does not deserve to be president

[Kooshtaka]

Originally Posted by TallTexan

Where are most of the bad schools? What is the make up of the schools? Most of the bad schools are in minority schools, mainly black students. Quite a few schools here in Texas have a mix of blacks, whites and mexican. The blacks and mexicans don't get along. The schools sometimes have to let them out at different times to stop some of the fighting. Folks in Texas get their kids out of these schools and move to a school where there is 95% whites or higher. Amazingly, the fights almost stop completely and the percentages of students passing is very high. That is why Houston inter-city schools are big problems and will continue to be problems. Political correctness will not allow discipline to these kids and therefore they control the learning in the schools. Everyone can boo=hoo ab out saying this but we all know what the truth is. You can blame the whites, the system, the country or who ever you want to blame but the truth is still there. My sister tried teaching in one of these schools until one of her girl students said to her "" *****, I will whip your arse if you fail me''. She decided to leave those idiots to the school system or the jail system. So how do we fix this problem? Letting my grandkids go to school with them is not the answer. No one denies they need and deserve a good education but there is a limit to the amount of bullshart most parents will put up. Go ahead and start the flames!

that is truely very sad what happened to your sister. I wouldn't stay there either if that had happened to me.

I'm not trying to deny that there are not other problems that coincied with each other to make one giant problem. There will not be any simple or easy fixes.

I think that giving schools more funding is good place to start. The additoinal fuding will allow more schools and teachers to be hired which will lead to less crowding in the schools and create an easier job for teachers. Also paying teachers more will give teachers an incentive to help more children, and if the increase is significant enough it will may also increase university student's desire to become teachers. As I have stated earlier this might not make any noticable differences immediately but it is like a long term investment- the longer it is allowed to run; the larger return you will see in the end.

Now there is not much that can immediately be done concerning conflicts between different groups that have been traditionally opposed to each other for years, if not decades. People cannot expect for these hurdles to be overcome overnight. In your post you mentioned letting your grandkids going to school with them is not the answer- I can respect this. I would not let my 7 month old daughter go to a school with those kinds of difficulties- too much of a pontential to be caught in the middle. If you consider your answer to this next question you might see a possible way out of this perdiciment, "At what age are people more moldable from outside influences?".... answer: the younger ages-pre-school,kindergarten, first grade.. etc... Now if good, safe places are provided for these age groups to grow-up in, and that same standard is maintained through out their public school career- don't you think that just might provide a good solid base to start with?

The main obstacles standing in the way of such are the cynics and finding exactly where the money to fund it all will come from. Sure some of the money might come from rolling back the Bush tax breaks, and bring more troops back from Iraq. I'm not saying to pull all the soliders out tomorrow- that just isn't realistic. I am saying that if we start pulling troops out now then that might just be the wake-up call the fledgling Iraq gov't needs to get it's a$$-in-gear and that when we say we are gonna be gone by such and such a date, we actually mean it and will stick to it. We are not helping the Iraq gov't by giving them the message that we will be there indefinately, we are ENABLING them. The Iraq gov't will continue to drag their feet in taking over security as long as they think our troops will always be there to take-care of it/significantly help with security. AND the longer we are there the longer we are neglecting our duties in Afganistan.

Now if anyone has a different plan then i would love to hear it.

[Tiwaz]

Originally Posted by adavis99

TiWaz, since I'm such a moron about terrorism in iraq, please let me know how I'm wrong. Point to examples...

I've already made a couple of examples through logic. You stated that the terrorists weren't in Iraq until Americans arrived. That, in and of itself, just about invalidates any other point you may have to anyone capable of logical thought. No terrorists were there, at all, before we got there? How can you know this, beyond a reasonable doubt? Fact is, you can't. If you continue to assert this, then you are either a psychic wizard that can see all, or you are delusional. Also, like I said in an earlier post, this appears to heavily insinuate that you are saying that our troops are the terrorists. That in and of itself, besides being ridiculous, should be offensive to any veteran (Hell, any real American) reading.

Now, as far as the makeup of terrorists in Iraq, what percentage do you believe to be legitimate Iraqi citizens as opposed to Al-Qaeda (or any other non indigenous group) insurgents?

[Kooshtaka]

Originally Posted by gr8titan

Sad but true. I have a lot of young patients that are 2nd or 3rd generation welfare recepients. Their use (or abuse) of these government social programs are encouraged by the very system we now despise. The inner city of every major American city has turned into a population of social leeches.

