A High School diploma gets you nothing anymore. It's hard for old people like Steve to understand this, because it is something that was not true when he graduated high school, but it is true now.
Very true.
When I was in High School either you went to the academic school and possibly on to college or you went to the Vo-Tech school to learn a trade.
What do we do when we eventually have enough vo-tech people to go around? What do we do when advances in technology turn vo-tech jobs into high skill jobs? Things are already getting pretty complicated in that department. It's going to take a lot more brains to be a mechanic in a world of computerized electric cars.
Haven't we already had this conversation? I seem to remember telling you that we will always need vo-tech people to do stuff. What about our failing infrastructure? What if we want to construct colonies on other worlds? I do not foresee a future where we will never need these type of jobs.
What he said.
Vo-tech jobs are not necessarily low-skill jobs. They're often highly-skilled jobs, but they can't really be effectively taught in a classroom setting. You need to do hands-on learning to do a hands-on job.
Tell that to an 18 year old mother who needs to put food on the table for her child NOW and has to work two minimum wage jobs to do so, instead of making no money as an apprentice. Also, are there enough apprenticeships for everyone that wants one?
I would ask her where the father of her child is first.
He isn't in the picture.
The inner city schools do need fixing. Being stuck in a broken school system seriously impedes your ability to get a good paying job.
Agreed.
Fixing those inner city schools is a two part process. One part of that process involves parents telling their kids that having an education is more important than being true to their "blackness".
Hold up! You are assuming that all struggling urban students are black, and that their parents aren't pushing them to get a better education. That is INCREDIBLY racist and untrue.
Being smart does not make you white and it should not be ridiculed. Those who think "keeping it real" means walking around with your pants around your knees laughing at the nerds carrying books are a serious problem in inner cities.
More racist drivel. While there are problems within some black communities with false racial identities, to say that all struggling urban students are black and that they are struggling with their race, is simply ignorant. Moreover, children of any race in suburban and affluent areas walk around with their pants down and making fun of nerds. They still get into college, though, because Mommy and Daddy can foot the bill.
These broken schools are part of the legacy of racism and Jim Crow in America. They need to be fixed. The question is how do you fix them? I think the first step is acknowledging the problem and understanding how we got there and what is keeping us there.
Since when is poverty, teen pregnancy and bad schools an exclusively black problem or even urban problem?
Failing inner city schools need an infusion of discipline and understanding. I don't want to see jack-boot security officers frisking kids in the halls either. What I do want to see is parents getting involved and showing their kids the value of an education.
How can a single mother working two minimum wage jobs have time to be a truly supportive parent. This is a cyclical problem and drastic changes need to be made in our social programs to correct these issues. These changes should not involve putting people into labor camp prisons. These problems should be addressed with humanity, and they will take significant funding.
How do we break that cycle? We can't just throw good teachers into these schools. Joe has pointed out enough times the problems he had working in inner city schools. Hell, even the "good" schools suck these days. My daughter is in the third grade and they spend more time teaching her how to take the standardized tests than teaching her basic reading, writing and math skills
Yet you continually support Republicans that put higher and higher emphasis on standardized testing through programs like NCLB. You complain about the consequences for your own actions on this one.
Bloomberg had an idea in New York of paying kids for good grades. It's a start but will it work and how do we transition out of it?
Why don’t we take that public funding and create decent paying jobs for their parents, so that they can actually have the time, energy, and resources to educate themselves and their children?
Tell that to an 18 year old mother who needs to put food on the table for her child NOW and has to work two minimum wage jobs to do so, instead of making no money as an apprentice. Also, are there enough apprenticeships for everyone that wants one?
I would ask her where the father of her child is first.
He isn't in the picture.
Why?
The inner city schools do need fixing. Being stuck in a broken school system seriously impedes your ability to get a good paying job.
Agreed.
Fixing those inner city schools is a two part process. One part of that process involves parents telling their kids that having an education is more important than being true to their "blackness".
Hold up! You are assuming that all struggling urban students are black, and that their parents aren't pushing them to get a better education. That is INCREDIBLY racist and untrue.
Bill Cosby himself pointed that out a few years back at a NAACP meeting. He then became persona nongrata. I'm not assuming all struggling inner city students are black. However, an overwhelming majority are black or latino. Latino's bear the additional burden of not having English as their primary language. A burden that has not seemed to hamper inner city asians...
