What's YOUR Overriding Political Issue in the Next Election?

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

nimh wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

If, in practice, it is unlikely that a law abiding immigrant from Germany will not be detained as an enemy combatant in some pen in Cuba, than the Law is pretty effective.

A telling slip of the tongue?

Huh?

I realize that I run the risk of revealing the low grade of my intelligence by not understanding the wry commentary of Nimh, but then I don't think that Nimh's observations and opinions are one quarter of the quality he and his syncophants believe them to be.

I think he was referring to the double negative. I didn't see it at first read either.

nimh and dys, There has always been democrats voting with republicans that in my opinion has not helped our soldiers in Iraq.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

nimh wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

If, in practice, it is unlikely that a law abiding immigrant from Germany will not be detained as an enemy combatant in some pen in Cuba, than the Law is pretty effective.

A telling slip of the tongue?

Huh?

I realize that I run the risk of revealing the low grade of my intelligence by not understanding the wry commentary of Nimh, but then I don't think that Nimh's observations and opinions are one quarter of the quality he and his syncophants believe them to be.

I think he was referring to the double negative. I didn't see it at first read either.

The American "people" don't include a bunch of left wingnuts from the bay area - deal with it. The problem is, the stupid people change their votes all the time. Swing voters are idiots - they don't understand.

We need to kill islamic militants - as fast as possible. We need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil by drilling in ANWAR. We need to stand up for all those who fought and died for us. But some just want to give it all away...

America doesn't want to be second class. We don't want to buckle under after all our hard work. We don't want to be a bunch of pacifist pussies... Sad....like c.i... who thinks that is what America is about.... It ain't dude... take it from someone who built nukes... your little $1.5M house in Cupertino would be worth about $2 in your homeland... Buck up and smell the roses.

Finn wrote:

Quote:

You need not do any research. Of course this is the case. However how did Leadbelly, Muddy Waters, Robert Johnson, Howlin Wolf, et al achieve their musical prominence? It certainly wasn't on the basis of public funding.

Yes, and they all achieved their musical prominence in a different time, when there weren't all the distractions (especially negative ones) available for young people that there are now. In the case of musicians like these, the music chose them, they didn't choose the music- it was something they were compelled to spend their lives doing. I recognize that, and I recognize that those types of talents are surely the exception rather than the rule- that's not at issue in my mind.

No negative distractions? How about the lynching of their cousins or fathers? The music chose them? Poetic I suppose, but actually nonsense. Each and everyone of these individuals made an absolutely concious decision and application of remarkable will to choose music.

Quote:

True enough, but the motivation wil very rarely be a 4th grade music teacher.

The motivation is the music and to belong to something and to have something that belongs to you. That's what a lot of these kids don't have and never experience. Why not try to help them do that?

I'm all for helping them, but I don't think throwing money at the issue will be of much help and it will certainly hurt those of us that have to provide the cash.

Quote:

Yes, being a member of the school band is a good thing. It is much better than being a member of the school gangs. More money, however, will not advance this dynamic. Better music teachers may, but not more money. There are a rare few schools where someone interested in playing in the school band cannot because of money. School band members do not need anywhere near the money spent on school atheletics. I won't argue that too much money is being spent on school atheletics, but it doesn't follow that some of this money diverted to music would make a difference.

I never said a word against funding sports. That was an implication that Miller made. I believe sports in schools save lives too- for the same reasons I put forth as per music.

Quote:

If there is an American High School out there that spends so much on sports that they cannot afford renting an instrument for a poor kid who wants to play, I am with you my brother!.

Then you're with me- because they aren't few and far between. I guess if a kid shows unusual talent, the people in the know might launch a campaign to provide that kid with an instrument. But how many kids never get to realize they have a talent because of lack of access in the first place?

Nonsense. This is no longer a nation where the "poor" are ignored. If a school has a band, I guarantee you they have a program to provide intruments to those that cannot afford them. It may make you feel like a crusader to argue that this isn't the case and should be, but reality is that it is in the vast majority of our schools. If there is anywhere in America where the "poor" receive focused attention it is in our public school systems. Whether or not this a good thing it is reality.

Quote:

You have a foolish regard for the spending of money.

Actually, I'm a very frugal person. I'm more interested in the attitudes represented by how money is spent than the money itself. But yeah, if there's a fund of money and it could go for this or that- and we've been spending it on this and it aint working- I say let's try spending it on that...I think that's just common sense.

Quote:

The world and the nation will NEVER make policy decision based on twenty people, young or old. To suggest that they might or should reveals a hardcore naievity that is only too common.

I think it would be more like twenty or twenty-five kids PER school system, myself. But whatever- you're probably right- or at least most people would probably agree with you. That's why things will probably never change all that much.

In some important ways, a powerful central government is more important than ever. For instance, the biggest threat to our country now is terrorism. Also, we are getting dangerous food and other products from abroad. Drug manufacturers are more than willing to peddle dangerous products (e.g., Celebrex) to the public. Children in SC and other states who score well in state tests would flunk in, say, Massachusetts. Only a strong central government can take on these and other important problems.

State and local governments are rife with corruption, maladministration, and waste, much more so than the federal government despite the lurid publicity involving Abramoff, et al.

BTW, Thompson is building a platform on a small federal government.

Advocate, Only some things should be the responsibility of the federal government such as security, infrastructure, health and safety, military, and fraud prevention.

There is a place for federal power (foreign affairs and the military to name two places) but if government is to intrude upon our lives (yours and mine), the closer it is to the influence of our individual votes the better.

The logical, and actual, extension of Liberal elitism is to not only scorn local government but to bypass the feds and seek an advancement of their ideals through the courts.

Bush ain't no conservative.