In my line of work, I have direct 1 on 1 personal dealings with these families (and of course their health insurance coverage) and they all openly profess loyalty to the "political party" that "provides" them these social programs. It is funny how they think that it is the political party that provides these benefits to them. Without mentioning any party affiliation, dirty politics like to "perpetuate" these dependencies. Unfortunately, this is how these programs are used as a political tool to stimulate and maintain party loyalty.

When I hear a politician "promise" free health care, free eduation, free meals, free housing, free food stamps, free child-care etc. etc., I just feel sick and nauseated how so many well educated and well intended citizens applaud and really believe these entitlements are free!!! But will I ever hear this politician mention where the money that would support these programs come from in the same breath? Nah, never in the same breath!!

Like you, I'd rather see the money go into programs that would break their social dependency. Let's give them a rod, teach them how to fish instead of providing them "the fillet" for the rest of their lives. But who's got the political brass balls to do this? They've got my vote!!

I believe that part of the problem with the dependence on Well-fare is that it was never designed to be a longer term program for a single person. Maybe my word phrasing is not conveying what exactly what i mean. haha. let me try another way. Well-fare was not designed to have a person use it as long-term; it was designed originally for people to use temporaily so that they may get back on their feet. I say that an over-haul of the the system is called for. One that install a requirement for an individual to get and maintain a fulltime job after 6 months or so, and they will retain their well-fare for 6 months after they aquiare (sp?) their job so that they will have an opportunity to put aside a small amount of money to help once well-fare stops. Maybe another requirement could be that after they aquire a job that they open a savings account and provide the well-fare dept proof that they are putting money away.

It's kinda late so please everyone forgive me for my bad spelling and possible erractic writing. haha

[Kooshtaka]

Originally Posted by Tiwaz

I've already made a couple of examples through logic. You stated that the terrorists weren't in Iraq until Americans arrived. That, in and of itself, just about invalidates any other point you may have to anyone capable of logical thought. No terrorists were there, at all, before we got there? How can you know this, beyond a reasonable doubt? Fact is, you can't. If you continue to assert this, then you are either a psychic wizard that can see all, or you are delusional. Also, like I said in an earlier post, this appears to heavily insinuate that you are saying that our troops are the terrorists. That in and of itself, besides being ridiculous, should be offensive to any veteran (Hell, any real American) reading.

Now, as far as the makeup of terrorists in Iraq, what percentage do you believe to be legitimate Iraqi citizens as opposed to Al-Qaeda (or any other non indigenous group) insurgents?

I think you have taken Adam's post past what he actually ment. I believe that when he said there were no terrorists in Iraq before we invaded- he didn't mean that there were absolutely no terrotist; just that al-queida was not there.

now addressing your comments about our troops being the terrorists. As with all things, everything is determined by your perspective. Now i'm not calling our troops that are in iraq terrorists, that's not how i see them. I do think that others could quite possibly see our invasion of iraq as a very large act of terrorism. It is not my place to try and pursuade anyone in changing how they look at things. My brother has already done 2 tours to Iraq and will be deployed to Afganistan next. I'm not going to debate whether our troops are terrorist or not, i think that that is a pointless debate and a dis-service to the troops. They do not have any choice in the matter, those decisions are made higher up and the buck stops at the white house. Now in the past American troops have been used in some fairly nefarious ways and actions.

As far as composition of the terrorists- Do YOU know what they are?

[sickboy79]

My .02... I say we are screwed, Obama or Clinton (realy wish it would be McCain but...)

I personally think that as a Nation Maybe we would be more sound if we (whoever is Pres.) took us out of eveyone elses conflicts and took care of our own for a while... We do have more than enogh problems within our own country that with the added funding could be rectified (funding after the politicians dip their hands in)

AGAIN.. just my .02

[redneckpapa1996]

Takes years to clean up prior messes from a two term prez....more than just 8yrs........
The mess we are in now is a direct result of the clinton years !!!!!!!!!
Face it, he was a wimpass joke as president just like his wife will be.... He put this country in turmoil that will haunt us for many more years...
Maybe his wife can clean up his mess.....HAHAHAHAHAHA !!!!!!