Being smart does not make you white and it should not be ridiculed. Those who think "keeping it real" means walking around with your pants around your knees laughing at the nerds carrying books are a serious problem in inner cities.
More racist drivel. While there are problems within some black communities with false racial identities, to say that all struggling urban students are black and that they are struggling with their race, is simply ignorant. Moreover, children of any race in suburban and affluent areas walk around with their pants down and making fun of nerds. They still get into college, though, because Mommy and Daddy can foot the bill.
Those kids are not buying into the mantra of the gangster/drug dealer life. When those kids go back to their white bread and mayonaise homes they see a middle or upper class family and no money problems. What does the struggling inner city kid see? Is his role model his dad or is dad even in the picture? Or is his role model the thug hanging around on the corner sporting gold jewelry and a fast car?
These broken schools are part of the legacy of racism and Jim Crow in America. They need to be fixed. The question is how do you fix them? I think the first step is acknowledging the problem and understanding how we got there and what is keeping us there.
Since when is poverty, teen pregnancy and bad schools an exclusively black problem or even urban problem?
It's an inner city problem.
Failing inner city schools need an infusion of discipline and understanding. I don't want to see jack-boot security officers frisking kids in the halls either. What I do want to see is parents getting involved and showing their kids the value of an education.
How can a single mother working two minimum wage jobs have time to be a truly supportive parent. This is a cyclical problem and drastic changes need to be made in our social programs to correct these issues. These changes should not involve putting people into labor camp prisons. These problems should be addressed with humanity, and they will take significant funding.
Yes they will need significant funding and humanity. On the social side why does a single mother have two kids? where is her family support? Does she have a relative that can watch the kids while she works? Has she thought about looking into getting a day care license so she can watch the neighbors kids while they work? There is an opportunity there.
How do we break that cycle? We can't just throw good teachers into these schools. Joe has pointed out enough times the problems he had working in inner city schools. Hell, even the "good" schools suck these days. My daughter is in the third grade and they spend more time teaching her how to take the standardized tests than teaching her basic reading, writing and math skills
Yet you continually support Republicans that put higher and higher emphasis on standardized testing through programs like NCLB. You complain about the consequences for your own actions on this one.
No Child Left Behind was a good idea that was quickly gamed. Yes, I have traditionaly supported standardized testing, I no longer do. I have seen (via my daughter) what NCLB has morphed into: Teachers teaching test taking rather than educating kids.
Bloomberg had an idea in New York of paying kids for good grades. It's a start but will it work and how do we transition out of it?
Why don’t we take that public funding and create decent paying jobs for their parents, so that they can actually have the time, energy, and resources to educate themselves and their children?
No Child Left Behind is a noble goal but it based everything on test scores and gave rewards for succeeding and punished failure. This is not what should be done. There has to be intervention and a program to make the schools better. If anything funding should be given to the schools that need help and other benefits should be given to the school that does well. This is just another policy that does not help those who need it.
Latino's bear the additional burden of not having English as their primary language.
At least it's only an inner-city problem.
I live in the North East. Either you live in the country (suburbs) or you live in the inner city.
Generally, living in the suburbs requires money while living in the inner city does not. Thus, my comments are colored and predicated on my observations based on the environment in which I live.
The non-white folks who live near me are much better off and better educated than the ones who live in the inner cities near me. Is it a generalization? Yes but it's all I have to work with other than going by anecdotal evidence.
It's also not "just an inner city" problem. It is just more prevalent due to population density in the inner city.
As an interesting side note I was recently reading some books on the history of the civil rights movement and "white flight". One thing that came up is that when whites are asked what percentage of blacks is an acceptable mix for a diverse neighborhood they often reply about 20%. Blacks respond to the same question saying 50%. This shows an obvious disconnect between the two groups. One group is basing their percentage on the population as a whole (if 20% of the population is black 20% is the goal for integration) while the other is looking at it as an equality issue (half and half is fair).
Well, you completely missed the point of that one. I had nothing of substance to say, I was merely noting the irony in characterizing "Latino's" as having an additional burden (presumably compared to native English speakers such as yourself). The post was entirely facetious.
