-
Quote from: jking;210454
wait wait wait.....
You\'re twisting my words around: White men have only had white men to vote for (in the general election) until this year. It\'s no question that that fact, in itself, is a problem. But it\'s not the issue that I\'m talking about. 95% of whites didn\'t vote for John McCain this year. Maybe I\'m wrong, but I\'ll restate my concern: Seeing that any demographic voted 95% one way troubles me.
so the fact that, until now, 100% of a demographic has voted for itself for the past 200+ years is ok, but now, all of a sudden, its a bad thing?
white men have voted only for white men until now. but all of a sudden, blacks voting for a black guy is bad for democracy?
I hate that I always seem to come off as a right-wing nut job in these political threads, because I\'m actually pretty liberal. I just like to make sure that the underrepresented voice is accounted for, and on dotinfo, that would be the conservative voice. -
-
Quote from: jking;210434
so, getting $40 an hour in addition to helping the community of which you are a part is facist??? l o l
some of y\'all sound selfish and spoiled as hell. you realize that you are citizens of this country and, by very definition, are supposed to put into this country so that you can take out of this country all that it offers, right? or do y\'all think you should just be able to take and let someone else get around to helping pay back what you\'ve taken?
or would you just prefer to be lazy and let your communities continue to stagnate, just so you wouldn\'t have to spend one hundred hours in the course of an entire year doing something to help out? oh, and getting paid $40 an hour while doing something good for more than just you? i\'ll tell you what, as someone who volunteered throughout college, i would have loved to have made $4,000 over a summer for tuition doing something i was already doing. but i guess you (or your parents) are all rich and don\'t/didn\'t need any tuition assistance, ever?
The idea of volunteerism is great. However in a FREE society NO ONE should be FORCED to participate. It is the same idea as the draft. People should have the ability to choose if this is what they want to do, not be mandated by the government.
Just because you are more comfortable with the focus of this "volunteerism" doesn\'t make it OK. You cannot force people in a free society to do things against their wishes. I don\'t care what the cause is. -
-
Quote from: Overexjoesure;210462
Amen Chags & JKing.
If I won the lottery one of the things I would do is fund this incredible urban mentoring program.
i stopped reading after this line...total bullshit -
-
drew~ first, if there were a black guy running on both sides, wouldn\'t that split the black vote? so your fear is only based on this one instance, when, finally, there was a non-honkey choice to be voted for. and are you really surprised that at the first chance to vote for a non-white, that blacks and latinos came out extra strong? like, they maybe felt like they finally had a legitimized voice in this country??
and its not 95% of an entire demographic, its 95% of that demographic which voted. i still don\'t see the difference between 95% of blacks voting for the black guy as opposed to 100% of whites voting for white guys. just because its bad that that has been the only choice doesn\'t negate that fact that until now, 100% of whites have voted for a white guy, who also happened to be their only choice. now, with one black guy to vote for, the blacks voted for that one black guy, just like whites have voted for their choice of white guys. if there were two choices, the percentage wouldn\'t have been nearly that high. i understand what you\'re trying to say, but your fear is an unrealistic one. you put two equal candidates up against each other, and the vote won\'t be so heavily weighted one way or the other.
kindms~ in a free SOCIETY people shouldn\'t have to be PAID $40 an hour to get them to volunteer to HELP their community. however, since no one is REQUIRING anyone to do anything, but rather are OFFERING a $4,000 tax incentive for a mere 100 hours of community service, i\'m not sure why y\'all are getting so riled up. don\'t want $4,000 for 100 hours of work, fine. of course, then you should also have no problem if your home value drops because of increased gang activity, vandalism, home invasions, car thefts, etc because you can\'t be bothered to help your community for $40 an hour for 100 hours. once you finish your FREE education, mind you.
this seems to be the biggest issue. people going with gut reactions, rather than actually knowing of which they speak. show me where anyone will be FORCED to do anything (forced at $40an hour!!! lololol), and i\'ll concede. otherwise, its just more inflammatory rhetoric from the right about something which won\'t happen in the first place. -
-
Quote from: jking;210469
drew~ first, if there were a black guy running on both sides, wouldn\'t that split the black vote? so your fear is only based on this one instance, when, finally, there was a non-honkey choice to be voted for. and are you really surprised that at the first chance to vote for a non-white, that blacks and latinos came out extra strong? like, they maybe felt like they finally had a legitimized voice in this country??
