CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
As the only president to actually conspire and carry out an attack on his own countrymen for wealth and power I would say he has to be the worst president ever.
The only lie you can point to is a common known mistake people make where they remember stuff that they didn't actually see. Those aren't lies, those are mistakes.
Offer evidence that can be substantiated. I tried but could not find any. Just research the truth movement. Then research 9-11 myths debunked you will find that the truth movement is full of overwhelming evidence and fact where as the debunked groups have nothing. You can believe the truth or the propaganda but at least research it as I did. I use to be like you and I tried to argue the other side of this debate and it was IMPOSSIBLE, not just difficult
Wait...I'm a little confused by the terms you are using.
When you say "research 9-11 myths debunked you will find that the truth movement is full of overwhelming evidence".
So when you say the "truth movement", are you referring to the conspiracy theorists who made claims like "Jet fuel can't melt steel beams"? Or are you referring to the conspiracy group as the bunked movement and the others as the truth movement?
I'm lost as to which is the propaganda and which isn't.
Sorry for the confusion "The Truth Movement" is a group of 2500 engineers, architects, scientists and demolition experts that have produced some documentaries about the events of 911. They prove that the NIST report is completely untrue and that what happened on 911 was not the propaganda that the government and major media gave to the general public.
My point is that once enlightened to the realities of physics vs the story the public was given it is impossible to find alternate info to debunk the conspiracy theory
I have researched it. The only thing you have is people saying that the damage done that day looks like something else they have seen before. The problem with that is that no one has seen what it looks like when planes hit a building causing a collapse. You can't rule out a possibility unless you know what the possibility will look like. The other problem is that no one has any evidence of the actual cover up that would have happened. No tangible evidence of the communication that would have been involved with a conspiracy.
The scariest aspect of 9/11 truther conspiracies is that there actually exists a decent number of people that think our government is currently competent enough to pull something like that off.
South Park really did have the best "theory", however.
I think the scariest part is not that they think our government is competent, but why they think it. To think that the government is that competent, but wants to use that competence to wipe out other countries by faking a reason to go to war totally boggles my mind.
I love the idea that the government is responsible for the conspiracy theory. It did make sense since they would be presupposing they are competent.
I could not possibly explain in full detail where that is a misconception and there is a large amount of proof to that the collapse that occurred is IMPOSSIBLE as a gravitational collapse. It is explained very thoroughly by a group of engineers, architects and demolition experts in the truth movement. I would challenge you to watch the full video then give a debunking argument
Like I already told you, those experts only know how to demolish things one way. It is like the old saying "to a carpenter, everything looks like a nail". Their proof is that the towers looked like a standard demolition, but they can't rule out a gravitational collapse because they haven't seen one.
What motive ? This argument seems very unrealistic. Like something you would read in an outlandish version of The National Enquirer. I am interested in your educated reason for believing this. Your post doesn't add any reason for your view
You think George Bush not being responsible for a terrorist attack on the country he was running is so unrealistic that only an uneducated person could believe it?
George Bush couldn't even properly speak English. The man was a bumbling incompetent mess. He didn't have 1/8 the mental capacity needed to orchestrate a false-flag operation, let alone one of that magnitude. On top of that, the government is full of incompetent idiots, as well as people who would just to take something like this to the press, be it under anonymity or not, to have their moment in the sun.
Our government is simply not set up in a way where this could feasibly have happened.
So on one side, you have the idea that our incompetent government was incompetent and messed up. On the other, you have that our incompetent government somehow decided to become far more competent than they just about ever have before just long enough to orchestrate a false-flag operation with incredibly little evidence left behind?
If you spend a little time researching you will find that Bush was not the brains behind the operation but it was with his approval that it was carried out. The people who planned and executed the operation were able to offer Bush hero status and untold riches which was no problem since there were truly trillions involved. There are a few documentaries on this subject but the one that I think put the best info together is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QU961SGps8g
Give it a watch some time you will find that it is very informative
If appeals to investigate were made, they were made within the agencies, as they were throughout the previous 8 years during the Clinton years: with whatever perceptions and professional divisions already in existence up till the time that GWB corrected it out of his response. 20/20 hindsight is always easy; anyone can connect the dots after the event.
GWBush implemented homeland security communication and cooperation within weeks of 9/11 in response to 9/11. Hearings recommended steps GWB had already put into place within weeks following 9/11. It's a shame Bill Clinton didn't think of it. He had some big ones, it should have been considered early enough to prevent 9/11.
Unfortunately it took 9/11 on GWB watch to identify the difficulties between the agencies. As commander and chief he addressed it immediately, like a strategic commander who takes his military position seriously. (just like his dad)
Of course I am not saying 9/11 was Clinton's fault.
But there were some contributing factors from GW Bush's predecessor, Clinton, which increased our exposure to terror attack, including 9/11.
Clinton implemented significant cut backs in military defense. His military cuts were a hot topic that upset most conservatives, but many Americans were in support of his military cut backs.
Clinton should not have downsized defense to the degree he did and his administration should have focused more on homeland security and intelligence. Clinton had several terror attacks throughout his time in office. There were missed warnings all 8 years of his office, including 9/11 warnings! His response was to assign these terror investigations to law enforcement.
Your claims would be more justified if it wasn't for the fact that Bush was warned before 9/11. His regime had plenty of time to prepare and had sufficient warning. To try to put even partial blame on Clinton when Bush had ample time to prepare seems a little strange, considering.
Please provide facts that show GWB ignored warnings. Warnings that if listened to within their own limited context and if "NOT IGNORED" would have prevented 9/11.
Final Report released
Thursday, July 22, 2004
There wasn’t any smoking guns against Bush of missed warnings to look into suspects involved prior to 9/11 within the 9 months in office said to have been ignored is hearsay.
If appeals to investigate were made, they were made within the agencies, as they were throughout the previous 8 years during the Clinton years: with whatever perceptions and professional divisions already in existence up till the time that GWB corrected it out of his response. 20/20 hindsight is always easy; anyone can connect the dots after the event.
GWBush implemented homeland security communication and cooperation within weeks of 9/11 in response to 9/11
Hearings recommended steps GWB had already put into place within weeks following 9/11. It's a shame Bill Clinton didn't think of it. He had some big ones, it should have been considered early enough to prevent 9/11.
Unfortunately it took 9/11 on GWB watch to identify the difficulties between the agencies. As commander and chief he addressed it immediately, like a strategic commander who takes his military position seriously. (just like his dad)
Of course I am not saying 9/11 was Clinton's fault.
But there were some contributing factors from GW Bush's predecessor, Clinton, which increased our exposure to terror attack, including 9/11.
Clinton implemented significant cut backs in military defense. His military cuts were a hot topic that upset most conservatives, but many Americans were in support of his military cut backs.
Clinton should not have downsized defense to the degree he did and his administration should have focused more on homeland security and intelligence. Clinton had several terror attacks throughout his time in office. There were missed warnings all 8 years of his office, including 9/11 warnings! His response was to assign these terror investigations to law enforcement.
