumstances in which children are born, it is certainly not the kids themselves. When we know that the opportunities that they have available to them when they are young will play an inordinate role in determining what opportunities they will have when they are adults, then your approach guarantees the perpetuation of systematic privilege.

I agree about the kids not being at fault. I never implied they were...We need to find a way to change the areas of the world that high risk kids are born into. That needs to start with a step away from entitlements and one towards personal responsibility.

You can give kids the best educational opportunities in the world, but if they go home to parents who aren't there or don't care about them, then your money spent on education will be wasted. Parents need to step up. If they aren't willing to do it, they should be made to do it.

I know I'll have to explain that last sentence later...:(

ducknwork
08-19-2010, 12:25 PM
Where did I even come close to suggesting free money? I suggested intensified education and educational support services to help bridge the educational opportunity gap that currently exists in this country.


Yeah, like boarding schools so they don't have to go home to POS parents that don't care about them anyway.

YardleyLabs
08-19-2010, 12:57 PM
Yeah, like boarding schools so they don't have to go home to POS parents that don't care about them anyway.
That didn't work very well with native Americans and I have not been impressed with government's ability to fill in for even bad parents. I do not think that you can assume that parents are bad or uncaring because they are poor and uneducated. Nothing can overcome generations of problems overnight. However, when progress is made, the progress affects many generations as well. While I believe that institutionalized privilege and institutionalized racism are serious problem in the country today, I believe that institutionalized racism is much less of a problem today than it was when I was a child. Unfortunately, I believe that institutionalized privilege has become worse. The rich have gotten richer and their position in society has become more privileged and more firmly ensconced.

Julie R.
08-19-2010, 01:00 PM
Where did I even come close to suggesting free money? I suggested intensified education and educational support services to help bridge the educational opportunity gap that currently exists in this country.

Intensified education + educational support = more money being dumped into schools for things like more day care for the next generation of leeches being hatched while their own parents are still getting free lunches, more free breakfasts, after school supervision & snacks, school supplies etc., in sum: Uncle Sam picking up the tab for more things the parents'll no longer have to pay for. IOW free money. Never mind it's been abundantly proven more money does not = better education.

YardleyLabs
08-19-2010, 01:08 PM
Intensified education + educational support = more money being dumped into schools for things like more day care for the next generation of leeches being hatched while their own parents are still getting free lunches, more free breakfasts, after school supervision & snacks, school supplies etc., in sum: Uncle Sam picking up the tab for more things the parents'll no longer have to pay for. IOW free money. Never mind it's been abundantly proven more money does not = better education.
But think of it this way.

Lack of education ==> More Dropouts ==> More Unemployment ==> More Crime ==> More people in jail and living of the public purse for the next 50 years

Education ==> More Graduation ==> More Employment ==> More Pay Taxes ==> More raise children that are better educated and remain tax payers for generations

It's a matter of choice. BTW, people who are better educated also have fewer children and have them later in life.

ducknwork
08-19-2010, 02:26 PM
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.


I do not think that you can assume that parents are bad or uncaring because they are poor and uneducated.

I didn't say anything about being poor or uneducated. My beef is with parents who let their 5th graders run the streets until midnight and don't ask them if they have any homework tonight. The ones that don't hold their kids responsible for bad grades, but rather blame the teachers. Or the parents that don't demand that their children behave in school and learn something. Oh, even better, the parents that don't know what their kids are doing because they are too busy upstairs getting pregnant again or smoking up in the back yard with a 40 in their hand. How about parents that never sit down at the dinner table with the kids?
Yardley, parents like that are not uncommon around here and I don't even live in a large city. I can only imagine how bad it is in places like NY, Philly, Detroit etc...My mom has worked at an elementary school for close to 20 years that has a very large percentage of low income kids. A lot of them come from the projects downtown. Now, being poor doesn't make them bad parents, but living in that area of town without incredible parents doesn't make good kids. I would be willing to bet that most of them don't even have two parents. You wouldn't believe the horror stories that my mom could tell about the stuff those kids have seen or done. Kindergarteners bringing guns to school, 7 year olds talking about performing oral sex, 1st graders spitting on teachers...Come on man...It wouldn't matter if it was the best school in the world. Kids are a product of their environment and when that's what they see and what they are exposed to, that's the way they grow up. (Not every one of them of course) Something needs to be done about parents like these kids have! That is the place to start.

dnf777
08-19-2010, 02:35 PM
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.