Points well taken... I guess we\'ve reached the old "agree to disagree" plateau. Here\'s to one day reaching the point where the best two (or more... perish the thought :wink:) candidates are nominated and race/gender/religion won\'t even be discussed.
and its not 95% of an entire demographic, its 95% of that demographic which voted. i still don\'t see the difference between 95% of blacks voting for the black guy as opposed to 100% of whites voting for white guys. just because its bad that that has been the only choice doesn\'t negate that fact that until now, 100% of whites have voted for a white guy, who also happened to be their only choice. now, with one black guy to vote for, the blacks voted for that one black guy, just like whites have voted for their choice of white guys. if there were two choices, the percentage wouldn\'t have been nearly that high. i understand what you\'re trying to say, but your fear is an unrealistic one. you put two equal candidates up against each other, and the vote won\'t be so heavily weighted one way or the other.
Also, excellent use of the phrase "non-honkey". -
-
thanks!
one last question, though. if you acknowledge that with more than one black candidate the percentage of black voters going for one of them would drop, why is this still an issue for you? it is a one-time anamoly. if colin powell had won the republican nomination, do you still think 95% of the demographic would have gone for obama? if not, then what\'s the problem? i guess that\'s the part i don\'t get. this was the exception rather than the rule.... -
-
Quote from: zuke583;210465Quote from: Overexjoesure;210462
Amen Chags & JKing.
If I won the lottery one of the things I would do is fund this incredible urban mentoring program.
i stopped reading after this line...total bullshit
How is that total bullshit? It\'s true. I see how much people suffer and it sucks. It just **** sucks. I don\'t need a nice car, big house etc. I\'d much rather make a difference in society, no matter how big or small.
BTW this is the program I was talking about:
"reason: What reforms do you think are necessary? What can policy makers do to make public schools more effective?
Burns: Five years ago I couldn?t have given you an answer to that question. But I?ve learned about a program right now in Harlem. It?s been around for 12 years now. It?s called the Harlem Children?s Zone. The basic philosophy is so logical and so obvious. What works in the middle class is that you have input, the healthy positive input into an infant every day of that child?s life, as an infant and as a young child. Somebody?s always there. That?s how we raise our kids, and the success rate is very, very high. There are some failures in the middle class and the upper middle class, but the success rate is high.
That?s what they do in Harlem in the Children?s Zone?with about 35,000 kids. From birth, someone is with that kid until he gets out of college. They?re normal kids?not geniuses or anything?but they will be able to break the cycle of poverty and of drugs in those neighborhoods because those kids are not focused on drugs and poverty. They?re focused on the positive aspects that come from traditionally raising kids where you expect things from them. You tell them how good they are, you boost their egos, and you light the fires under them. That?s how you do it. That?s how it?s done in most middle class homes. I mean, that?s how simple it is. In Harlem, it cost them $4,500 a child.
And in talking with Geoff Canada, who runs the program up there, they?ve had 2,200 different groups?around 2,200 groups that have come to see their program. People who come to watch are impressed and want to go back to other states, to other countries, with the hope of implementing the program. Yet there isn?t another Children?s Zone that I know of anywhere in the country." -
-
Tax incentive for community service = geniuous idea.
-
-
In regards to the Harlem Children\'s Zone, I just found this passage from a recent article in the Baltimore Sun.
"In January of last year, Prince Charles and his wife, Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall visited a Zone after-
school program for middle-schoolers that focuses on personal finance. In a campaign speech last year,
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said he wants to launch 20 others programs like the
Zone across the country. "
http://www.hcz.org/images/stories/pdfs/baltimore_sun.pdf
HELL YES!!!! -
-
Quote from: Drew_Kingsley;210463Quote from: jking;210454
wait wait wait.....
You\'re twisting my words around: White men have only had white men to vote for (in the general election) until this year. It\'s no question that that fact, in itself, is a problem. But it\'s not the issue that I\'m talking about. 95% of whites didn\'t vote for John McCain this year. Maybe I\'m wrong, but I\'ll restate my concern: Seeing that any demographic voted 95% one way troubles me.
so the fact that, until now, 100% of a demographic has voted for itself for the past 200+ years is ok, but now, all of a sudden, its a bad thing? white men have voted only for white men until now. but all of a sudden, blacks voting for a black guy is bad for democracy?
I hate that I always seem to come off as a right-wing nut job in these political threads, because I\'m actually pretty liberal. I just like to make sure that the underrepresented voice is accounted for, and on dotinfo, that would be the conservative voice.
First off, I don\'t think anyone is being a right-wing "nutjob" based on the notion that we are looking at things from certain socio-demographics. Conservativism once seemed to be the basis for the development of this country\'s republic. We are a republic, aren\'t we? That is surely diminished. The ideology is about ensuring personal freedoms that are not controlled by any one government office, and that we abide by the constitution. The key word is OUR CONSTITUTION.Certain "neo-Conservatives" have imho, given Conservatives a bad wrap because they often tend to be the preachy, evangelical, favoring war, and banning certain freedoms based on religious ideology. This is the neo-con base for Palin\'s side of politics. This is not actual conservativism folks.
