Recreating America under Obama.

[jackson33]

Turtle; I have no idea, how you form an opinion. Mine are generally formed from experience, items written over many years. Any one today, may have been quite the opposite weeks to years ago. From high school on in education and in what public life most debate was between myself and another or groups of like minded DEBATING an issue and letting others decide any validity on their own. This said and my point; Anything you give as an opinion today, I could easily validate or find information to the complete opposite. It puzzles me when two or more posters start giving 'sites' that conform to their opinions, letting that opinion get lost in the discussion. I'll mention Craig, as a moderator and Pluto as a poster. Both, I am sure are intelligent and would make good debaters, but many times its very difficult for me to determine their personal viewpoint.

Essay; I don't think you were being sarcastic, but just in case; Statutory (law) and forcible only differ in what/who is making the accusation. "The audacity of unachievable hope"...and the expression of what is achievable, yet knowing its not, to achieve a goal are two entirely objectives. IMO; There are now millions of young folks, that honestly believe the Federal government or Obama himself, will address their personal grievance, yet the President has absolutely no authority over any individual for either good or bad things perceived by anybody. Generally speaking of course.

Forms of 'Corperate Farming' have been around a very long time. In Texas, for at least 100 years, individual farmers have planted fields of Sorghum and Cotton, chopped (weeding) and harvested by virtually the same labor each year, yet not affiliated with those farms, as each segment moved through the State. Cooperatives in nearly every farming community have set up storage and transport systems into the markets and governments try to control whats produced, by adjusting grants.

When I think of Corporate Farming, its the 10 big ones in California, primarily operating in the San Joaquin Valley, Southern California/Southern Arizona and now most having operations in Mexico. Most have there own distribution systems, buy seed, fertilizers and other needs by the rail car and contract to produce/food dealers around the world. There are such operations now in Canada, Brazil, Russia and probably many places I don't know, but do so at a fraction of the cost any original 'Truck Farm' could or even some rather large mid-west operations.

As for the economic engines that drive world economies, your watching what happens when one engine needs tuning. In agriculture, I feel it could happen in the distribution system, but in the financial system the engine has been accessibility to financing which 99% of industry has relied on to be there and now not. The US has a combined 15-16 Trillion dollar annual GDP, most of which is financed each year and government is trying to provide this financing availability with its (at best) 2.5T income. I won't bore you with the other markets (Equities/Commodities) which require trillions of dollars in financing almost weekly.

On the topic, I believe most folks have absolutely no idea how government operates, the functions of the Federal/States or even their City/County or how to distinguish between Business and Government. My little suggestion for a federal sub-branch, could be used as an educational tool for the electorate and the participation by actual participants in the system, outside government.

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by jackson33

Turtle; I have no idea, how you form an opinion. Mine are generally formed from experience, items written over many years. Any one today, may have been quite the opposite weeks to years ago. From high school on in education and in what public life most debate was between myself and another or groups of like minded DEBATING an issue and letting others decide any validity on their own. This said and my point; Anything you give as an opinion today, I could easily validate or find information to the complete opposite. It puzzles me when two or more posters start giving 'sites' that conform to their opinions, letting that opinion get lost in the discussion. I'll mention Craig, as a moderator and Pluto as a poster. Both, I am sure are intelligent and would make good debaters, but many times its very difficult for me to determine their personal viewpoint.

Let me point out that you are violating our rules.... yet again. Form an opinion on this:
Hypography Science Forums - Science forums rules

Originally Posted by Hypography Rules

What kinds of topics are discussed here?
This is a forum for discussing science and technology. Basically, we welcome anything that falls within these realms. We like to consider ourselves open minded, but we do not like to see commercials, arrogant comments, or flames. Nor do we accept posts that are obvious attacks on other members, or which make other members appear needlessly stupid or ignorant. It is, however, okay to point out that you believe a member is in violation of our rules. You can also report posts to the administrators for review.

How should I behave?
Be yourself. But please respect these ground rules:

1.In general, back up your claims by using links or references.
...
3. If you want to refute someone's claims, please stay calm and point out where you think they went wrong, and what kind of proof you base your own opinion on.
4. Do not post links to other sites as proof of your claims without commenting what the relevant sites say and why they are important to the current discussion.
5. Statements like "I just know that this is the way it is" (especially when religion is being discussed) are considered ignorant and might be deleted. Likewise, users who have an obvious agenda behind the majority of their posts may be banned. ...

OT Let's help recreate America by challenging the meme that pointing out someone is violating the rules is 'snitching'.

[jackson33]

Originally Posted by Thunderbird

Recreating America under Obama.