Terrorism was not a priority agenda for his Clinton. There are reports that Clinton ignored Intelligence and it was ignored by his administration, as in (con's) link re: GWB ignores warnings about 9/11
Clinton experienced first hand the disconnected information that made it very difficult to connect the dots. His Intelligence Agencies such as law enforcement and FBI were not working together with information and intelligence.
An attack the magnitude of 9/11 took years to plan and coordinate. Like Bill Clinton, George W B also experienced missed warnings from disconnected information between the Intelligence Agencies and Law enforcement. But GWBush identified the week links between the agencies, and within 2 weeks following 9/11 GWBush formed a new cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security, that is credited for hindering terror attacks since 9/11.
1st I’ll define terrorism in this context. Coordinated attacks against America from a large group of like minded people that would be detected in ways of “chatter” alerting Home Land Security. So terrorism is eliminating and excluding, independent action, crazy nervous breakdowns, Bonnie and Clyde Snipers. So only coordinated attacks considered, we were the safest for 8 years strait than ever.
Here are a links showing domestic terror attacks for the of Clinton GWBush and Obama
The 1st since the 9/11 terror attack that was possibly linked to coordinated terrorism was on June 1, 2009 - That was by admission of the perpetrator.
June 1, 2009
27 Apr 2014
1 Jun 2014
3 Dec 2015
All Attacks noted between 9/11/2001 up till June 1, 2009 where lone wolf or small groups not connected to terrorist organizations. The author notes each incident of the Beltway Snipers separately. And it doesn’t fall within criteria of domestic terror with qualities of coordination that would potentially be picked up by intelligence. Since independent small group acts operate as all other crime. These were domestic crimes, not terrorist attacks connected to organized terror like 9/11
I loved GWBush and his cabinet. They were the dream team! Even if his administration got a bad wrap. I think alot of that was hype and still is set loose from far left media and politicians like dog fight trainers who let the dogs out, like in the Obama strategy of race baiting that we see now.
That's a clever cover, except even the Republican establishment became estranged. The only ideological group that still clings to Bush Jr are neoconservatives (using the ideological definition, not some emotional one), and even then that's ignoring the Iraq debacle, how he messed up medicare, the diplomatic ramifications of his horrible demeanor, etc.
"Even the Republican establishment became estranged." Then maybe it's time to vote according to the person and their values. Instead of by their parties.
When the party nominations conclude and 2018 elections commence, we need to evaluate our candidates and support according to American values and responsibility preserve American Integrity.
Instead of voting based pro/against the multiplicity of factions that scream for entitlements, Let's vote for people who create a healthy social and economical environment that isn't selective of factions, but focuses on creating opportunities and invests in making those opportunities equal to all, without any emphasis on race or gender, or culture.
Then maybe it's time to vote according to the person and their values. Instead of by their parties.
They became estranged because of his values. Half a million deaths in collateral damage, driving up massive deficits, allowing the government to be extorted by the pharmaceutical industry, torture, massive abuse of executive powers, massive invasions of the privacy of private citizens, etc.
When the party nominations conclude and 2018 elections commence, we need to evaluate our candidates and support according to American values and responsibility preserve American Integrity.
There is no singular set of "American values", and "American Integrity" is clearly subjective.
Instead of voting based pro/against the multiplicity of factions that scream for entitlements, Let's vote for people who create a healthy social and economical environment that isn't selective of factions, but focuses on creating opportunities and invests in making those opportunities equal to all, without any emphasis on race or gender, or culture.
That is what everyone wants. Where people differ is on whether or not our society has equality of opportunity, which would allow that to happen without the programs you are decrying. The fact (objectively) is that we don't have equality of opportunity, which means that you can't just declare us all equal and say we will all be treated the same, "without any emphasis on race or gender, or culture".
So focus energy on equal education. The same opportunities to learn. Not free college. But, the ability to make it through college. There's FASFA grants etc. loans. A lot of successful people have student loans, and couldn't get grants.
I believe all schools from grade schools to high schools should be created equal.
And they should reach up for the child that excels, and also strengthen the child who doesn't.
Equal doesn't mean we all get an A, or a trophy.
It doesn't mean we hold excellence back the academic child, nor does it mean we leave the other child behind.
If a child excels in math and science take them further. And the child who's weaker in those subjects we make them as strong as we can.
Also, Provide vocational career choices, and send them there for high school, not this 1/2 day stuff, that pays the home school district, let the funds follow the child to the vocation school. It's better for the child. They can complete their academics while creating a skill and open up opportunities to work or add to that skill after high school. It's called opportunity. Some children have different interests or talents like Auto Tech or cosmetology and other career interests.
There are also places like Job Corps beyond high school that provide housing meals transportation and daily needs for a year term or even more for young adults 18 - 24. They will even tutor if needed, and help to get a GED if needed, they teach hands on drivers ed and even give you a credit I think like $1000 towards getting a car. They even include community college courses for careers like Nursing (if you qualify with grades etc) Fund that program more, instead of throwing a beer bottle at a cop, go do that!
Don't tear up law enforcement, in your own backyard, why make your streets less safe?
I feel like I'm in a high school cafeteria, when I watch the news. A fist fight must be the answer. It's behavior of immaturity. It hurts anyone's quest for equality. I don't care what color you are! It pits everyone against you, and the only acceptance is through fear and pressure. That's not equality.
Do you think opportunity in America is denied because of race? It's only denied or given by the person you are under the skin you wear.
The factions among us divide us, and the violence take away the credibility of your cause. When groups isolate and focus on just their select group of Americans, it takes them further and further away from their goals of equality. Unless, their goal really isn't equality.
If the angry focused on solutions, and on taking a positive active role in their communities, they would achieve equality wherever they go! No matter where they grew up, or what color their skin is. But most importantly, they need to look in the mirror and see themselves as equal.
Not greater than others, Not owed by society, Not entitled without effort, BUT EQUAL, Not less than others, Not indebted to the care of others, Not undeserving with effort, But just plain and simply equal.
Equal is the place in the middle. Because it's the = in the equation. It's the balance from one side to the other.
Opportunity finds you, but if it doesn't find you, then you have to find opportunity.
Simply put, your comment is a complete contradiction. You admit that our schools are unequal, yet you claim we have equality of opportunity. Those are mutually exclusive claims.
Additionally, I know that opportunities are denied based on race because countless studies have been done that show that with the exact same resume, people with Hispanic and "black" sounding names get hired disproportionately less.
Lastly, while you might think you sound benevolent, you really come off as arrogant and patronizing. This whole "poor people just aren't making the right choices" narrative is a large part of why the right in America is viewed as being so horrible for poor people. You are making massive assumptions from a place of pure ignorance and assuming that blanket assumptuous can apply to the nation. Did you know that most people on welfare are working full time? Don't you think they are looking for opportunities and taking the ones they can find?
To address your statement needing to give equal opportunies, although equal opportunity exist doesnt mean everyone knows it. Poverty isn't a black problem. AND poverty isn't a prison. Now if your in a hole and you keep digging, you'll be in a deeper hole. So cimb AND stop digging! Poverty isn't a prison, You can come and go as you please. It just takes a little drive!
There are alot of steps to climb to any goal. I don't care whk you are.
