In the end you must pay for other people's misfortunes because we are all tied together one way or another. Asides from the moral, service and economic imperatives (which i'll elaborate on if you desire) there is a question of governmental stability and order. People who feel forgotten and ignored by their government become disenfranchised and angry. When people feel hopeless that frustration can bubble up with desperation and result in violence. Well fare, social security and other new deal programs show that society still cares even for those at the bottom and breed a measure of loyalty and faith in people who might otherwise see the system as their opressor and enemy. If you want to see an america as volatile as a third world country, by all means you are free to isolate and estrange the poor.
_______________________________________________
Originally posted by Ghengis John

I was going to respond, but this was perfectly said.

Now I am not trying to argue or start conflict with you PMSBangBang. I saw that what you wrote came from Yahoo.
But lets get some facts out there

My sister is one of those people who who keeps popping out kids and living off of the Government.
But half of the problem that lead to that was the fault of Mom and Dad not teaching her a sense of personal responsability when she was growing up. My sister never had to do anything for herself.
Now she doesn't know how.
She has a car. she works periodically. She does take care of her kids and the are clean polite and smart. But she is really lazy and it annoys me to no end.

Now regarding government systems that tax money pays for.

Police; We don't like them. We worry that when we see them that they are there for us for some reason. That is a standard fear.
However, the Police do do a lot. They also take risks that help protect us.
Now at the same time I have seen my fair share of loser scumbag cops. It just shows that no matter what industry you are discussing there are always bad seeds.

Public Schools; 75% 0f US kids go to public schools. Do you know why the teachers don't teach as you put it?
Its because funding for public schools is usually the first thing pulled...by Republicans from the Budget. Its not an attack on Republicans, just a fact. In fact the Senator from Georgia said that if he was President, he would get rid of Public schools. does he think this will make people go to private schools where everything is so much better?
It would actually get worse. Heres how.

By removing funding from public schools, schools cannot get up to date textbooks. They have to lay off teachers in order to balance the remaining budget. What this does is put more kids into each classroom overloading the few teachers available so that they cannot properly give the attention needed to each student. therefore the kids lose out on so much during their formative years that they end up living off of the state or going into crime.

Of course getting rid of Public Schools would have the negative affect of overloading Private schools thereby creating the same poor climate that currently exists.
Of course, a large portion of the people would not be able to afford to send thier kids to the high priced private schools so those kids would end up uneducated and going into crime.

The Government, mainly Republicans historically have worked hard for the Industrial or Corporate side of America. They have done major damage to the country because of decisions made for the benefit of big business. decisions that have allowed Wall Street and big business to take risks that have put us into this situation. Risks that have created such a separation of wealth that the standard wages that most of the middle class make are not even enough to support the basic needs of life. so if those people had to start sending thier kids to private schools, we would see a massive shift towards major class separation.

Most Business people vote Republican because of the promise of less taxs but really small business's are not on the radar of most Govenment policy makers. So the decisions they make are primarily helping to protect large corporations. Which are the ones that helped to lead us to where we are now.
People are bitching about the fact that Obama is going to spend 1.2 trillion dollars over the next 10 years. Thats funny when you consider the fact that CONSUMER DEBT (debt created by consumers through use of a credit card) is 1.4 Trillion per year. Think about that for a second. Annually we waste money that doesn't exist on crap that in a month will end up in an attic. Credit Debt, Insurance cost debt and a continual seperation of wages between the top end and lower end workers is throwing the country over the edge.

I have a friend who owns a chain o successful Haggen Daas stores.
He works at night delivering Newspapers. Just so he can support his two kids. WTF?

Funding for public schools should be the one thing that if anything sees an increase annually in the federal budgets. It should have a moritorium protecting it from lost funding.

The funny thing is, is that the people. Us. we could call our Congressmen and Senators and demand that they don't vote for bills that also have riders calling for cuts in Education.
But we don't. We don't because we are to self absorbed in ourselves and our own petty bull**** needs that we refuse to think of anyone else.
Even when we say we do.

So if you think it is the poor bringing us down with all of thier problems and failures, research what got most of them where they are.
Sure some are just because they are lazy and refuse to better themselves. But most are because thier Government helped put them there.

Finally you said that Obama can't even fix the little problems we have in this Country.

Well, he has only been in office for 9 months. It takes a long time to actually repair national problems. Especially when they take years to create.

He has more on his plate than the last 3 presidents combined. Thanks dubya.

Aside from the fact that he is not getting help from 1/2 of the Dems who are way to Liberal to see clearly, He is getting zero help from the GOP who are purposely going against every single thing he suggests whether it would help the citizens or not. All in a pathetic bid to regain thier position of power. Because at the end of the day that is all that they care about. Power. and what they are going to get.

Sadly thier own followers are to blind to look beyond the Glen Becks and Bill O'reilly's to see the truth of the matter. So they are allowed to continue doing the same worthless(to us anyway) crap that they have done for years.

Since writing my last post, I came across the video in this link.
I recommend watching it from 7:20 until the end.
Interesting info that corroborates what I posted.

video link.