[gr8titan]

Individual perspectives vary and quite a few blame GWB for the "terrorism gone wild". But one perspective that is not viewed with open eyes is the historical perspective of the present state we are in. Good intelligence or bad intelligence, any President has to make a difficult decision on what direction to take and what plan of action to follow based on the current information at hand. History will always paint the picture from a non-political perspective. Vote with your heart and mind.

Feb 23, 1993 World Trade Center (US) bombed for the first time.
Suspects: A jury found conspirators guilty in March 4, 1994. However, Abdul Rahmin Yasin has not been captured and believed to have fled to Iraq. Links with Al Quieda
President: Bill Clinton. Military Action: NONE
Nov 13, 1995 Car bomb explodes at OPM-SANG (Saudi Arabia) killing 5 Americans and injuring 30
Suspect: Unknown terrorist link
President: Bill Clinton Military Action: NONE
June 25, 1996 Khobar Towers (Saudi Arabia) - Car bomb explodes and kills 19 GIs and hundreds injured. Suspect: Unknown terrorist links
President: Bill Clinton Military Action: NONE
Aug 7, 1998 - US Embassy bombings. 213 dead and 5000 injuries in Nairobi (Kenya) and 11 Americans dead with 86 injuries in Dar es Salaam (Tanzania)
Suspect: Osama Bin Laden
President: Bill Clinton Military Action: In Sudan, US guided missiles destroyed the Al-Shifa Pharmaceutical plant, where 50% of Sudan's medications for both people and animals were manufactured. In Afganistan, US fired guided missles into the desert tent of Bin Laden. No casualties
Oct 12, 2000 USS Cole is attacked while docked (Yemen) 17 sailors dead with 39 wounded
Suspect: Osama Bin Laden
President: Bill Clinton Military Action: NONE

Sept 11, 2001 World Trade Center (US) demolished by hijacked US commercial planes. Similar attacks also at the Pentagon. Total casualties: about 3,000 Americans and countless injured.
Suspect: Osama Bin Laden
President: George W. Bush Military Action: Multi-national force deposed the Taliban government of Afganistan and established a democracy.
Oct 11, 2002 - Declaration of War passed by US Senate 77-23 and House 296-133 based on US intelligence.
Nov 8, 2002 - UN resolution on Iraq approved to force WMD site inspections and restore security in the area based on UN intelligence.
Military Action: Multi-national pre-emptive strike deposed Hussein of Iraq based on a Declaration of War passed in the Senate and House in Oct 11, 2002. Establishment of a Democratic government encounters bumps due to Iraq's internal religious squabbles. Present military surge declared "effective" by both US political parties.

NOTE: No succesfull attacks in the US after 9-11-01
Question: Is inaction an effective deterrence to terrorism or not? Reminder: Please vote your heart and mind.

[BLBJBranch]

^^^^ Great Points!!!

Unfortunately, there are far too many people too stupid (and too intent to continue hating Bush because he "stole" the election from Mr. Global Warming/Global Cooling) to see the reality behind the world situation.

[TallTexan]

As far as the education of our children, there is a answer to the school problems. It is called discipline. It is kind of like the rules the '' cooler'' said in the movie Roadhouse. If the student gets rowdy, tell them to stop, but be nice. If they refuse to stop, take them outside, but be nice. They are told that if they agree to be nice they can come back. If they come back and are not nice, they are out for the year. They can come back next ear if their parent/parents bring them to school and both agree to the terms of being in school. There are also terms that must be adheared to regarding their studies. If they start failing, they will go to school on Saturdays or after school. Money may help but without discipline, you might as well burn it . I know this works because I am 60 years old and that is how schools were when I went. The other good thing was when I got in trouble in school, it got worse when I got home. We are destroying the black community by treating them with kid gloves because of a fear of being called racists. Take a look at the inner city schools and the projects that hold all the welfare folks. After 40 years of doing it the way we are doing it now, it is worse than ever. Time to do it like the military. Any one here who was in the military will tell you the terror they felt the first day of boot camp. After the recruiter telling you the tale of being able to see the world, you now see that you must go through hell to get there. When I came home on leave the first time, my Dad was amazed to see a man walk in where a boy once stood. He was not used to me saying '' yes sir'' everytime he asked me something. It changed me for life. The one confusing thing about all this, even after going through hell, I was so proud to have done it and would not change one thing.
Discipline and self pride. If it works for the military it can work in our schools. May have to cut back on calling the kids a '' no good piece of crap, low life, scum of the earth '' like the drill instructor did though.