Life isn't fairly distributed, so bringing opportunities is the best we can achieve. Our families and life styles are different. But the opportunity to climb exist equally.
Regardless of our STARTING POINT in life, your life in AMERICA is still the book you write! In socialism you don't get to write your own book!
So here is a really big point, If you propose socialism, then what you are saying? You are saying I don't have, so no one can have.
Your not saying show me more opportunities, your saying I want someone elses success. I want that guys apple he climbed the tree to get.
Your saying "I don't care to be successful, i don't care about opporttunities! All I care about, is taking away someone elses success and taking away someone elses opportunitues. BECAUSE that is idea of equality!
You either have an environment that doesn't put a cap on your ability an ykur olportuniy. or you have a society of predetermined outcome.
What your saying is everyone should start at 0. Because we cant be diffdrent. You are the one who is intolerant. But you accuse others of intolerance.
Its wrong to take away someone elses opportunity because it didnt happen to fall in your lap!
Not every book succeeds. Not every song is a hit!
Life isnt fair but it is equal. We all equally loose loved ones, we all equally struggle, or get sick, or are widowed, or have a child that gets on drugs, or loose employment, car accidents. The day is unfair, and some of us get hit harder than the next guy. I feel like a punching bav sometimez. What doesnt kill hou, makes you stronger.
You can start on a mountain and fall off it, and you can start at the bottom of fhe mountain and climb to the top.
Ecomomics are not equal. Family nurturing is not equal, being an orphan is not equal, loosing your mom at a young age is not equal. Bad things happen and ots not fairly distributed equally. BUT Opportunity os equal.
1st off I never said there is no place for assistance. I know the difference between using a crutch when you need to and running a marathon when you don't. And most Americans believe there are times for a crutch.
I know both users and abusers.
People do not typically get hired by application, they get hired by interview. So a name on an application isn't rejected. The interview process is visual or by phone, but usually visual.
Now there may be some selective areas or people that are more prejudice. But as a whole we are not prejudice . Areas that have a large African American population are the least predjudice. And these are the areas that inflame racial issues the most!
I would say the amount of racial rejections are as equal as every predjuce, such as hiring someone obese, too short, too tall, other nationality, gay, not gay, or even just simply personality differences.
We all have preferences, not all preferences are prejudice.
If I am hiring for a position, I may hire on personality style. Some jobs I may reject an A type personality, some jobs I may reject an A type personality.
Race is not as big of an issue as it is made to be.
No-one wants to hire a person with a chip on their shoulder. The hiring process is to weed out job candidates as much as it is to select one.
The bitter race environment isn't helping equality excel, its making equality difficult to give and difficult to receive.
If you teach a child to expect equality, they just simply expect it and for the most part people accept people they can like as a person. And the occassion your not selected, doesnt keep you down.
But if you teach a child his doors are closed, and he must fight and demand equality, your producing a child to find a closed door he must kick open. And they may not get hired simply because the interviewer can feel something isn't right. And maybe he won't like working with this person.
Make race an issue, then it is one.
Equal opportunity still exist
Equal Education needs correction.
Success in school isn't always the way to success. A college education doesn't guarentee success, and not having a college degree doen't guarentee failure.
That being said, some career choices do require a degree of some kind. Like Physical Therapist or School Teacher and many more. While others can he mentored or available with vocational school.
Many schools here in PA offer tech schools as a choice for kids that have specific interest, or maybe those that don't enjoy academics.
Those career choices are also available in job corps, (which is not military) You have to be in the lower income range, and as I said before, they house the young adults, and provide all the transportation needed, enen to get to the program to begin with. All meals provided, dorm like rooms, they even have some limited facilities a single mom can bring their child with, with day care provided. So there are opportunities, if someone wants to leave the "neighborhood" and focus a year or 2 on a career path.
Also grants, many kids in lower incomes get significant grant money to further their education. I know because I have 3 daughters, 1 is a single mom, and my kids friends all come here.
Now Ill mention, we are not living high on a hog at all. So my prespective is fairly clear.
So, 1 dghter of mine has 2 "lower income family friends". 1 girl, an average student, received a grant that put her through 4 years of a good and expensive school in Vermont.
1 kid, we found job corps and talked him into going. He was trained for 12 months in heating and air and got a certification in it. And they also let him stay a 2nd year for electrical, and he had the ability to take some community college if he chose as well. Unfortunately, he didn't take them up on it. But it was his choice, opportunity was there!
Now he can at least apprentice with heat and air/plumbing co, and have a good paying career. And maybe even open his own business someday.
I wish he would have stayed to finish the electrical. But, taking opportunities is a choice.
Cause he could make great money in either fields, both could have opened up even more opportunites for him. By the way, he was a below average student.
But, still has opportunities.
So now, back to unequal education. Public Education is run at the state level. We live in PA, and we have local school districts. So they are funded locally.
I do want to see more prechool programs, full day kindergaten, and more basic enrichment programs for children who struggle or are in at risk environments. (Low income, or single family households, or any other identifiers they use for "at risk kids". I'd also want them to raise the bar on identifiers. They take the lower middle averages of all children as,a standard for early intervention. That needs to be brought up to high middle. And thats may be another debate in itself. Early readiness skills make a huge impact.
We had a big problem in Philadelphia, but improvement is on the rise since 2001, they had a state takeover. And tile 1 programs from "No Child Left Behind" That was a significant measure in education, GWB.
Charter schools came in and were flooded by interest. Charters are required to admit students by random lottery. Which left kids in substanrd schools. Philadelphia at the time, actually let Charters take over a portion of district schools. And Philadelphia also went to privatized contracting for schools. Making Education companies compete and bid for contracting. Which shows, when "just provided by government" Government doesn't deliver. But free market businesses will compete and give a better product. Also another group took a portion of the schools, Universities and nonprophets. Test scores doubled in the even in the bottom worst of the 80 (ish) schools that were taken over.
Its not conclusive which improved schools most between private managed or Charter Schools.
The 2 best improvemts came from district restructured schools - charter schools. Private run district paid. And private managemed schools.
The Charter dynamic draws in a lot of parental support and involvement. That model did best.
Parents have some part in their childs success, regardless of unequal education. Some will, some won't. Encouraging parental participation from early ages and involving the community. Community Schools are another method to improve schools by partnering with local businesses to provide services needed, is a win win making stronger communities, and encouraging parent partiation makes strong students.
Also, parents and teachers can form to propose new Charter schools (free public schools) in their locations. Specific to their needs or focus of specific students like math and science or arts
They can propose a charter in their states. And funding per child comes out of the home school district.
Then you also have the age of buildings factor. So in growing areas that were previously rural areas you have newer school buildings. Some areas have old buildings, like Philadelphia.
Those buildings also have been improved over the last 10 years.
To address your statement needing to give equal opportunies, although equal opportunity exist doesnt mean everyone knows it. Poverty isn't a black problem. AND poverty isn't a prison. Now if your in a hole and you keep digging, you'll be in a deeper hole. So cimb AND stop digging! Poverty isn't a prison, You can come and go as you please. It just takes a little drive!