I didn't say anything about being poor or uneducated. My beef is with parents who let their 5th graders run the streets until midnight and don't ask them if they have any homework tonight. The ones that don't hold their kids responsible for bad grades, but rather blame the teachers. Or the parents that don't demand that their children behave in school and learn something. Oh, even better, the parents that don't know what their kids are doing because they are too busy upstairs getting pregnant again or smoking up in the back yard with a 40 in their hand. How about parents that never sit down at the dinner table with the kids?
Yardley, parents like that are not uncommon around here and I don't even live in a large city. I can only imagine how bad it is in places like NY, Philly, Detroit etc...My mom has worked at an elementary school for close to 20 years that has a very large percentage of low income kids. A lot of them come from the projects downtown. Now, being poor doesn't make them bad parents, but living in that area of town without incredible parents doesn't make good kids. I would be willing to bet that most of them don't even have two parents. You wouldn't believe the horror stories that my mom could tell about the stuff those kids have seen or done. Kindergarteners bringing guns to school, 7 year olds talking about performing oral sex, 1st graders spitting on teachers...Come on man...It wouldn't matter if it was the best school in the world. Kids are a product of their environment and when that's what they see and what they are exposed to, that's the way they grow up. (Not every one of them of course) Something needs to be done about parents like these kids have! That is the place to start.

Duck,
I couldn't agree more. But you're sounding like a democrat, in that you point out all these problems and faults, but offer no solution. I don't blame you though, as there are very few solutions. There is nothing you, I, or the gov't can do to make people be good parents, if they don't have it in them.

some after school programs can give kids a sense of direction, or at least keep them occupied, but eventually, without good values, the temptation of bling, fancy cars, and the MTV lifestyle will drag them down.

There are a few blessed individuals out there who are coaches, counsellors, tutors, etc...who care enough and actually can steer kids in the right direction, working in these programs, but we really need PARENTS to do that. I wish there was a solution, but don't see one.

forty in hand regards, (after the kids are asleep)
dave

ducknwork
08-19-2010, 03:22 PM
Duck,
I couldn't agree more. But you're sounding like a democrat, in that you point out all these problems and faults, but offer no solution.

The solution is to ween people off of entitlements. FORCE them to become responsible for themselves. Engender some pride in one's self. No, it's not overnight, and it won't be easy, but that is the only solution that will work in the long run. Couple that with Jeff's idea of better schools, your idea of after school programs and we might be onto something!

david gibson
08-19-2010, 03:32 PM
The solution is to ween people off of entitlements. FORCE them to become responsible for themselves. Engender some pride in one's self. No, it's not overnight, and it won't be easy, but that is the only solution that will work in the long run. Couple that with Jeff's idea of better schools, your idea of after school programs and we might be onto something!

cant do that. dems wont wean because they will lose the vote. their very survival depends upon a dependent society. only they will provide for the lazy, so the lazy will vote only for them.

sounds like a subtle quid pro quo to me.....

Nor_Cal_Angler
08-19-2010, 09:41 PM
Where did I even come close to suggesting free money? I suggested intensified education and educational support services to help bridge the educational opportunity gap that currently exists in this country.

suggesting intensified education and educational support services...COST MONEY....or does it just fall off the tree..

There is no GAP on educational opportunity....only a GAP on the willingness to strive for something better.

NCA

Julie R.
08-19-2010, 10:49 PM
But think of it this way.

Lack of education ==> More Dropouts ==> More Unemployment ==> More Crime ==> More people in jail and living of the public purse for the next 50 years

Education ==> More Graduation ==> More Employment ==> More Pay Taxes ==> More raise children that are better educated and remain tax payers for generations

It's a matter of choice. BTW, people who are better educated also have fewer children and have them later in life.

Well you might have a point except we all know that improving schools = throwing more money at them. How's that been working out? Seems to me it just swells the ranks of administrators and those in your first scenario.