Some questions I would like to pose in this thread .
* How powerful a factor is hope and optimism in rebuilding an economy ?
* Will we see a burst of innovation in alternative energy source in the next few years, comparable to the “.com boom” of the 90s ?
* How will the international community change under Obama?
*Is the far right sunk, or will they reemerge in 2012 with a viable candidate and platform ?

Turtle; This is the original post, one which caught my attention and have been responding to. It is my sincere belief, as was on another such thread by Nitack, and on other forums or in public discussion, that many Americans are interested in changing the format/model of the American Political System. I further believe, in most cases ideas are subjective to personal grievances, or not the actual purpose of the Federal or State Governments.

The election of Obama, was IMO based on this assertion and the hopes of to many people, one person or an administration can achieve their personal goals or create the climate to their independent progress in society and then with no additional effort. None of this and in my opinion is going to happen and we may be headed for serious disappointment in a good share of the American Society. I do hope I am wrong and somewhat impressed by Mr. Obama's appointments, however the facts from history, indicate no one president has singularly achieved such change. If you are anywhere near the age you claim, whether from the US or abroad, I would have been much more interested in your OPINIONS, than your current approach to denouncing my opinions.

I do believe however, some method for segments of society, for whatever reason feeling disenfranchised should have some means to participate and in that participation and in the process become somewhat more informed on the actual purpose of each of the governments that control society.

I am aware of the rules, have mentioned many times that owners and management of any forum have the rights to control input and/or membership well beyond the rules posted. For this reason, I no longer post on Science issues on this forum, which is unrelated to my education, personal interest of mine.

You will also note there are rules for complaining about posters and/or PM's which can be used to take personal grievances off record and I might add taking a thread's objectives totally off topic.

[Thunderbird]

"The audacity of unachievable hope"...and the expression of what is achievable, yet knowing its not, to achieve a goal are two entirely objectives. IMO; There are now millions of young folks, that honestly believe the Federal government or Obama himself, will address their personal grievance, yet the President has absolutely no authority over any individual for either good or bad things perceived by anybody. Generally speaking of course.

I’m sure there exist some naive individuals that believe Obama will grant them some sort golden ticket, but this is not the way most liberals think. This overly optimistic Obama messiah thing comes from the far right and is just reflecting their own disillusionment after the complete failure of neoconservative idealism. Cynicism toward the very traditional American idea of “Doing the impossible” which has served us quite well in the past, is to me antithetical to being an American . To simply dismiss this narrative because it did not originate from a certain “like Minded group” will quickly send conservatism to the outer fringes of the American political landscape .

Obama is not an idol for liberal's as Reagan was for the conservative's. This was a created idealized myth. HE WAS AN ACTOR !! HELLO !! Obama has certain political talents and experiences in his life that people can identify with on a very practice level much as F.D.R possed. A talented problem solver that listens to, and attempts to surrounds himself with people smarter than himself. That's all I really need, It just so happens he is black, and this time in history it just happens to be the perfect icing on the American layer cake of recent history.

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by jackson33

Turtle; This is the original post, one which caught my attention and have been responding to. It is my sincere belief, as was on another such thread by Nitack, and on other forums or in public discussion, that many Americans are interested in changing the format/model of the American Political System. I further believe, in most cases ideas are subjective to personal grievances, or not the actual purpose of the Federal or State Governments.

Hiya Jackster. Yes; many Americans responded to President-Elect Obama's campaign message for 'change'. Yes, the 'change' is subjective and I only note that the message was so effective as to have McCain try and tie his dingy to that ship.

Originally Posted by Jack's in

The election of Obama, was IMO based on this assertion and the hopes of to[o] many people, [that] one person or an administration can achieve their personal goals or create the climate to their independent progress in society and then with no additional effort.

My own personal peccadillo here, but I have difficulty giving credence to such 'big' ideas when they come wrapped in poor grammar. For the record, this is one of the appeals for me in regards Barack, i.e. his command of language. After the buffoonery of Bush in this regard, this is a change for the good in my humble opinion.

Originally Posted by Jacksinator

None of this and in my opinion is going to happen and we may be headed for serious disappointment in a good share of the American Society.

There you go again. That sentence is improperly (and confusingly) structured. Yes, I get the idea, but even then a good share of America has always lived with serious disappointment so nothing is new in it.

Originally Posted by Jackston

I do hope I am wrong and somewhat impressed by Mr. Obama's appointments, however the facts from history, indicate no one president has singularly achieved such change.

Well, there ya go. Obama has instilled some hope in even you. Run with it bro. I gotta rash your stones here again however, as you have referred to 'facts' and yet you give none.

Originally Posted by Jillson

If you are anywhere near the age you claim, whether from the US or abroad, I would have been much more interested in your OPINIONS, than your current approach to denouncing my opinions.