More condescension. Social mobility in this country is horrible amongst first world countries, and it is worst amongst African Americans. That means that while poverty isn't an inherently black problem, it is more of a problem for black Americans than most, and it is more of a prison for them than most.
Life isn't fairly distributed, so bringing opportunities is the best we can achieve. Our families and life styles are different. But the opportunity to climb exist equally.
It can't exist equally if the opportunities are not equal. I am not sure you know what equality of opportunity is because you keep contradicting yourself.
Regardless of our STARTING POINT in life, your life in AMERICA is still the book you write! In socialism you don't get to write your own book!
Utterly irrelevant to the point being made. We are discussing whether or not everyone's start point is the same, not whether or not private property exists.
So here is a really big point, If you propose socialism, then what you are saying? You are saying I don't have, so no one can have.
Red herring; I never proposed socialism.
Your not saying show me more opportunities, your saying I want someone elses success. I want that guys apple he climbed the tree to get.
I never called for equality of opportunity, so please try to stay on topic.
Your saying "I don't care to be successful, i don't care about opporttunities! All I care about, is taking away someone elses success and taking away someone elses opportunitues. BECAUSE that is idea of equality!
You either have an environment that doesn't put a cap on your ability an ykur olportuniy. or you have a society of predetermined outcome.
What your saying is everyone should start at 0. Because we cant be diffdrent. You are the one who is intolerant. But you accuse others of intolerance.
This is complete nonsense. I didn't even accuse you of being intolerant, I'm not calling for equality of outcome, and I don't think we can all start at 0. Seriously, where the hell are you getting this from?
ot every book succeeds. Not every song is a hit!
Life isnt fair but it is equal. We all equally loose loved ones, we all equally struggle, or get sick, or are widowed, or have a child that gets on drugs, or loose employment, car accidents. The day is unfair, and some of us get hit harder than the next guy. I feel like a punching bav sometimez. What doesnt kill hou, makes you stronger.
Jesus Christ: again, I'm not calling for equality of outcome. Do you not understand the difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome? If not, you should not be using political science terms that have very specific meanings.
You can start on a mountain and fall off it, and you can start at the bottom of fhe mountain and climb to the top.
Ecomomics are not equal. Family nurturing is not equal, being an orphan is not equal, loosing your mom at a young age is not equal. Bad things happen and ots not fairly distributed equally. BUT Opportunity os equal.
Except as I pointed out, you have already demonstrated that it can't be equal in this country, as things such as education is not equal. Again, I do not believe you know what the term "equality of opportunity" means in political science.
1st off I never said there is no place for assistance. I know the difference between using a crutch when you need to and running a marathon when you don't. And most Americans believe there are times for a crutch.
...What? I never claimed or insinuated that you believe there is no place for assistance.
People do not typically get hired by application, they get hired by interview. So a name on an application isn't rejected. The interview process is visual or by phone, but usually visual.
Sorry, but that is a terrible argument. People with "ethnic" sounding names get disproportionately lower call backs, which means they get hired disproportionately less. You are attempting a semantic game.
Now there may be some selective areas or people that are more prejudice. But as a whole we are not prejudice . Areas that have a large African American population are the least predjudice. And these are the areas that inflame racial issues the most!
And what basis do you have for these statements, exactly?
I would say the amount of racial rejections are as equal as every predjuce, such as hiring someone obese, too short, too tall, other nationality, gay, not gay, or even just simply personality differences.
And what studies would you base that on?
We all have preferences, not all preferences are prejudice.
If I am hiring for a position, I may hire on personality style. Some jobs I may reject an A type personality, some jobs I may reject an A type personality.
Race is not as big of an issue as it is made to be.
The bitter race environment isn't helping equality excel, its making equality difficult to give and difficult to receive.
Yes, as my two links just demonstrated.
But if you teach a child his doors are closed, and he must fight and demand equality, your producing a child to find a closed door he must kick open. And they may not get hired simply because the interviewer can feel something isn't right. And maybe he won't like working with this person.
Make race an issue, then it is one.
Equal opportunity still exist
I just demonstrated that race is in fact an issue, and again, I'm not calling for equality of outcome.
Equal opportunity still exist
Equal Education needs correction.
No it doesn't, and you just said part of the reason why that is.
Success in school isn't always ... to But, still has opportunities..
Pointing out that some opportunities exist doesn't demonstrate that equality of opportunity exists. Would you like me to provide you with reading on the political science definition of opportunity of equality so that you can actually know what the terminology you use means?
So now, back to unequal education. Public Education is run at the state level. We live in PA, and we have local school districts. So they are funded locally.
I do want to see more prechool programs, full day kindergaten, and more basic enrichment programs for children who struggle or are in at risk environments. (Low income, or single family households, or any other identifiers they use for "at risk kids". I'd also want them to raise the bar on identifiers. They take the lower middle averages of all children as,a standard for early intervention. That needs to be brought up to high middle. And thats may be another debate in itself. Early readiness skills make a huge impact.
We had a big problem in Philadelphia, but improvement is on the rise since 2001, they had a state takeover. And tile 1 programs from "No Child Left Behind" That was a significant measure in education, GWB.
No Child Left Behind is a failure. Additionally, as I have pointed out multiple times, the fact that there are problems with education that are nationally consistent, which you yourself have pointed out, demonstrates that equality of opportunity doesn't exist. By your own points and arguments you prove that it doesn't exist.
Charter schools came in and were flooded by interest. Charters are required to admit students by random lottery. Which left kids in substanrd schools. Philadelphia at the time, actually let Charters take over a portion of district schools. And Philadelphia also went to privatized contracting for schools. Making Education companies compete and bid for contracting. Which shows, when "just provided by government" Government doesn't deliver. But free market businesses will compete and give a better product. Also another group took a portion of the schools, Universities and nonprophets. Test scores doubled in the even in the bottom worst of the 80 (ish) schools that were taken over.
To address your statement "needing to give equal opportunities, although equal opportunities exist,"
It does exist and these programs are also opportunities. What do you think opportunity looks like?
Poverty isn't a black problem. AND poverty isn't a prison. Now if you’re in a hole and you keep digging, you'll be in a deeper hole. So climb AND stop digging! Poverty isn't a prison; you can come and go as you please. It just takes a little drive!
“More condescension. Social mobility in this country is horrible among first world countries, and it is worst among African Americans. That means that while poverty isn't an inherently black problem, it is more of a problem for black Americans than most, and it is more of a prison for them than most.”
Actually, that’s not true. Poverty isn’t selective of race. And coming out of it is equally difficult regardless of race.
Do you have some proof other than assumption, that its harder fro blacks in poverty than whites in poverty to get out. Or that it’s more of a prison to one than the other? Or is that a random assumption, based simply on what you Think or Feel must be true? Actually a strong argument can be made for the opposite. With Racial Quotas
People are not in poverty because they are black, and they are not excluded from poverty because they are white. So being black in poverty has no bearing against being white in poverty. We want to fix poverty.
We don’t preselect WHO we fix poverty for, Do we?
While poverty is a difficult climb, many successful people made that same climb. It’s a plan and determination and a work ethic. If anything poverty isn’t the prison, entitlement is the prison.