On MSNBC’s Hardball tonight, right-wing radio host Kevin James attempted to defend President Bush’s comments comparing Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) to Nazi appeasers because he favors talking with our enemies. James compared Obama to Neville Chamberlain, about whom James could only cry: “He’s an appeaser!â€Â
Matthews pressed James at least 19 times over five minutes to simply explain what Chamberlain had done in 1938 and 1939 to make him an “appeaser.†James could only shout his talking point over and over, prompting Matthews to threaten to end the interview:
MATTHEWS: You don’t know what you’re talking about, Kevin. You don’t know what you’re talking about. Tell me what Chamberlain did wrong.
JAMES: Neville Chamberlain was an appeaser, Chris. Neville Chamberlain was an appeaser, all right? […]
MATTHEWS: I’ve been sitting here five minutes asking you to say what the president was referring to in 1938 at Munich.
JAMES: I don’t know.
MATTHEWS: You don’t know, thank you.
Matthews was trying to prompt James to explain that Chamberlain signed the Munich agreement with Hitler in 1938, which allowed Hitler to occupy part of Czechoslovakia in exchange for peace with Britain.
Matthews rebuked his clueless guest — and the entire Bush administration — for being “blank slates in terms of historyâ€Â:
You don’t understand there’s a difference between talking to the enemy and appeasing. What Chamberlain did wrong, most people would say, is not talking to Hitler, but giving him half of Czechoslovakia in 1938. That’s what he did wrong. Not talking to somebody. Appeasement is giving things away to the enemy.
Matthews’s other guest, Mark Green, advised James: “When you’re in a hole, stop digging.â€Â
Is there a transcript of the full speech where Bush compared Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) to Nazi appeasers? I'd like to read it in full before jumping to a conclusion.
"Some seem to believe we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along," Bush told the Israeli lawmakers. "We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."
The Democrat response attacks the President for giving a history lesson but does not refute the accuracy of what he said. McCain has sided with the President on this.
So far I do not see this as an attack on any one Senator in the USA but an attack on the idea of thinking that talking to your enemies and appeasing them is a good idea. The fact that certain Democrats are spouting phrases such as "swiftboating" has me wondering if this is becoming a case of "if the shoe fits".
I would like to hear more of Obama's plan to sit down and talk with Iran (I mention him because he is putting the shoe on).
First off, Steve, GWB couldn't give a history lesson to a cabbage. Also, he's very selective. Why didn't he name the Senator? Maybe because he was William E. Borah, an Idaho Republican. It wouldn't do to have a Republican appeaser, though, would it? History lesson, my ass.
If he had named the senator would the Democrats have still seen this as a veiled attack on Obama?
Reagan talked from a position of strength. I have no love for McCain.
Did you read what I wrote? I know you like to point out to people when they skim over something you wrote and get it wrong.
an attack on the idea of thinking that talking to your enemies and appeasing them is a good idea.
I bolded the words you seemed to have missed.
Talking to your enemies is a good idea. Diplomacy should be tried first and the enemy should know that if talks fail military action is a possibility if deemed necessary.
If Obama and the Democrats are not planning to appease Iran why are they wearing the shoe? If the shoe fits, wear it. If it does not fit ignore it.
Idiot, I'm not talking about what you wrote, I'm talking about what Chimpy said.
You can have a little homosexual orgasm over Reagan if you want, but he wasn't "talking from a position of strength". Giving your homo-hero all the benefit of the doubt, the U.S. and U.S.S.R. were evenly matched at the time he appeased them.
I'm done talking with you on this subject. You've shown that you are completely blinded by your ideology. I'm not going to waste any more time on you today.
Idiot, I'm not talking about what you wrote, I'm talking about what Chimpy said.
You can have a little homosexual orgasm over Reagan if you want, but he wasn't "talking from a position of strength". Giving your homo-hero all the benefit of the doubt, the U.S. and U.S.S.R. were evenly matched at the time he appeased them.
I'm done talking with you on this subject. You've shown that you are completely blinded by your ideology. I'm not going to waste any more time on you today.
And I'm a conservative. Say, liberal, why are you such a pussy-foot when it comes to war and stuff? Are you not a real American?
Oh, I'm sorry you gun loving redneck, I've been too busy freeing the animals from the captivity. You know, animals are humans too with feelings and stuff.
WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA? ARE YOU A COMMUNIST TERRORIST?
Whatever, I'm going to go down to the coffee shop and hang out with my girly artistic beatnick friends. We were conscientious objectors you know man.
If the Democrats had been smart about this they would have responded as such:
Media: Did you hear what GWB said? Is he referring to your presumptive nominee Obama?