I think the biggest thing people should remember is that, no matter who wins it, the Nobel prizes aren't specific for ONE country.

The USA doesn't decide who gets it, so even if Obama hasn't necessarily done anything for the USA (I'm not going into the details, both sides have given their arguments already as to whether he has or hasn't) that shouldn't matter in terms of the Nobel Peace Prize. It has only been 9 months. Another fair question is what did Bush do his first 9 months? Not a whole lot. Especially when you have a large group of people in the government against you. I think Obama is a bit of a dark horse, in the fact that the Dems, I think, thought he'd do what they wanted. In truth, he's doing what he and his advisers feel best. And he's surrounded himself with smart advisers from all spectrums (Republican, Democrat, liberal, conservative, legal, military, men, women, minorities, etc.)... He's already reversed all the limits and barriers Bush set up for my career. Obama's given scientists our money back, opened our avenues back up for research... If nothing else but that, I like Obama.


However, back to the discussion at hand...

In terms of international work, he's obviously done SOMETHING that the international community likes enough to get him the prize. Again, race and religion issues aren't as big to the rest of the world as they are here in the States. What did he do? I'm not sure. And I'm not saying he deserves it, but the world feels something towards him, and if that makes some sort of peace between them and us, I'll take it.

quote:

Originally posted by zeeEVIL1:
Public Schools; 75% 0f US kids go to public schools. Do you know why the teachers don't teach as you put it?
Its because funding for public schools is usually the first thing pulled...by Republicans from the Budget. Its not an attack on Republicans, just a fact. In fact the Senator from Georgia said that if he was President, he would get rid of Public schools. does he think this will make people go to private schools where everything is so much better?
It would actually get worse. Heres how.

The Government, mainly Republicans historically have worked hard for the Industrial or Corporate side of America. They have done major damage to the country because of decisions made for the benefit of big business. decisions that have allowed Wall Street and big business to take risks that have put us into this situation. Risks that have created such a separation of wealth that the standard wages that most of the middle class make are not even enough to support the basic needs of life. so if those people had to start sending thier kids to private schools, we would see a massive shift towards major class separation.

I was going to stay out of this, because it is a bit pointless to debate it but two things wrong.

1. Pertaining to the schools funding, Democratic Pennsylvania Governer Ed Rendell pulled police and firefighter funding first when he wasn't getting his way with a budget. Republican state leaders wanted to cut his budget, but Rendell forced all state workers to work without pay for 3 months. I have a friend who is a state trooper and when his money dried up, he asked for some help and the state basically told him they'd offer him a loan with HUGE interest rates on it.

Following that, Rendell then threatened to cut school budgets. That is when the Republican leaders gave in here in Pennsylvania to Rendell's budget that was putting us into further deficit.

Moral of the story: Both sides do it. They do it for the political shock factor to get what they want across. It's obivious, when you want something done whichever party in power will threaten to (and in most cases start to) pull the plug on most civil services (police, fire, schools, transportation) to get the minority to give into what the ruling party wants.


2. Regarding the financial dire straits we are in. I wasn't aware Senators Christopher Dodd and Barney Franks were Republicans. Those were two of the huge principle pushers for toxic lending loans. I know that's not the entire picture but it is a piece to THE picture.

What I'm pointing out is that the Left shares just as much blame as the Right does in these matters.

Blame the Right all you want for calling people un-American for not supporting their agenda or not patriots for speaking out but did you see the DNC put out regarding to the dissenting opinion over Obama's prize?

quote:

"The Republican Party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists - the Taliban and Hamas this morning - in criticizing the President for receiving the Nobel Peace prize. Republicans cheered when America failed to land the Olympics and now they are criticizing the President of the United States for receiving the Nobel Peace prize - an award he did not seek but that is nonetheless an honor in which every American can take great pride - unless of course you are the Republican Party."

DNC communications director Brad Woodhouse."

Wow. Wait. I thought the name calling and "You are sleeping with the terrorists" agenda was in the Republican's playbook.

Point is, I'm sick of people acting like the Left is so much Holier than that Right.

It plays just as dirty.

Ninja I agree with you that both sides are dirty.
hat Statement from the DNC is pretty much right on though. I mean Obama did try to get the Olympics here. He is not the first President to do so. But the GOP cheering when he failed. Yeah that is pretty scummy. Especially when you consider the amount of Money and economic growth it would have brought to Chicago.. The Olympic village alone would have been converted into housing after the events. It would also have been built in an area of Chicago that really needs a facelift.
The whole Nobel thing really does nothing but put Obama in a position of having to really make decisions of what kind of President he will be.
With two wars that will be tough.

You notice Chris Dodd isn't in the spotlight anymore. Ever since the revelation about the toxic loans.

Barney Frank is though and that is primarily due to the commitee's he chairs in the house.

I feel sorry for Pa. having to deal with Rengle he is a supreme Douchebag. Also, he is more the exception than the rule when it comes to things getting cutlike what he did.

you have read my political comments on here many times. You know that I have no love for either side. But, I will voice my opinion when I feel someone is getting the short end of the stick undeservedly.
Obama in my opinion is getting the short end of the stick.