You either choose to plan, or not to plan. And, if your parents chose not to plan, but still nurtured success, you have a greater chance of making your climb to success. If your parents chose not to plan, and did NOT nurture success, than your climb to success will be more difficult. But still, not impossible. Why? Not because both have different resources to use in their climb, but because of the attitudes pertaining to the climb, and the work ethic to use of those same resources for your climb.
And even if you don’t reach the goal in your climb, as the saying goes, “reach for the moon, if you miss you’ll hit a star.” This is success, and needs to be put in perspective. Most of us reach some acceptable version of our ambitions or goals. So if you set out to own a bank, but fall short to work as a manager of a bank, then you may have achieved huge leaps toward your goal.
BUT, it’s self defeating to infuse entitlement or anything else that doesn’t point the direction to achieving personal goal, and undermines the work ethics needed to make the needed climb.
Do you think if it’s given, we still value it? Look at wealth handed down without parental accountability and teaching work ethics. That also is a form of entitlement! But it’s their parent’s rights to raise a child with bad attitudes too, and leave inheritance to someone who feels “entitled”
And it’s NOT our right, and never should be, to take their inheritance away. (And they are heavily taxed, which is a type of redistribution of wealth, so to speak) But the result is similar of both extremes of entitlement. See the example in the story “The Prodigal Son” from the Bible.
It’s also self defeating to the privileged to infuse entitlement or anything else that doesn’t point the direction to achieving personal goals, and undermines the work ethics needed to make the needed climb. In their case wealth doesn’t achieve satisfaction either. They are usually the most miserable people there are. Entitlement makes the entitled miserable and they rarely go beyond their entitlement in their personal lives.
For Blame or Credit, you can look to generational attitudes for the differences between one who has never climbed out, and those who have climbed out, and then passed on to their children inheritance, along with the same work ethics as role models to use for their own personal climb, and their own “pursuit of happiness.”
See the movie – “Pursuit of Happiness” with Will Smith, a biography of a struggling Black man (whose mom was a life time welfare recipient) through adversity and homelessness, the climb of single dad venturing into a predominately white financial business, with a preschooler to care for, and in “hopeless poverty” in a poor area of San Francisco.
Simply redistributing wealth doesn’t change anything for anyone.
If you are conditioned to abhor success and success is seen as unfair, you will not strive for success you abhor. Attitudes need to change about success, or it won’t be achieved or reached for.
Crippling a struggling society with attitudes of entitlement and the idea of unfair “distribution” of wealth is an ANTITHESIS to reaching for personal growth and success.
Where as developing strong work ethics, goes hand in hand with a successful climb out of poverty.
We see this experiment play out all the time! So we actually have a model that shows the depravity of entitlement on every side and class of entitlement, Without good work ethic, and achievement of a personal climb, the entitled in poverty look similar to the entitled wealthy, or even the entitled middle class. Entitlement is contemptuous.
The beauty of America in reality is we don’t have 2 societies, The Peasants and The Wealthy. Regardless of “how it feels,” and trust me many know what it “feels like.” If we did, revolution is warranted. If you live in a society that divides lines by birth class The Lords and Ladies and The Peasants, the class cross over is only possible through extreme measures, if at all. That IS hopelessness.
BUT, that’s not OUR American dynamic. We have immigrants come to America today disadvantaged by heavy accents, and even skin color, which grew up in poverty as hopeless Peasants, NOT of the Lords and Ladies. They come here to America, sacrifice to change their destinies of poverty. Yet they succeed.
Why and How? America is the land of opportunity AND they chose to break their inherited cycle of poverty, and employed a work ethics to do so.
The following excerpt is from a Speech from Booker T Washington
“To those of my race who depend on bettering their condition in a foreign land or who underestimate the importance of cultivating friendly relations with the Southern white man, who is their next-door neighbor, I would say: "Cast down your bucket where you are" -- cast it down in making friends in every manly way of the people of all races by whom we are surrounded. Cast it down in agriculture, mechanics, in commerce, in domestic service, and in the professions. And in this connection it is well to bear in mind that whatever other sins the South may be called to bear, when it comes to business, pure and simple, it is in the South that the Negro is given a man's chance in the commercial world, and in nothing is this Exposition more eloquent than in emphasizing this chance.
Our greatest danger is that in the great leap from slavery to freedom we may overlook the fact that the masses of us are to live by the productions of our hands, and fail to keep in mind that we shall prosper in proportion as we learn to dignify and glorify common labor, and put brains and skill into the common occupations of life; shall prosper in proportion as we learn to draw the line between the superficial and the substantial, the ornamental gewgaws of life and the useful. No race can prosper till it learns that there is as much dignity in tilling a field as in writing a poem. It is at the bottom of life we must begin, and not at the top. Nor should we permit our grievances to overshadow our opportunities.”
Life isn't fairly distributed, so bringing them intervention is the best we can achieve.
Our families and life styles are different. But the opportunities to climb still and will always exist equally.
It can't exist equally if the opportunities are not equal. I am not sure you know what equality of opportunity is because you keep contradicting yourself.
I’m not sure you understand what equal opportunity isn’t!
There isn’t a contradiction. The Pursuit of Happiness is an example. Life certainly wasn’t fair to him, but opportunity treated him equally. He wasn’t denied opportunity when he found the right vehicle for his personal climb to success.
I guess the part you don’t seem to understand is opportunity doesn’t fall on anyone’s doorstep even if you are in a better area in life. Every opportunity taken is an opportunity found by seeking it, and taking the road, than by working to achieve it.
I guess you think it’s handed out, but its not. Many people are denied opportunities. Because equal opportunity goes both ways, it is equally accessible, and it equally disappoints. That story applies to everyone who struggles.
I gave you plenty of examples of opportunities accessible to low income families to climb to a better place, but somehow you think the door would more likely be closed to the black poor than the white poor.
Also, social economic status contributes to learning ability. The only way you can address it is externally, meaning outside his family unit. Now I realize many mothers in low income homes work, but also many do not. Now I absolutely believe in these programs.
These are opportunities to educate children earlier in homes who depending on their mothers values, may never be read a book! So Head Start, Pre K Counts, and other Intermediate programs and other day care subsidies that is available to the lower income families. Whereas, a middle class single mom may struggle to pay bills to get by, but then also has to teach those skills at home after a work day. It’s on her, if she’s tires her kid falls behind. She is penalized for not being lower income, and doesn’t have relief and support she needs. So she has a double duty. And it’s HARD. And, which child has the preschool advantage available here?
The preschool years are extremely important! It’s the most valuable time for learning and can prepare the stage to build future skills. And I think they should give it even more. “It takes a village to raise a child” And I also think they should broaden income limits, to make sure children in lower middle class also have those services available if needed.
I think focus on solutions, community involvement, involving parents, and other positive approaches are a long term solutions, and a means to accomplish goals to move more out of poverty. Movements against everything that someone wants to term as “White Supremacist” and violence, and exclusivity of groups like “Black Lives Matter” and “Wars Against Police Officers” these types of actions and protests are long term damaging. They stain progress; negative action even if for a good cause will always set back any strides taken in solving social ills.