[nytitan1]

Sad part is that the same people that are crying now over iraq wouldve been the same people to cry if we did do a premptive strike against afghanistan they would always find some reason why we should have done it this way or that.
Look saddam had to be dealt with and yes i do feel we should have gotten obama i mean osama first. But everyone knows that saddam for sure wanted to make his mark on this world in a bad way. He had to be taken out because sooner or later we would have heard from him.
Could you imagine the outcry if bush bombed afghanistan to thwart 9/11 my god what did he do he is satan if clinton had any balls he would have taken care of this a long time agowhen he had the chance. Boy has this gotten off topic lol.

[gr8titan]

Another historical perspective to consider: Although previous intelligence has proven Osama Bin Laden is intent in "hurting America", Bill Clinton refused OBL when he was offered and released by the Sudanese government in 1996. In a Feb 15, 2002 (after 9-11) speech before the Long Island Association, Bill Clinton's appearance was videotaped and here is an audio excerpt of that speech from the horses' mouth himself:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a2d_1188913575

Note: To this day, the Clinton's neither deny or refute the authenticity of this tape.
Will Hillary's approach to terrorism be similar or will it be worse?
Or what would Mr Barrack Hussein Obama do if he was elected president?

[BLBJBranch]

Originally Posted by gr8titan

Another historical perspective to consider: Although previous intelligence has proven Osama Bin Laden is intent in "hurting America", Bill Clinton refused OBL when he was offered and released by the Sudanese government in 1996. In a Feb 15, 2002 (after 9-11) speech before the Long Island Association, Bill Clinton's appearance was videotaped and here is an audio excerpt of that speech from the horses' mouth himself:

Note: To this day, the Clinton's neither deny or refute the authenticity of this tape.
Will Hillary's approach to terrorism be similar or will it be worse?

Herein lies the difference between liberal and conservative approaches: liberals are so intent on upholding their perception of the rule of law that they treat everything with diplomacy and law enforcement legality. As long as AQ stayed just outside breaking the law, they knew there'd be no repurcussions.

With our current administration (which I voted for twice, and would again!!!), AQ got a huge facial they didn't expect. It caught them off guard and they had to change tactics. Now they're having to try and wait us out.

I fear that if a liberal gets elected as President, then AQ will attack us again. They will push the envelope to test the resolve of our new administration. Unfortunately, a liberal government will then have to make a decision: retailiate and risk losing liberal support for 2012, or turn the other cheek in order to hold on to their base. My guess is that they'll revert to Clinton tactics to hold on to their base. The things they're doing and saying now proves they're more interested in holding onto power, regardless of the consequences.

I'm not trying to fear monger, I just truly believe that this is what's in store for us come January 2009 if we elect a Dem.

[gr8titan]

ABC News had this report a while back about the relationship between Osama Bin Laden and Iraq. Historically, Saddam Hussein offered Iraq as a safe haven to Carlos the Jackal, Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas, who were well known notorious terrorists of their times. For what it's worth, ABC, the reporting news agency is a liberal organization.
Here's the link:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=9f9_1189985144

A lot of people conveniently push back all these information to forgotten past but recorded history has a very long memory and accurate recollection. What does Barrack Hussein Obama think about this relationship?

[chunko]

Originally Posted by Tiwaz

Didn't have the ability to reach us how? So, a bunch of cave dwellers in Afghanistan had the ability to reach us and kill ovr 3000 of our people but, an extremely well connected and financed terroristic State dictator does not? How is this logical?

Everybody knows the best way to fight terrorism is large scale invasion and occupancy of middle eastern countries.

Wait...

[chunko]

Gr8Titan... All would agree that Clinton dropped the ball with Bin Laden. He f*cked up by not making him a priority...and some of the stories I've heard about him not taking Osama on a silver platter make me really, really, really pissed.

But...just as not taking action was costly, so is the war in Iraq. I think we've lost more soldiers over there than all the terrorist attacks you mention, including 9/11....and it's cost us way more money too. However, the point about no attacks since 9/11 is true...although I'm not convinced that it is because we invaded IRAQ. We could have stayed the course in Afghanistan, caught Osama, and made an example of him. Instead...we have Iraq.

Clinton was wrong for not taking enough action. Bush was wrong not for taking action, but for getting us into Iraq and losing sight of our goal. Maybe the next president will get it right? I hope so.