YardleyLabs
08-20-2010, 07:23 AM
suggesting intensified education and educational support services...COST MONEY....or does it just fall off the tree..

There is no GAP on educational opportunity....only a GAP on the willingness to strive for something better.

NCA


Well you might have a point except we all know that improving schools = throwing more money at them. How's that been working out? Seems to me it just swells the ranks of administrators and those in your first scenario.
Juli,

You suggested that I was proposing giving more money to the poor, thereby encouraging them to have more kids. Not true. Education absolutely costs money. A lot of that money now goes to things that provide little academic benefit and might better be considered part of each town's entertainment budget. Fewer and fewer places are providing full day kindergarten with small class sizes, which have more impact on high school graduation rates than all the guidance counselors in the world (Before anyone asks, I don't know of any such comparative analysis, but the impact of kindergarten is pretty well documented while the impact of guidance counselors is not). Pre-school programs have also been declining.

Kids being raised in well educated, well structured homes are less affected by these services than kids from less well educated, less well structured homes. This is true for two reasons. First, parents who are better off financially are more likely to be paying for these services through non-governmental sources. Second, parents from better educated homes are more likely to be providing an enriched learning environment for their own kids: teaching them to read and write, and providing them with better skills for learning in a structured environment.

No general education services can do as much for a kid as having a good family structure to grow up in. However, educational services can have a real and concrete impact that will improve outcomes for children coming from less stable homes. By providing those services, we not only help the next generation, we improve the chances that they will provide better environment for their kids as well. The cycle of poverty has to be broken down one step at a time.

NCA, if you believe that there is no GAP in opportunity, I invite you to send your children to NYC public schools where the graduation rate for white males is less than 50% and for black males is under 20%.

troy schwab
08-20-2010, 08:40 AM
There is no GAP on educational opportunity....only a GAP on the willingness to strive for something better.

NCA

SO very true......... Standardized teaching solved the GAP issue....... The problem is the parents and the lack of respect that many kids have for their elders (read: teachers). I am sure that their are excellent students in even the worst of schools. Are they the norm, no, but they probably have a decent homelife and respect the structured environment that their parents and teachers provide them. You take some street kid, who thinks he's a victim of everything (like his parents), and that deadbeat isnt goin to amount to nothing. I dont care how much money, or opportunity you give him. Democrats pander to the needy, and the wanting....... buying votes the whole way......... end of discussion.

Nor_Cal_Angler
08-20-2010, 06:30 PM
NCA, if you believe that there is no GAP in opportunity, I invite you to send your children to NYC public schools where the graduation rate for white males is less than 50% and for black males is under 20%.

That percentage does not have ANYTHING to do with OPPORUNITY!!!!!!!!!!

That percentage, speaks only to the willingness TO SUCCEED!!!!!!!!!!!!!

told ya REGARDS,

NCA

YardleyLabs
08-20-2010, 06:34 PM
That percentage does not have ANYTHING to do with OPPORUNITY!!!!!!!!!!

That percentage, speaks only to the willingness TO SUCCEED!!!!!!!!!!!!!

told ya REGARDS,

NCA
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. However, it is a lot easier to get a horse to drink clean, fresh water, than it is algae covered smelly water with rats floating dead. The education services offered to students in different places are not equal or even close to it. That was my point from the beginning. Provide equivalent resources for people of similar needs regardless of income levels or place of residence and a lot of our institutionalized privilege will disappear over a couple of generations. Fail to do that and institutionalized privilege will simply grow deeper.

Nor_Cal_Angler
08-20-2010, 07:17 PM
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. However, it is a lot easier to get a horse to drink clean, fresh water, than it is algae covered smelly water with rats floating dead. The education services offered to students in different places are not equal or even close to it. That was my point from the beginning. Provide equivalent resources for people of similar needs regardless of income levels or place of residence and a lot of our institutionalized privilege will disappear over a couple of generations. Fail to do that and institutionalized privilege will simply grow deeper.

Remove the rats, skim the algae and BOIL the water......worked when I needed a drink....

"Provide equilvalent resources"....2+2 still equals 4...

sorry...it isnt the resources.....books are there, schools are there, teachers are there....whats missing....you guessed it...THE WILLINGNESS TO LEARN and SUCCEED!!!!!!!!

try again.