Everyone struggles, life is hard. While a black person may struggle because of his skin color, another could struggle for obesity, or from a Southern accent in a Northern area or visa versa. Everyone has struggles both within and without. Struggle and pain and obstacles are NOT exclusively a black problem nor are they exclusively a low income problem. No problem is bigger than another if its an obstacle to an “equal opportunity for success.”
Regardless of our STARTING POINT in life, your life in AMERICA is still the book you write! In socialism you don't get to write your own book!
Utterly irrelevant to the point being made. We are discussing whether or not everyone's start point is the same, not whether or not private property exists.
I’m not sure what you are saying here; I didn’t say anything about property. Starting point is where you begin in life. Writing your own book is deciding where you want to go and designing a plan to get there. And Socialism is creating a system where equality is defined by equalization of value across a society, missing the element of “the climb” it’s not based on different value applied to effort, and the varying degrees put on skill or education or idea, and it is also rewarded regardless of any effort.
So here is a really big point, if you propose socialism, then what you are saying? You are saying I don't have, so no one can have.
Red herring; I never proposed socialism.
Good glad to here that, because it sounded like you wanted the government to take an active role to take the excess on one side and put it on the other side in poverty. And that’s just an assault on someone’s rights. And it’s unfair. Life is unfair, but we shouldn’t be unfair.
Your not saying “show me more opportunities, you’re saying I want someone else’s success. I want that guy’s apple he climbed the tree to get.”
I never called for equality of opportunity, so please try to stay on topic.
Below your responses indicated that “American Values are Subjective,” Everything I said pertaining to the climb, equal opportunities, community, putting race away, and highlights of programs readily available for low income families that wants to change their place in life. Are part of American Values, and it sounded to me in your comments that there was no equal opportunity.
“That is what everyone wants. Where people differ is on whether or not our society has equality of opportunity, which would allow that to happen without the programs you are decrying”
So is it an absence of equal opportunity that a mother doesn’t invest in her child’s future by teaching skills in the basic level at home.
We are a land that Equal Opportunity means No opportunity is denied on basis of race, gender etc. But factors can put obstacles in the way, But it’s not because they don’t exist.
And if a child is unprepared for school and school is low performing. The pre school programs I mentioned are a solution; title one support is a solution. But one difference between one are to another is a parent. And their view of their child and/or their view of education.
I home schooled one of mine for 4 years. So it didn’t matter if school even existed or was horrible.
I would have taught my kid those skills ANYWAY!
And I worked outside the home. But I understood, i had a personal interest in MY CHILDS success.
But we can’t reach in someone else’s home and change that for a child; you can only provide services to try to catch them up. And they don’t always tap into services provided either. Now add school district is struggling financially with the bulk its children unprepared to learn.
Is the difference between them always that government didn’t prepare them? GWB administration recognized the underlying difficulties GWB saw it as a problem and the 1st lady Laura Bush pushed also for stronger education to support these kids.
It’s a social problem that many Republicans take very seriously and aggressively. We are very much about teaching someone to fish and they will never be hungry. So the focus isn’t on a handout lifestyle. It’s about creating solutions to better everyone’s quality of life.
When the party nominations conclude and 2018 elections commence, we need to evaluate our candidates and support according to American values and responsibility preserve American Integrity.
There is no singular set of "American values", and "American Integrity" is clearly subjective.
Define American values; you may be assuming religious values,
Define American values as work ethics, equality, Tolerance, Equality, The Bill of Rights, and The Constitution
Instead of voting based pro/against the multiplicity of factions that scream for entitlements, Let's vote for people who create a healthy social and economical environment that isn't selective of factions, but focuses on creating opportunities and invests in making those opportunities equal to all, without any emphasis on race or gender, or culture.
That is what everyone wants. Where people differ is on whether or not our society has equality of opportunity, which would allow that to happen without the programs you are decrying. The fact (objectively) is that we don't have equality of opportunity, which means that you can't just declare us all equal and say we will all be treated the same, "without any emphasis on race or gender, or culture".
You’re saying "I don't care to be successful, I don't care about opportunities! All I care about is taking away someone else’s success and taking away someone else’s opportunities. BECAUSE that is idea of equality!
You either have an environment that doesn't put a cap on your ability and your opportunity. Or you have a society of predetermined outcome.
What you’re saying is everyone should start at 0, because we can’t be different. You are the one who is intolerant. But you accuse others of intolerance.
This is complete nonsense. I didn't even accuse you of being intolerant, I'm not calling for equality of outcome, and I don't think we can all start at 0. Seriously, where the hell are you getting this from?
ot every book succeeds. Not every song is a hit!
Then what do you want to see for these issues, since you brought them up, that’s not being implemented now?
Life isn’t fair but it is equal. We all equally loose loved ones, we all equally struggle, or get sick, or are widowed, or have a child that gets on drugs, or loose employment, car accidents. The day is unfair, and some of us get hit harder than the next guy. I feel like a punching bag sometimes. What doesn't kill you makes you stronger.
Jesus Christ: again, I'm not calling for equality of outcome. Do you not understand the difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome? If not, you should not be using political science terms that have very specific meanings.
But you are stating equal opportunity doesn’t exist, and if it did, programs like I mentioned would not be needed.
And I am telling you they exist with or without the programs. But this group is not likely to pursue opportunities. Not because they don’t equally exist, but because they often lack nurturing and guidance from their own environment to pursue them.
So we put programs to bring them up. It’s not the fault of society that a child isn’t nurtured toward success.
That in many ways is a factor between a low performing school and a higher performing school, the attitude of parents in teaching their children. Not all, but there are many parents who don’t help their child succeed. Or there is abuse, or other factors at home. Those dynamics exist in every class, but there is a higher concentration of these dynamics in lower income families. And that does come down to choices to some degree.
There is some responsibility for choices. People don’t choose poverty, but people do choose if their teaching their child letters and numbers.
And we have supportive programs specific to these needs to bridge that gap. And improvements in schools are something we should continue to strive for, if not already, they need to be a focus.
You can start on a mountain and fall off it, and you can start at the bottom of the mountain and climb to the top.
Economics are not equal. Family nurturing is not equal, being an orphan is not equal, and loosing your mom at a young age is not equal. Bad things happen and ots not fairly distributed equally. BUT Opportunity is equal.
Except as I pointed out, you have already demonstrated that it can't be equal in this country, as things such as education is not equal. Again, I do not believe you know what the term "equality of opportunity" means in political science.
1st off I never said there is no place for assistance. I know the difference between using a crutch when you need to and running a marathon when you don't. And most Americans believe there are times for a crutch.
...What? I never claimed or insinuated that you believe there is no place for assistance.
You had an argument for working on welfare and the discussion below sounded like you were arguing their status of need based services. And I said a crutch at periods of time is understandable. “while looking for opportunities” And no I don’t believe a large portion of welfare recipients are looking for opportunities. And also, I’ll define opportunities. It sounds like you are relating the idea of opportunities to job opportunities.
I’m talking about access to career opportunities, training, and college funding etc. all these are equal opportunities that exist to help them to improve and eventually leave poverty.