However, I think it\'s interesting how the mass media shaped our tendency to vote a certain way. If it were truly about gender and race, then Cynthia McKinney (the green party) would\'ve won, based on her being an African American female. But, the media did not bother to highlight any other candidates except for Obama and McCain. It\'s not because people would think the third parties didn\'t have a chance, because if we the people knew more about the other candidates, we might have more likely voted for one of these third parties; it is more about the orchestration of candidates based on massive political agendas.
Ron Paul hosted a conference and invited all of the third party candidates, ranging from the constitutionalist Chuck Baldwin, libertarian Bob Barr, independent Ralph Nader, to the socialist Cynthia McKinney. All of them agreed on four points:
1.) End the Iraq War now and withdraw all US troops from the region. Further, put an end to the philosophy which brings us into such wars.
2.) Protect civil liberties and privacy for all persons under US jurisdiction.
3.) Eliminate (or at least reduce) the national debt.
4.) Thoroughly investigate the Federal Reserve.
However, we did not see or hear about this conference, because both McCain and Obama have never represented our true voice. The true voice, as I\'m assuming both many liberals and true conservatives hold: We just want to leave others alone (end war NOW) and help our people grow and prosper! -
-
From Obama\'s mouth himself:
"This is the home of the Harlem Children\'s Zone - an all-encompassing, all-hands-on-deck anti-poverty effort that is literally saving a generation of children in a neighborhood where they were never supposed to have a chance.
The philosophy behind the project is simple - if poverty is a disease that infects an entire community in the form of unemployment and violence; failing schools and broken homes, then we can\'t just treat those symptoms in isolation. We have to heal that entire community. And we have to focus on what actually works.
If you\'re a child who\'s born in the Harlem Children\'s Zone, you start life differently than other inner-city children. Your parents probably went to what they call " Baby College", a place where they received counseling on how to care for newborns and what to expect in those first months. You start school right away, because there\'s early childhood education. When your parents are at work, you have a safe place to play and learn, because there\'s child care, and after school programs, even in the summer. There are innovative charter schools to attend. There\'s free medical services that offer care when you\'re sick and preventive services to stay healthy. There\'s affordable, good food available so you\'re not malnourished. There are job counselors and financial counselors. There\'s technology training and crime prevention.
You don\'t just sign up for this program; you\'re actively recruited for it, because the idea is that if everyone is involved, and no one slips through the cracks, then you really can change an entire community. Geoffrey Canada, the program\'s inspirational, innovative founder, put it best - instead of helping some kids beat the odds, the Harlem Children\'s Zone is actually changing the odds altogether.
And it\'s working. Parents in Harlem are actually reading more to their children. Their kids are staying in school and passing statewide tests at higher rates than other children in New York City. They\'re going to college in a place where it was once unheard of. They\'ve even placed third at a national chess championship.
So we know this works. And if we know it works, there\'s no reason this program should stop at the end of those blocks in Harlem. It\'s time to change the odds for neighborhoods all across America. And that\'s why when I\'m President, the first part of my plan to combat urban poverty will be to replicate the Harlem Children\'s Zone in twenty cities across the country. We\'ll train staff, we\'ll have them draw up detailed plans with attainable goals, and the federal government will provide half of the funding for each city, with the rest coming from philanthropies and businesses.
Now, how much will this cost? I\'ll be honest - it can\'t be done on the cheap. It will cost a few billion dollars a year. We won\'t just spend the money because we can - every step these cities take will be evaluated, and if certain plans or programs aren\'t working, we will stop them and try something else.
But we will find the money to do this because we can\'t afford not to. Dr. King once remarked that if we can find the money to put a man on the moon, then we can find the money to put a man on his own two feet. There\'s no reason we should be spending tens of thousands of dollars a year to imprison one of these kids when they turn eighteen when we could be spending $3,500 to turn their lives around with this program. And to really put it in perspective, think of it this way. The Harlem Children\'s Zone is saving a generation of children for $46 million a year. That\'s about what the war in Iraq costs American taxpayers every four hours." -
-
Quote from: jking;210469
drew~ first, if there were a black guy running on both sides, wouldn\'t that split the black vote? so your fear is only based on this one instance, when, finally, there was a non-honkey choice to be voted for. and are you really surprised that at the first chance to vote for a non-white, that blacks and latinos came out extra strong? like, they maybe felt like they finally had a legitimized voice in this country??