As to my age, well, consider that I saw Jack Kennedy speak in my village when he ran against Nixon. In my opinion, it was my mistake not to support Kennedy. My denouncements go to your forming your opinions on asserted facts not given in evidence.

Originally Posted by Just the facts Jack

I do believe however, some method for segments of society, for whatever reason feeling disenfranchised should have some means to participate and in that participation and in the process become somewhat more informed on the actual purpose of each of the governments that control society.

Mmmm...sounds like our Constitution. >> Index Page - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Originally Posted by Jackson

I am aware of the rules, have mentioned many times that owners and management of any forum have the rights to control input and/or membership well beyond the rules posted. For this reason, I no longer post on Science issues on this forum, which is unrelated to my education, personal interest of mine.

You will also note there are rules for complaining about posters and/or PM's which can be used to take personal grievances off record and I might add taking a thread's objectives totally off topic.

Sounds like politics, don't it?

[Thunderbird]

Really great article

Reentry
Reversing mass imprisonment

Bruce Western

Boston Review — Reentry

The final fallacy of the tough-on-crime perspective is the myth of the free market. The free market fallacy sees the welfare state as pampering the criminal class and building expectations of something for nothing. Anti-poverty programs were trimmed throughout the 1970s and ’80s, and poor young men largely fell through the diminished safety net that remained. For free marketeers, the question was simply whether or not to spend public money on the poor—they did not anticipate that idle young men present a social problem. Without school, work, or military service, these poor young men were left on the street-corner, sometimes acting disorderly and often fuelling fears of crime. We may have skimped on welfare, but we paid anyway, splurging on police and prisons. Because incarceration was so highly concentrated in particular neighborhoods and areas within them, certain city blocks received millions of dollars in “correctional investment”—spending on the removal of local residents by incarceration. These million-dollar blocks reveal a question falsely posed. We never faced a choice of whether to spend money on the poor; the dollars diverted from education and employment found their way to prison construction. Our political choice, it turned out, was not how much we spent on the poor, but what to spend it on.

[jackson33]

Originally Posted by Thunderbird

I’m sure there exist some naive individuals that believe Obama will grant them some sort golden ticket, but this is not the way most liberals think. This overly optimistic Obama messiah thing comes from the far right and is just reflecting their own disillusionment after the complete failure of neoconservative idealism. Cynicism toward the very traditional American idea of “Doing the impossible” which has served us quite well in the past, is to me antithetical to being an American . To simply dismiss this narrative because it did not originate from a certain “like Minded group” will quickly send conservatism to the outer fringes of the American political landscape .

Obama is not an idol for liberal's as Reagan was for the conservative's. This was a created idealized myth. HE WAS AN ACTOR !! HELLO !! Obama has certain political talents and experiences in his life that people can identify with on a very practice level much as F.D.R possed. A talented problem solver that listens to, and attempts to surrounds himself with people smarter than himself. That's all I really need, It just so happens he is black, and this time in history it just happens to be the perfect icing on the American layer cake of recent history.

First; Comparing Obama to FDR, Reagan or as he tries to Lincoln, are IMO (Turtle) a bit premature. In fact its that linkage to Lincoln, by him and many other statements during the campaign that has me questioning his education in the first place. Remember were talking about a Harvard Law Graduate in Constitutional Law and the required US History knowledge. 'He would reach out as Lincoln, to other parties for his cabinet members' or something like this...Well, the Republican Party was formed in 1856, on the issue of slavery being granted/denied to Kansas and Nebraska, for pending statehood. When Lincoln ran (1860) and won, there were very few Republicans on the planet and in reaching across the isles or picking people from other parties, the reason was quite simple...HE HAD TO.

I have acknowledged, Obama or his handlers ran an effective campaign and the fact McCain lost really didn't disappoint me. The fact he is black, may be the one GOOD factor and it could be the worst. I agree with GWB and that now millions of young minorities will grow up knowing they have an equal playing field and with effort can become President and I am pleased Ms. Clinton's efforts or those of Ms. Palin, also show the young ladies that they to will get a shot. That's all good stuff. B U T, to much emphasis is being put on Obama, for a successful tenure, 4 or 8 years, but in particular for the first few months. Nothing will change in the two wars, for minorities, with regards to foreign policy, Environmental policy or will National interest change to accommodate International Leaders. At least I don't think so and if wrong, were in for many more problems. Urban area are also a mess and no amount of cash infusion will do anything to correct. Educational influence is limited and no State Legislature would tolerate Federal involvement and driving the Corporate Structure off shore would accomplish nothing. And don't kid yourself about expectations, even from those that contributed 10.00 and think they now have access to the Federal or that of Obama in thinking he can somehow keep in touch through his blackberry or some lap top. He is entering a world of control and for his own good.