Lastly, while you might think you sound benevolent, you really come off as arrogant and patronizing. This whole "poor people just aren't making the right choices" narrative is a large part of why the right in America is viewed as being so horrible for poor people. You are making massive assumptions from a place of pure ignorance and assuming that blanket assumptions can apply to the nation. Did you know that most people on welfare are working full time? Don't you think they are looking for opportunities and taking the ones they can find?
A Charter against a Suburban School may have different results. If the public school is already operating at high proficiency the Charter isn't going to make that much of a difference in performance.
Also some Carters take a specific approach designed around a tpe of learning or subject matter or art. They have all subjects as required.
Anyway its not apples to oranges when discussing struggling schools.
Parents can take an active approach in areas like Philadelphia and apply for Charters or join a group who wants to start one. They can have a hand at addressing specific issues or interests of their children. And also have title 1 service. change in their own education design it and have it funded.
And involve parents, especially ones that are currently disconnected to their childs education.
Now as far as black job applicants.
1st off statistics lie, you can make them say what you want to say. Ie...
Like Charters, on one hand they didn't make much difference, but then when you changed statistic perameters it told an absolutely different story.
By the way Politifact does this all the time. And other media.
For example comparisons
Here is the mind of some parents:
I have a daughter, I may feel strong about business opportunies for my daughter, so I am likely to choose a name I love from names that will be taken seriously. I'd probably skip names like Candy or Bubbles, and choose a neutral name but pretty like Cynthia or Kathleen ,which friends and family could shorten to Cindy or Kathy, but when in business their full name may be more formal and appropriare. I may even take it to another level, and choose a name I love that is either gender like Devin, or Cameron.
It may not be being "black: thats being put to the bottom to be interviewed.
Businesses are selective and they don't like risk. So if your name is a deterent it could hold someone back.
The interview process is just as much to weed out applicants as it is to accept one. Every applicant white or black want to be neutral, and only draw attention to skill and experiece that will help them get the job...
You don't want a big red flag or anything that an interview could feel negative about. Professional white parents make those decissions all the time.
If it stands out, it may be too much. So if you want to name your child Kwanza,
It stands out from your resume, its not neutral enough.
The negative connotation isn't that their black, but it may suggest that they don't conform. A manager wants to hire someone weather black or white that doesnt bring the hood with them.
And in the labor article it does say thats less likely in an area that has a larger population of blacks.
Look its human nature, and of you want to succeed you need to conform or fit in the norm.
The problem is, black people who don't coform, say their being rejected beause of race. Its not true. Predjudice is sometimes an issue, but its individual NOT Societal. But as a manager, do't you in most businesses want to hire someone who conforms?
We all have obstacles. We all conform. Fake it till you make it, , We become what that interviewer is looking for. We don't expect the interviewer to become what we are looking for.
So if your name is Kwanza, and you are applying in an area where the interviewer has 10 applications and they are accustomed to the variety of black names are mixed with more tradtional names, its not as shocking. It may even feel neutral its not standing out because its the norm when they review applicants.
But if your applying in an area where in 10 applicants you stand out. Its not neutral enough. As referred to in the link below. And its not predudice against black. And the labor board link says they didnt see any change between being hired when interviewed.
If parents want to name thier child maybe use that as a middle name used by friends and family and something more traditional as a 1st name to use in business.
People do not typically get hired by submitting an application, they get hired by an interview process. So a name on an application isn't rejected. The interview process is visual or by phone, but usually visual.
Now there may be some selective areas or people that are prejudice. But as a whole we are not prejudice . And to project a hatred on society, is prejudice t9 the max. Projecting a generalization on all Americans IS prejudice! To project you have money therefore you are a Capitalist or a racist, IS prejudice. Read tbe life of some wealthy people, like Milton Hershey, built the largest chochalate factory, built schools for children, free for low income or distress. I know of 2 people who went, 1 is my age, he lost his parents at a young age, his aunt was poor. That guy and his wife are now houseparents there, and left a thriving real estate business to do it! Oh and he is white. And 1 who is in her 20's, her mom was a black nursing assistant that worked with me. And her daughter went to this fabulous school built by a white rich guy.
Focus on SOLUTIONS not the problems. If the energy of Black Lives Matter was put into creating Charter Schools or Community projecrs for youth, wouldn't we propel MANY MANY kids forward instead!
Areas that have a large African American population like Philadelphia are the least predjudice in job markets. They hire on ability or fit of personality for the position and the company.
If you want a job in a specific feild or company, YOU BECOME WHO AND WHAT THEY NEED TO HIRE! If not, you don't get hired. This race issue infuses a thought that if the company doesn't become the applicant, they ARE predjudice.
It's rediculous, and SELF DEFEATING!
And these urban areas that inflame racial issues the most, are the least likely to base hiring on race! We need CHANGE. but its attitude that needs to be changed.
I would say the amount of racial rejections are as equal as every "predjuce," such as hiring or not hiring someone who is obese, or too short, too tall, too ugly, and even too beautiful, other nationalities - Asian, European, Muslim, gay or not gay, or even just personality differences. (All these predjudices are based on the beholder) and you can't witchhunt. If you are rejected one place, then onto the next! Disappointment and rejection are a way to success. Read my posts to debates on Capitalism.
We all have preferences, not all preferences are prejudice.
If I am hiring for a position, I may hire on personality style. Some jobs I may reject an A type personality, some jobs I may reject an A type personality.
Race is not as big of an issue as it is made to be.
No-one wants to hire a person with a chip on their shoulder. The hiring process is to weed out job candidates, as much as it is to select one.
The bitter race environment isn't helping equality excel, its making equality difficult to give and difficult to receive.
If you teach a child to expect equality, they just simply expect it and for the most part people accept people they can like as a person. And the occassion your not selected, doesnt keep you down.
But if you teach a child his doors are closed, and he must fight and demand equality, your producing a child to find a closed door he must kick open. And they may not get hired simply because the interviewer can feel something isn't right. And maybe he won't like working with this person.
Make race an issue, then it is one.
Also there are grants and scholarships, many kids in lower incomes get significant grant money to further their education. And according to your logic and those like you, black people get scholarships for sports more tha white people. So I'm 5 foot white girl, is a college prejudice to give a basketball scholarship to a 6'5" black guy. Shouldn't we both have equal opportunity?
Well, let's go to the fact sheets. According to public opinion and records, he is NOT the worst. On a public records list this is how it rings out:
Starting with the 50's:
Truman has one of the highest AND lowest ratings.
87% high..........23% low (obviously when he fired McArthur).