Democrat: No. If you look back at what GWB is talking about the senator he is referring to was a Republican.
Media: So... who was he talking about?
Democrat: Clearly he is talking about McCain.
Media: McCain?
Democrat: Yes. He is in Israel talking about people who want to talk to terrorists and appease them. One of Isreal's primary terrorist enemies is Hamas, a group that John McCain want to talk to. So clearly GWB is talking about McCain and not Obama.
I always say that they should bring you into the Obama campaign. You would have a lot of insight, acumen, and wisdom to contribute to Obama, who was the first African-American editor of the Harvard Law Review. I'm astonished that he hasn't noticed your abilities and snapped you up already.
But, of course, he only graduated from Harvard Law School while you picked up your training in the Army and on the job. You're obviously soooooooo much smarter than him.
But, of course, he only graduated from Harvard Law School while you picked up your training in the Army and on the job. You're obviously soooooooo much smarter than him.
Sometimes the smartest people miss the simplest things. Like using a motion detector to turn your anti-teenager device on.
And I'm a conservative. Say, liberal, why are you such a pussy-foot when it comes to war and stuff? Are you not a real American?
Oh, I'm sorry you gun loving redneck, I've been too busy freeing the animals from the captivity. You know, animals are better than most humans too with feelings and stuff.
WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA? ARE YOU ACOMMUNISTTERRORIST?
Whatever, I'm going to go down to the coffee shop and hang out with my girly artistic beatnick friends, many of whom happen to be girls. I'm sure you'll be happier shooting off phallic looking guns and making grunting noises with your repressed homosexual huntin' buddies. We were conscientious objectors you know man.
Guys, stop fighting! Can't you see you're tearing this family apart!?
But seriously, though, did anyone catch Keith Olberman talking about this? I only got the audio (I listen to the Countdown podcast). Keith must've been more purple in the face than Cheney.
[D]id anyone catch Keith Olberman talking about this? I only got the audio (I listen to the Countdown podcast). Keith must've been more purple in the face than Cheney.
Yeah, I posted a link to it in the "Bush Legacy" thread. It was a great Special Comment. Keith Olbermann is the best.
Except in this you have a revisionist neo-nazi on one side and a moderate, reasonable, well researched man on the other. For the record, HungryJoe is the reasonable one in this. Steve has advocated work camps for the poor, blatantly stated that only Black people and Hispanics have problems like teen pregnancy, poor education, etc. (He also stated that those are exclusively inner-city problems... I mean have you been to any white rural towns, I assure you they face those same issues.) Furthermore, he continually bashes the democratic party, but then points to Obama as having good solutions to problems like poverty. This craven man even goes so far as to assume that everyone that moves up to his tax bracket will suddenly loose their compassion and become a "conservative" like him. (BTW, since when did "conservative" mean exploding the deficit by generating unnecessary wars. Anyone that is unreasonable enough as to buy into his opinion has the freedom to make the stupid choice. This man who refuses to provide any basis for his claims, and relies on taunts, cyclical reasoning, and rhetoric to make his points.
Sure, we all do a bit of this online, but that is all he seems to present. Pete, please do not make light of this. Such ignorance must be called out and I am surprised that more people are not willing to do it. People in these forums will go out of their way to say that they will not respect people that have faith in god(s) without proof, but so many do not stand up and decry this ignorance. Perhaps, like my husband, you see no point to doing so, and simply ignore Steve. I am sorry, but the Steves of this country gave us Bush and that is an unforgivable crime. I will not suffer these fools, and no one else should either. If republicans/conservatives expect the democrats/liberals to just roll over again, I hope they will be sorely disappointed. Get political. Shout at the top of your lungs! Be politically incorrect and be willing to be in uncomfortable social situations. STAND UP AND SAY NO! The Democrats are not extreme liberals, they are barely even liberal in the global context. We are supposed to be the American innovators, but we are politically behind the times. Let's catch up!
Except in this you have a revisionist neo-nazi on one side and a moderate, reasonable, well researched man on the other.
It's stuff like this that sucks me into debating the merits of sides that I disagree with. Nazis? Seriously?
It actually makes sense, with the whole work-camps for the poor (that he views to be strictly Black and Hispanic). Call a spade a spade and a neo-nazi a neo-nazi.