The 'Messiah Thing' came from Obama, his following and the words he chose.
If you going to act like a duck....your going to be called duck. He ain't no Messiah and won't lower ocean levels or make a world in his image. Sorry!!!

[jackson33]

Originally Posted by Turtle

Hiya Jackster. Yes; many Americans responded to President-Elect Obama's campaign message for 'change'. Yes, the 'change' is subjective and I only note that the message was so effective as to have McCain try and tie his dingy to that ship.

My own personal peccadillo here, but I have difficulty giving credence to such 'big' ideas when they come wrapped in poor grammar. For the record, this is one of the appeals for me in regards Barack, i.e. his command of language. After the buffoonery of Bush in this regard, this is a change for the good in my humble opinion.

There you go again. That sentence is improperly (and confusingly) structured. Yes, I get the idea, but even then a good share of America has always lived with serious disappointment so nothing is new in it.

Well, there ya go. Obama has instilled some hope in even you. Run with it bro. I gotta rash your stones here again however, as you have referred to 'facts' and yet you give none.

As to my age, well, consider that I saw Jack Kennedy speak in my village when he ran against Nixon. In my opinion, it was my mistake not to support Kennedy. My denouncements go to your forming your opinions on asserted facts not given in evidence.

Mmmm...sounds like our Constitution. >> Index Page - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Sounds like politics, don't it?

Lookie here, you can post on topic. Thank you and now with some understanding, especially regarding JFK, will answer accordingly.

I'll admit GWB, speaks like a Texan and drives the Grammar Elite crazy. I'll address the Obama factor, after his first news conference, to prompters and expecting some real issues. As for my grammar, the only 'D' I ever received was in related subjects, English, Grammar, Spelling etc...I should post some notes from editors that have corrected my errors with comment.

Your certainly not 106 or whatever your profile claims, but then I doubt many profiles are near correct. When JFK ran, I had already spent 4 years in the AF and with my second wife. JFK from a Historical viewpoint and IMO was a very good president and an inspiration to far to many people thinking Johnson, Carter and Clinton followed in his footsteps, including much of media. The closest through that period was Nixon, in both policy and foreign affairs.

On forums, no wouldn't call it politics but sometimes think totalitarian would apply. I don't post of 'Liberal Forums', but do read many and any comment seen objective can create a downpour of criticism. No less true on Conservative Forums'. We had a user name 'Turtle' on FC, who also had a problem with my grammar, but was somewhat a religious nut. Must not have been you...

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by jackson33

Lookie here, you can post on topic. Thank you and now with some understanding, especially regarding JFK, will answer accordingly.

Originally Posted by Jackston

I'll admit GWB, speaks like a Texan and drives the Grammar Elite crazy.

It's more than the grammar to me. It's the stammering, butchered metaphors, and just plain stupid things he says when taken in context. He has all the intellectual savy of dry scat. ( )

Originally Posted by Jaacson

I'll address the Obama factor, after his first news conference, to prompters and expecting some real issues. As for my grammar, the only 'D' I ever received was in related subjects, English, Grammar, Spelling etc...I should post some notes from editors that have corrected my errors with comment.

No need; I'll be happy to provide current correction content.

Originally Posted by Jickston

Your certainly not 106 or whatever your profile claims, but then I doubt many profiles are near correct.

Today i'm 75! (or so my profile claims more correctly than not. )

Originally Posted by Jacksen

When JFK ran, I had already spent 4 years in the AF and with my second wife.

thanks for your service, although this is too much info for me.

Originally Posted by Mr. Jackson

JFK from a Historical viewpoint and IMO was a very good president and an inspiration to far to[o] many people thinking Johnson, Carter and Clinton followed in his footsteps, including much of media. The closest through that period was Nixon, in both policy and foreign affairs.

Nixon's policy of lying, cheating, and stealing to get what he wanted is nothing I hold as inspiring. I spit on his grave in all metaphorical humilty. As to Kennedy I don't think any comparison to Obama is merited without some factual support, but it seems obvious that he stands as evidence that a single person can produce tangible results through inspiration as well as perspiration.

Originally Posted by Jackmeister

On forums, no wouldn't call it politics but sometimes think totalitarian would apply. I don't post of 'Liberal Forums', but do read many and any comment seen objective can create a downpour of criticism. No less true on Conservative Forums'. We had a user name 'Turtle' on FC, who also had a problem with my grammar, but was somewhat a religious nut. Must not have been you...

Well, what subject is 'totalitarianism' under if not politics? As to other forum Turtles, none is me except our Hypog sister-site PostMagnet

Just in closing, and without getting too personal, I am both paternally and maternally descendent of Daughters of the American Revolution. Viva la libertad!