Nixon high ,,,,,,,,,67 low 24
Carter high..........75 low 28
Reagan...............68 low 35
GHW..................89 low 29
Clinton...............79 low 33
"W"....................90 low 29
Obama...............76 low 35
Obviously , the Bush's flew to lofty highs, and when people realized the truths, fell the farthest. Clinton ended up above them even at his lowest. o far, I say not surprisingly, Obama is rated above Saint Reagans high, and no lower than this "pillar of conservatism .......even with the best efforts to MAKE him look bad, obstruct him at every turn. Had Reagan had this from the Democrats he would likely have been MUCH lower
Whether he's the worst, I don't know, but I am not a fan of his. When he beat the war drum for Iraq, I couldn't understand why. I always thought he was too trigger happy after Afghanistan and that it would be a mistake to topple Sadam. I didn't know the full ramifications of his misguided efforts, but history has proven Bush wrong, and in a big way, too. Other issues; the prescription drug program he passed. There was a provision where the Gov't couldn't negotiate lower prices for the drugs made available under the program. That and the fact it was another expansion of gov't galled me. These are two main reasons I'm not a fan of Dubya.
Only Obama is present day, so you think the worst president is Obama since he is the only president currently. You must also think he is the best because he is the only president currently.
I don't think that genocide of another people makes him necessarily a bad leader. It makes him a morally reprehensible person, no doubt, but Americans under Jackson probably supported him and liked getting Indian land. Can you call him a bad leader because he was good at doing something his people wanted him to do but is now considered immoral? I think the worst president should be someone who failed most miserably to benefit the American people. Maybe I am just trying to change the rules to get Bush on top of the list but that's my opinion.
No, Bush started a war that led to a couple thousand casualties. That isn't genocide.
Jackson led an actual ethnic cleansing and forceful relocation, replete with death marches and concentration camps. It was deliberate and intentional. There is no legitimate comparison to Bush.
It's not a "too" matter. It's that his "evilness" is so much more severe than Bush Jr that by arguing Jr was the worst president, you downplay an actual genocide.
It isn't a strawman, it is a question. The only way Bush is worse than Jackson is if native Americans aren't people and Iraqis are. Or, are you saying that Iraqis are just more important?
Wait a second. You switching what words I used is not a strawman, but me simply asking you a question is? Why do the rules of strawman arguments not apply to you?
Democrats also voted for the Iraq war and Democrats told banks to give loans to bad risk people so that lower income could have the good life. Typical socialist bleeding heart lunacy. So much for your two biggest complaints against George Bush.
I did not like Bush because he called himself a compssionate Repubican which translates into big spender.
Other than that, he was a thousand times better than Obama.
No, W. was not the worst. Obama is worse, and will prove as time progresses to have been far more injurious to our country, both domestically--such as bankrupting our healthcare system and driving away good doctors with his socialistic Obama coverage (notice I said "coverage" and not "care" since they are not the same thing--and also he hurt us on the global level. Making us much less-feared and even laughable, with many other countries.
W in fact will see his ranking improve as history progresses. Oh, he might always be in the bottom 10 or so POTUS's, but not the bottom 4 or 5. Grant, Johnson, and Hoover were all worse. So was Carter.
most of the ills of the W administration should be blamed on Rummy and Cheney. W was simply in over his head.
Can any of you Progressives show with facts the George Bush said you can keep your plan,
you can keep your doctor and save 2,500 on your deductible ? If you can back that up with any facts please present those facts if it is possible for you to do that !
GWBush implemented homeland security communication and cooperation within weeks of 9/11 in response to 9/11
Hearings recommended steps GWB had already put into place within weeks following 9/11. It's a shame Bill Clinton didn't think of it. He had some big ones, it should have been considered early enough to prevent 9/11.
Unfortunately it took 9/11 on GWB watch to identify the difficulties between the agencies. As commander and chief he addressed it immediately, like a strategic commander who takes his military position seriously. (just like his dad)
Of course I am not saying 9/11 was Clinton's fault.
But there were some contributing factors from GW Bush's predecessor, Clinton, which increased our exposure to terror attack, including 9/11.
Clinton implemented significant cut backs in military defense. His military cuts were a hot topic that upset most conservatives, but many Americans were in support of his military cut backs.
Clinton should not have downsized defense to the degree he did and his administration should have focused more on homeland security and intelligence. Clinton had several terror attacks throughout his time in office. There were missed warnings all 8 years of his office, including 9/11 warnings! His response was to assign these terror investigations to law enforcement.
Terrorism was not a priority agenda for his Clinton. There are reports that Clinton ignored Intelligence and it was ignored by his administration, as in (con's) link re: GWB ignores warnings about 9/11
Clinton experienced first hand the disconnected information that made it very difficult to connect the dots. His Intelligence Agencies such as law enforcement and FBI were not working together with information and intelligence.
An attack the magnitude of 9/11 took years to plan and coordinate. Like Bill Clinton, George W B also experienced missed warnings from disconnected information between the Intelligence Agencies and Law enforcement. But GWBush identified the week links between the agencies, and within 2 weeks following 9/11 GWBush formed a new cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security, that is credited for hindering terror attacks since 9/11.
1st I’ll define terrorism in this context. Coordinated attacks against America from a large group of like minded people that would be detected in ways of “chatter” alerting Home Land Security. So terrorism is eliminating and excluding, independent action, crazy nervous breakdowns, Bonnie and Clyde Snipers. So only coordinated attacks considered, we were the safest for 8 years strait than ever.
Here are a links showing domestic terror attacks for the of Clinton GWBush and Obama
The 1st since the 9/11 terror attack that was possibly linked to coordinated terrorism was on June 1, 2009 - That was by admission of the perpetrator.
June 1, 2009
27 Apr 2014
1 Jun 2014
3 Dec 2015
All Attacks noted between 9/11/2001 up till June 1, 2009 where lone wolf or small groups not connected to terrorist organizations. The author notes each incident of the Beltway Snipers separately. And it doesn’t fall within criteria of domestic terror with qualities of coordination that would potentially be picked up by intelligence. Since independent small group acts operate as all other crime. These were domestic crimes, not terrorist attacks connected to organized terror like 9/11
The American people decided that being politically correct was somehow better and more forward thinking than actually BEING correct! The rest from then to now has been a run away train.
We should have stuck with G Bush Sr. And, we also should have stood behind and kept standing behind George W Bush, instead of fighting his administration every step of the way.
GW Bush didn't change his mind, we did! Like gung hoe gang busters, we all stepped out. Then when the chief led the charge, we scrutinized every move, tied the hands of your own military, and we abandoned our country and our commander in chief! That"s just plain Nuts!
We stepped forward, but without resolve and commitment. Then after, we abandoned the charge. We left our commander in chief and our country exposed while we criminalized our military and defenders!
We tied up every initiative with red tape and politics of our own. And when we ran out of red tape, we made sure to got some more!
Then as usual, we blamed everything and everybody but ourselves!
"Of the people” “for the people."
Its time to take responsibility for our part in where we are today!
We push agendas and follow those playing politics, instead of joining those that will lead us to a better, safer, more abundant place.
During George W's presidency, Americans tied the hands of our military, prosecuted those that protected them, and fought more for the rights of terrorists than they did for the rights of the innocent. No wonder the world looks at us and can easily depict our weakness. Our weakness is our tolerance and our humanity. Politically correct pressures have taken away your freedom of free speech.
America chose a president that bows to evil regimes, we tolerate terrorists, and we stay silent for the sake of political correctness. We protest in the streets and murder our police officers.
Today American citizens criminalize our police officers, and praise criminals and offenders.