Such ignorance must be called out and I am surprised that more people are not willing to do it. People in these forums will go out of their way to say that they will not respect people that have faith in god(s) without proof, but so many do not stand up and decry this ignorance. Perhaps, like my husband, you see no point to doing so, and simply ignore Steve. I am sorry, but the Steves of this country gave us Bush and that is an unforgivable crime. I will not suffer these fools, and no one else should either. If republicans/conservatives expect the democrats/liberals to just roll over again, I hope they will be sorely disappointed. Get political. Shout at the top of your lungs! Be politically incorrect and be willing to be in uncomfortable social situations. STAND UP AND SAY NO! The Democrats are not extreme liberals, they are barely even liberal in the global context. We are supposed to be the American innovators, but we are politically behind the times. Let's catch up!
Wow, I'm surprised you didn't call us sheep. It's nice to see the Democrats are starting to take a page from the Republicans text book about shouting rhetoric to try and convince voters to come to their side, even if the facts don't agree with them. Honestly, the Democratic party is just as fucked up as the Republican party.
It actually makes sense, with the whole work-camps for the poor (that he views to be strictly Black and Hispanic). Call a spade a spade and a neo-nazi a neo-nazi.
Oh seriously, shut the fuck up. He is not a neo-nazi. Just because you don't agree with him doesn't mean you should demonize him. Way to fling ad-hominem's around, you would make the Republicans proud.
Such ignorance must be called out and I am surprised that more people are not willing to do it. People in these forums will go out of their way to say that they will not respect people that have faith in god(s) without proof, but so many do not stand up and decry this ignorance. Perhaps, like my husband, you see no point to doing so, and simply ignore Steve. I am sorry, but the Steves of this country gave us Bush and that is an unforgivable crime. I will not suffer these fools, and no one else should either. If republicans/conservatives expect the democrats/liberals to just roll over again, I hope they will be sorely disappointed. Get political. Shout at the top of your lungs! Be politically incorrect and be willing to be in uncomfortable social situations. STAND UP AND SAY NO! The Democrats are not extreme liberals, they are barely even liberal in the global context. We are supposed to be the American innovators, but we are politically behind the times. Let's catch up!
Wow, I'm surprised you didn't call us sheep. It's nice to see the Democrats are starting to take a page from the Republicans text book about spousing rhetoric to try and convince voters to come to their side, even if the facts don't agree with them. Honestly, the Democratic party is just as fucked up as the Republican party.
It actually makes sense, with the whole work-camps for the poor (that he views to be strictly Black and Hispanic). Call a spade a spade and a neo-nazi a neo-nazi.
Oh seriously, shut the fuck up. He is not a neo-nazi. Just because you don't agree with him doesn't mean you should demonize him. Way to fling ad-hominem's around, you would make the Republicans proud.
I backed up my statements with his statements that is not an ad-hominem attack. Those beliefs fall in line with neo-nazis. Moreover, I am the first to point out the issues with the Democratic party, like they aren't liberal enough. I think that we have been acting like sheep. We allowed two questionable elections of the same man. We do not put a poker up the a** of our own party to begin the impeachment of this lying, war-mongering "President". I am not the first, nor the last to say that we have been too compliant and that we are partially culpable.
Except in this you have a revisionist neo-nazi on one side and a moderate, reasonable, well researched man on the other.
It's stuff like this that sucks me into debating the merits of sides that I disagree with. Nazis? Seriously?
It actually makes sense, with the whole work-camps for the poor (that he views to be strictly Black and Hispanic). Call a spade a spade and a neo-nazi a neo-nazi.
Here is some information from the census. For the past 10 years, (if I understand correctly) around 1 in 4 of all people below the poverty level in the US have been black. For the 30 years before that, that percentage was typically a little under a third. At least 20% of the population below the poverty level has been Hispanic for the past 35 years. This suggests that If one were to make a labor camp for the poor, it would not be unreasonable to assume that between a third and half of those there would be black or Hispanic. Striken until I make sure I've understood correctly. ^^;
Comments
When I was in High School either you went to the academic school and possibly on to college or you went to the Vo-Tech school to learn a trade.
Vo-tech jobs are not necessarily low-skill jobs. They're often highly-skilled jobs, but they can't really be effectively taught in a classroom setting. You need to do hands-on learning to do a hands-on job.
Generally, living in the suburbs requires money while living in the inner city does not. Thus, my comments are colored and predicated on my observations based on the environment in which I live.