NCA

luvmylabs23139
08-20-2010, 08:17 PM
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. However, it is a lot easier to get a horse to drink clean, fresh water, than it is algae covered smelly water with rats floating dead. The education services offered to students in different places are not equal or even close to it. That was my point from the beginning. Provide equivalent resources for people of similar needs regardless of income levels or place of residence and a lot of our institutionalized privilege will disappear over a couple of generations. Fail to do that and institutionalized privilege will simply grow deeper.


Do you know anyone who teaches high school in NYC?
Do you know the issues the teachers are up against especially those that deal with the spanish speaking?
Money is not the answer. When the kids are used as translaters for the parents who knows what is really being said.
The parents should be tossed from the country if they don;t know the darn language and they can take the kids if they want.
Stop wasting my tax money on this crap!

YardleyLabs
08-20-2010, 08:34 PM
Do you know anyone who teaches high school in NYC?
Do you know the issues the teachers are up against especially those that deal with the spanish speaking?
Money is not the answer. When the kids are used as translaters for the parents who knows what is really being said.
The parents should be tossed from the country if they don;t know the darn language and they can take the kids if they want.
Stop wasting my tax money on this crap!
Yes and yes. One either addresses the issues in the schools, or addresses them later in the prisons. Often one must do both. I moved out of NYC specifically because of the schools and believe that one or both of my kids -- who are exceptionally bright and driven -- would have failed completely had they attended NYC public schools.

luvmylabs23139
08-20-2010, 08:51 PM
Yes and yes. One either addresses the issues in the schools, or addresses them later in the prisons. Often one must do both. I moved out of NYC specifically because of the schools and believe that one or both of my kids -- who are exceptionally bright and driven -- would have failed completely had they attended NYC public schools.


So if you really know someone who deals with this crap how do you deal with it?
Money is not the issue. I do have a close relative that is ready to bail. As he says You can't fix anything until you get rid of the entilemnent mentality. This is coming from a first generation American.
Unlike me my brother did get his citizenship (FOR BUZZ)

dnf777
08-20-2010, 08:58 PM
There's no easy solution when you have parents who don't give a crap. This notion that "doing away with entitlement mentality" will magically make people say "hey, I better be a good parent, get a job, and drive a station wagon" is wishful thinking. I agree that the abusers need to be identified and cut off and/or punished, no doubt.

The mere act of procreating gives some people a sense of empowerment for whatever reason, whether they get money or not. That's not to say give them more money....but that there's no easy solution to our ills.

YardleyLabs
08-20-2010, 09:01 PM
So if you really know someone who deals with this crap how do you deal with it?
Money is not the issue. I do have a close relative that is ready to bail. As he says You can't fix anything until you get rid of the entilemnent mentality. This is coming from a first generation American.
Unlike me my brother did get his citizenship (FOR BUZZ)
I don't believe there are any easy answers or any answers at all that make good sound bites. One of the problems is that it takes years before you can assess the results of a new approach with any degree of precision. Thus, if your hypothesis is that full day kindergarten with class sizes under 15 will increase graduation rates, it would take over 15 years before you could begin to tell whether you were right or wrong. In the meantime, of course, it is likely the program will have been abandoned while some other flavor of "cure" is tried.

luvmylabs23139
08-20-2010, 09:09 PM
I don't believe there are any easy answers or any answers at all that make good sound bites. One of the problems is that it takes years before you can assess the results of a new approach with any degree of precision. Thus, if your hypothesis is that full day kindergarten with class sizes under 15 will increase graduation rates, it would take over 15 years before you could begin to tell whether you were right or wrong. In the meantime, of course, it is likely the program will have been abandoned while some other flavor of "cure" is tried.

WHY THE HELL should hard working people have their money stolen from them to provide babysitting for the slime of society????
SCREW WELFARE SLIME THEY NEED TO GET A DAMN JOB!!!!!

luvmylabs23139
08-20-2010, 09:11 PM
There's no easy solution when you have parents who don't give a crap. This notion that "doing away with entitlement mentality" will magically make people say "hey, I better be a good parent, get a job, and drive a station wagon" is wishful thinking. I agree that the abusers need to be identified and cut off and/or punished, no doubt.