and its not 95% of an entire demographic, its 95% of that demographic which voted. i still don\'t see the difference between 95% of blacks voting for the black guy as opposed to 100% of whites voting for white guys. just because its bad that that has been the only choice doesn\'t negate that fact that until now, 100% of whites have voted for a white guy, who also happened to be their only choice. now, with one black guy to vote for, the blacks voted for that one black guy, just like whites have voted for their choice of white guys. if there were two choices, the percentage wouldn\'t have been nearly that high. i understand what you\'re trying to say, but your fear is an unrealistic one. you put two equal candidates up against each other, and the vote won\'t be so heavily weighted one way or the other.
kindms~ in a free SOCIETY people shouldn\'t have to be PAID $40 an hour to get them to volunteer to HELP their community. however, since no one is REQUIRING anyone to do anything, but rather are OFFERING a $4,000 tax incentive for a mere 100 hours of community service, i\'m not sure why y\'all are getting so riled up. don\'t want $4,000 for 100 hours of work, fine. of course, then you should also have no problem if your home value drops because of increased gang activity, vandalism, home invasions, car thefts, etc because you can\'t be bothered to help your community for $40 an hour for 100 hours. once you finish your FREE education, mind you.
this seems to be the biggest issue. people going with gut reactions, rather than actually knowing of which they speak. show me where anyone will be FORCED to do anything (forced at $40an hour!!! lololol), and i\'ll concede. otherwise, its just more inflammatory rhetoric from the right about something which won\'t happen in the first place.
Sorry. From the language that was being used. I was under the assumption that Obama or whoever was discussing mandatory volunteerism and from the posts I read it seemed that way.
So now I am more confused. Why were the terms Fascist being bandied about ? So this is a program designed to encourage community work that you get paid for ? I guess my only question would be where is the money coming from ? -
-
yes, he was discussing it, among many other things. in one draft was the word "require" which was quickly substituted for "allow the opportunity". but somehow, folks still find it to be a good idea to attack the half-formed ideas of a guy elected 6 days ago. what, he\'s not got his entire domestic agenda planned completely yet?? the slacker! let\'s attack him!!!
the plan, so far, is that once you graduate from high school, if you help out by performing 100 hours of community service, you will receive a $4,000 tax credit towards your tuition. the money comes from lessened spending in Iraq, as well, presumably, from the decreased expenditures on community benefits that could be alleviated with volunteer help. in the long term, you\'ll have a more prosperous citizenry (ie, people who live in the community, but who also help their community both physically and financially) and decreased need for assistance, thus paying for the program.
fascism gets thrown around when people hear half an idea, then spout off about it. (although, how its fascist to help people with their education - even if that help comes with a reciprocal work requirement - i\'ll never quite understand... methinks some people also don\'t know the meaning of the words they use/repeat) i know i\'ll sound like an old fuddy duddy, but i really miss the days when, if someone didn\'t know much about a subject, they knew better than to interject about it. although, free speech also makes it fun listening to people make fools of themselves. i mean, really, why educate yourself before speaking? you have an opinion, who cares if its informed!?! call me elitist, but i like my discussions to be knowledgeable ones.
(sorry if that sounds harsh, jocelyn - its not meant full-force at you, just at the myriad of people spouting off half-cocked about so many things these days) -
-
I\'m still stuck on the fact that even despite the programs, I do not think that Obama will take us out of Iraq by any reasonable measure of time. That means more money for both items discussed, which is just overspending.
-
-
Quote from: jking;210471
thanks!
jking, I hope you find this discussion as friendly as I intend it to be; it\'s nothing personal.
one last question, though. if you acknowledge that with more than one black candidate the percentage of black voters going for one of them would drop, why is this still an issue for you? it is a one-time anamoly. if colin powell had won the republican nomination, do you still think 95% of the demographic would have gone for obama? if not, then what\'s the problem? i guess that\'s the part i don\'t get. this was the exception rather than the rule....
Let\'s remove race/ethnicity/gender/class from the issue for a second. I guess my base fear is that the "uninformed voter" is becoming even more powerful. I used the 95% in this case because it was the most staggering statistic, but there are other things that fuel my concern as well. Think about the voters who were 10 years old in 2000. They have grown up hearing nothing by Bush/Republican bashing and, in most cases, not caring about the issues. Those 10 year olds are 18 and wanted to show their adulthood by voting. Who are they going to vote for? The black guy that everybody seems to like or the guy who the television said is just like George Bush? Let\'s also forget the people who were voting "to be a part of history": the bandwagon fans of the politics.
To put a point on it (after five hours and way too many words): I am happy that Obama was elected, and I think he was the better choice than McCain. I just don\'t think that is WHY he was elected, and that worries me. I hope you\'re right about this election being the exception rather than the rule in this respect, because it feels like the "popularity contest" aspect of the election got a little out of control. -