The non-white folks who live near me are much better off and better educated than the ones who live in the inner cities near me. Is it a generalization? Yes but it's all I have to work with other than going by anecdotal evidence.
It's also not "just an inner city" problem. It is just more prevalent due to population density in the inner city.
As an interesting side note I was recently reading some books on the history of the civil rights movement and "white flight". One thing that came up is that when whites are asked what percentage of blacks is an acceptable mix for a diverse neighborhood they often reply about 20%. Blacks respond to the same question saying 50%. This shows an obvious disconnect between the two groups. One group is basing their percentage on the population as a whole (if 20% of the population is black 20% is the goal for integration) while the other is looking at it as an equality issue (half and half is fair).
So far I have found some snippets here The Democrat response attacks the President for giving a history lesson but does not refute the accuracy of what he said. McCain has sided with the President on this.
So far I do not see this as an attack on any one Senator in the USA but an attack on the idea of thinking that talking to your enemies and appeasing them is a good idea. The fact that certain Democrats are spouting phrases such as "swiftboating" has me wondering if this is becoming a case of "if the shoe fits".
I would like to hear more of Obama's plan to sit down and talk with Iran (I mention him because he is putting the shoe on).
First off, Steve, GWB couldn't give a history lesson to a cabbage. Also, he's very selective. Why didn't he name the Senator? Maybe because he was William E. Borah, an Idaho Republican. It wouldn't do to have a Republican appeaser, though, would it? History lesson, my ass.
Second, I guess you'd call your hero Reagan an appeaser, since he talked to his enemies. GWB' Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates must be an appeaser too, since he wants to talk to Iran. How could GWB allow such a traitorous appeaser to remain in the administration? Oh yeah, I guess McCain is an appeaser too, since he said he'd talk to Hamas.
Seriously, Steve, you must be totally blind if you don't see how this was bad for GWB and Republicans in general.
Reagan talked from a position of strength.
I have no love for McCain.
Did you read what I wrote? I know you like to point out to people when they skim over something you wrote and get it wrong. I bolded the words you seemed to have missed.
Talking to your enemies is a good idea. Diplomacy should be tried first and the enemy should know that if talks fail military action is a possibility if deemed necessary.
If Obama and the Democrats are not planning to appease Iran why are they wearing the shoe? If the shoe fits, wear it. If it does not fit ignore it.
You can have a little homosexual orgasm over Reagan if you want, but he wasn't "talking from a position of strength". Giving your homo-hero all the benefit of the doubt, the U.S. and U.S.S.R. were evenly matched at the time he appeased them.
I'm done talking with you on this subject. You've shown that you are completely blinded by your ideology. I'm not going to waste any more time on you today.
If the Democrats had been smart about this they would have responded as such:
Media: Did you hear what GWB said? Is he referring to your presumptive nominee Obama?
Democrat: No. If you look back at what GWB is talking about the senator he is referring to was a Republican.
Media: So... who was he talking about?
Democrat: Clearly he is talking about McCain.
Media: McCain?
Democrat: Yes. He is in Israel talking about people who want to talk to terrorists and appease them. One of Isreal's primary terrorist enemies is Hamas, a group that John McCain want to talk to. So clearly GWB is talking about McCain and not Obama.
But, of course, he only graduated from Harvard Law School while you picked up your training in the Army and on the job. You're obviously soooooooo much smarter than him.
But seriously, though, did anyone catch Keith Olberman talking about this? I only got the audio (I listen to the Countdown podcast). Keith must've been more purple in the face than Cheney.
Sure, we all do a bit of this online, but that is all he seems to present. Pete, please do not make light of this. Such ignorance must be called out and I am surprised that more people are not willing to do it. People in these forums will go out of their way to say that they will not respect people that have faith in god(s) without proof, but so many do not stand up and decry this ignorance. Perhaps, like my husband, you see no point to doing so, and simply ignore Steve. I am sorry, but the Steves of this country gave us Bush and that is an unforgivable crime. I will not suffer these fools, and no one else should either. If republicans/conservatives expect the democrats/liberals to just roll over again, I hope they will be sorely disappointed. Get political. Shout at the top of your lungs! Be politically incorrect and be willing to be in uncomfortable social situations. STAND UP AND SAY NO! The Democrats are not extreme liberals, they are barely even liberal in the global context. We are supposed to be the American innovators, but we are politically behind the times. Let's catch up!