The mere act of procreating gives some people a sense of empowerment for whatever reason, whether they get money or not. That's not to say give them more money....but that there's no easy solution to our ills.

At the least we should shut them off and actually try it.
At least I will have less money stolen from me and given to the slime!:razz::razz::razz:

depittydawg
08-20-2010, 09:43 PM
cant do that. dems wont wean because they will lose the vote. their very survival depends upon a dependent society. only they will provide for the lazy, so the lazy will vote only for them.

sounds like a subtle quid pro quo to me.....

Got to say that's the biggest crock of crap you've posted in a while Dave. Remember welfare reform in the 90's? Who was President of the United States?

dnf777
08-20-2010, 10:02 PM
At the least we should shut them off and actually try it.
At least I will have less money stolen from me and given to the slime!:razz::razz::razz:

I hear ya, but what do you do with the kids who didn't ask to be any part of this? Do you let them starve on the streets, unless they successfully harnass a lifestyle of crime in order to survive? I'm not trying to be a smartarse, but I'm not quite ready to kick kids out on the street, and that's exactly what happens. I know, it happens already, but there are some who actually use the system as it was intended, until they can get on their feet. There must be a happy medium somewhere.

Another instance where I'm not ready to be so harsh is the increasing number of vets that are on public assistance programs. I know you weren't referring to these folks, so don't take it that way.

ducknwork
08-20-2010, 10:32 PM
Got to say that's the biggest crock of crap you've posted in a while Dave. Remember welfare reform in the 90's? Who was President of the United States?

This one?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Responsibility_and_Work_Opportunity_Act


The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA, Pub.L. 104-193, 110 Stat. 2105, enacted August 22, 1996) is a United States federal law considered to be a fundamental shift in both the method and goal of federal cash assistance to the poor. The bill was a cornerstone of the Republican Contract With America and was introduced by Rep. E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL-22) who believed welfare was partly responsible for bringing immigrants to the United States.[1] Bill Clinton signed PRWORA into law on August 22, 1996, fulfilling his 1992 campaign promise to "end welfare as we know it".[2]

depittydawg
08-20-2010, 10:51 PM
As stated, it was a cornerstone of the Clinton campaign of '92. This nonsense that welfare reform is a major distinction between our two political parties is nonsense.

ducknwork
08-21-2010, 10:02 AM
As stated, it was a cornerstone of the Clinton campaign of '92. This nonsense that welfare reform is a major distinction between our two political parties is nonsense.

I read the speech where Clinton talked about welfare reform during his campaign. I can't disagree with anything he had to say about it and I wish that some of the things he promised actually happened.

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=2783&kaid=128&subid=174

But if it was a 'cornerstone' of his campaign in 1992, why wasn't the bill introduced until late 1994 by a republican and not passed until late 1996? If it was that important to Slick Willie, shouldn't it have been taken care of sooner? It couldn't have been just lip service or an empty campaign promise, could it?

Just sayin...

depittydawg
08-21-2010, 11:16 AM
I read the speech where Clinton talked about welfare reform during his campaign. I can't disagree with anything he had to say about it and I wish that some of the things he promised actually happened.

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=2783&kaid=128&subid=174

But if it was a 'cornerstone' of his campaign in 1992, why wasn't the bill introduced until late 1994 by a republican and not passed until late 1996? If it was that important to Slick Willie, shouldn't it have been taken care of sooner? It couldn't have been just lip service or an empty campaign promise, could it?

Just sayin...

As we have learned once again during the last year and a half. Most Presidents don't hold much sway as to what gets through our most corrupt branch of gubernment, The Congress.

Nor_Cal_Angler
08-21-2010, 02:04 PM
As we have learned once again during the last year and a half. Most Presidents don't hold much sway as to what gets through our most corrupt branch of gubernment, The Congress.

Really....Financial Reform, Healthcare, Bail Outs....

All of which was passed either in his first year or SHORTLY there after.....

So Clintion wasn't paying lip service, it just took his policial sway 4 years and a Republican to get the job done....

Try again,

NCA