Both sides need to get off of thier high horses and actually for once does something to actually improve America and by extension, our lives.

I think this is getting derailed pretty fast. As several people have stated above, this is about him getting a prize for his work on the international level as selected by a politically neutral country, not for anything he's done at home, which is where the bulk of the arguing seems to stem from. Maybe a seperate post/forum for that?

quote:

Originally posted by Angelusjc:
I think this is getting derailed pretty fast.

Kind of, but I'm all for watching healthy debate from different views, even if I don't agree. As long as no one is arguing, it's actually pretty helpful. You either see someone being right and learn something new, or you realize how right you were in the first place and have more evidence to ground that. It's win win. As long as everyone is being civil, which they are.

Angel it always devolves into local views. But like Melonie pointed out, it is staying civil. Which I have to say is one of the good things about this forum. Everyone here tends to try and keep the debates civil.

quote:

Point is, I'm sick of people acting like the Left is so much Holier than that Right.

It plays just as dirty.

If you look at the most extreme Democratic and Republican members, their actions are very similar. For some reason, the extreme Republicans simply have a better platform to voice their opinions (i.e. Beck.) The unfortunate thing is that there are a lot of really intelligent Republican lawmakers and supporters, just as there are Democratic ones, but the loudest parts of the Republican party are indeed alienating everyone else because they've elevated party politics to a new low.

As far as the DNC comments, zee I think Ninja's point was that when the Republicans did it, certain Democrats were saying it's bad, and unAmerican, and etc. to make such hyperbolic statements... but they have people in their own party who do it. The addition that they had "...thrown in their lot with the terrorists..." is an unnecessary statement that has nothing but propaganda value to the person's statement. They criticized the President for getting the Nobel Prize. Woopy, a number of people have raised questions and leveled criticisms about it. Cheering over not getting the Olympics is just plain stupid, but it hardly means "casting lots with terrorists."

The fact is that there are portions of each party that can't make their (sometimes legitimate) point without peppering it with hyperbolic and propganda speech. Now, I'm all for hyperbole, just as much as the next man, but there's a time and place for them. And it's called coll- hahaha, sorry, hadn't gotten a good joke in yet.

Anyway, there's a time and place for them, and it's not in a press release, statement, or etc. that is going to be interpreted very literally by the followers and participants in a political system.

Oh, and in order to make sure this thread remains civil: zee, your mom is a classy lady.

i once farted on my dog and he barked at me.

quote:

Originally posted by Loganissocool:
i once farted on my dog and he barked at me.

For reals? That's pretty great.

quote:

Originally posted by Loganissocool:
i once farted on my dog and he barked at me.

The only post that makes sense in this thread.

Haha. Seriously

quote:

Originally posted by weaselboy:
Oh, and in order to make sure this thread remains civil: zee, your mom is a classy lady.

?

Anyway, I totally agree with what he was saying. I personally wish the President would publically out these people because this underhanded crap from both sides is just keeping anything from getting done. It happens everytime one side loses majority. then half of a Presidents term is wasted by assholes trying to regain a foothold on power.

@Melonie: You arent alone. I like Bush too. I mean he wasnt the best president but I dont think hes as bad as what everybody says.

Back to the point of the thread. I dont think Obama got the peace price because hes black. That would just be stupid. It just dawned on me actually. Do you think that maybe they only gave it to him as a way to get him to not send more troops to Afghanistan? I mean, I think he would look like a pretty big douche bag to send 40,000 more soldiers to war right after getting the Nobel peace prize. Perhaps that was there plan?

Questionmark; He got it because of how he affected the world upon getting elected. Just by doing so he managed to start a change in the political climate on the International stage.

He is still going to send 40,000 more troops to Afghanistan. He said as much during the campaign.

quote:

Originally posted by H2oDigital:

quote:

Originally posted by QuestionMar1988:
The Nobel peace prize is a bit of a joke. I mean come on. They gave it to Yasser Arafat.

Besides, Alfred Nobel was an arms manufacturer and the inventor of dynamite. I'm not saying that makes him a bad person or anything but its kinda stupid to have a peace prize named after a bomb maker don't you think?

I love irony. :P

Word, i couldn't have said it better myself

Nobel made the the explosive hoping that it would be a deterrent to war. Sadly that did not work. The atomic bomb however has been. Arguably had we not had the bomb, we would have ended up at war with Russia over control of Europe after WW2. They were expansionist after all.

Here is a bit of irony, The President got the Peace Prize for not being Bush the same day that he became the first President to Bomb the Moon.

WE BLOWUPEDED THE MOON!

The moon had it coming.

quote:

Originally posted by Seductivpancake:
The moon had it coming.

Seriously though, this has definitely been a topic that has been subject to a lot of debate. Once I heard the news, I knew that there was going to be a lot of controversy (and sure enough, digg.com has already been subject to several flaming n00b-fights ). I've been interested to read all opinions on this topic, this thread is filled with some interesting viewpoints. I agree, though, debates are much more informative to spectate if they are kept civil.