quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

I am sure they are not, and by extension; you.

If you know the stories are either inaccurate or false, I'd certainly like to hear it.

Otherwise, your claim of certainty requires a chasuble.

K.

If you know these stories are true, it would not be at all irrelevant to present some actual fact, and credible citations thereof, I need not see proffers of transubstantiation, just show me the actual wounds.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessManko

I was taught US History incorrectly. I was told the Carter recession was Carter's fault by my history teacher. It wasn't until I took an interest in economics I realized it was due to NIXON's withdrawal from the Bretton Woods and that our investors panicked since our dollar was no longer backed by gold.

Thank God you found a Republican to blame Carter's incompetence on.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003

Let me first say that I am more in line with the Republican point of view on immigration. That said, I see nothing wrong or misleading in the first picture. Obama is trying to build a pathway to make it easier for illegal immigrants to become citizens. Is he, or is he not? That is exactly what is depicted in the picture.

As it seems to me, a path to citizenship for immigrants is one thing and a path to citizenship for illegal aliens is another.

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003

As far as the second picture. . .I seem to remember a Mitt Romney speech concerning the 47%. Directly in line with the corrected answer in the second picture. Again, it seems accurate to me.

I don't recall the speech, but then I never paid much attention to Romney. That said, however, I think the difference lies in what each side considers "help". So far, helping the poor by just about every means attempted since the War on Poverty began has been an expensive failure.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessManko

I was taught US History incorrectly. I was told the Carter recession was Carter's fault by my history teacher. It wasn't until I took an interest in economics I realized it was due to NIXON's withdrawal from the Bretton Woods and that our investors panicked since our dollar was no longer backed by gold.

Thank God you found a Republican to blame Carter's incompetence on.

Well neither is completely true. It was a combination. The onset of the embargo contributed to an upward spiral in oil prices with global implications. The price of oil per barrel first doubled, then quadrupled, imposing skyrocketing costs on consumers and structural challenges to the stability of whole national economies. Since the embargo coincided with a devaluation of the dollar, a global recession ensued.

Wiki:

The recession in the United States lasted from November 1973 (the Richard Nixon presidency) to March 1975 (the Gerald Ford presidency), although its effects on the US were felt through the Jimmy Carter presidency until the mid-term of Ronald Reagan's first term as president, characterized by low economic growth.

Didn't need to look very far or hard to find 'a republican' to blame for a whole lot more than that.

Please spell out Carter's incompetence. How about some facts since he we was twice the man and leader that Ronald Reagan was and did as much pr more to end the cold war.

Oh and as for educaction...not to worry:

HERE

and HERE

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003

Let me first say that I am more in line with the Republican point of view on immigration. That said, I see nothing wrong or misleading in the first picture. Obama is trying to build a pathway to make it easier for illegal immigrants to become citizens. Is he, or is he not? That is exactly what is depicted in the picture.

As it seems to me, a path to citizenship for immigrants is one thing and a path to citizenship for illegal aliens is another.

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003

As far as the second picture. . .I seem to remember a Mitt Romney speech concerning the 47%. Directly in line with the corrected answer in the second picture. Again, it seems accurate to me.

I don't recall the speech, but then I never paid much attention to Romney. That said, however, I think the difference lies in what each side considers "help". So far, helping the poor by just about every means attempted since the War on Poverty began has been an expensive failure.

K.

That actually isn't true, it is the lie that keeps being spun so much by the anti government tea party idiots that it has been accepted as gospel. There are government programs that have been a disaster areas, there is no doubt about it, programs that threw money at something without thinking about it, but others have been successful but ironically have been gutted by the very people claiming they don't work. Head start works, studies show that it improves educational performance and the ultimate lifestyle of those who went through it. Programs that made a serious attempt to get workers skills to get good jobs have worked, job training programs in chronically poor areas, like appalachia, to train people in skills like Nurses assistants worked. Programs back in the 60's and 70s to train people to work in semi skilled manufacturing jobs worked, the only problem being that our dear government decided that it was much better to send the jobs to China and India, giving companies huge tax breaks to do so. Programs that provided daycare for poor women so they can work did pretty well as well.

And there is ultimate proof. In the decades after Johnson's great society, the poverty rate declined, and the gap between rich and poor actually started to close. Since the GOP revolution starting with Saint Reagan, the poverty rate has increases, and the gap between rich and poor (or hell, rich and anyone under them) has exploded, and this can be charted against the gutting of programs designed to help pull people out of poverty. Kind of hard to take people out of poverty when you send the kind of well paying jobs they can get to China, India and Vietnam, I guess the war on poverty came to mean the war to keep people in poverty, by chasing the dirt cheapest wages they can.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003

Let me first say that I am more in line with the Republican point of view on immigration. That said, I see nothing wrong or misleading in the first picture. Obama is trying to build a pathway to make it easier for illegal immigrants to become citizens. Is he, or is he not? That is exactly what is depicted in the picture.

As it seems to me, a path to citizenship for immigrants is one thing and a path to citizenship for illegal aliens is another.

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003

As far as the second picture. . .I seem to remember a Mitt Romney speech concerning the 47%. Directly in line with the corrected answer in the second picture. Again, it seems accurate to me.

I don't recall the speech, but then I never paid much attention to Romney. That said, however, I think the difference lies in what each side considers "help". So far, helping the poor by just about every means attempted since the War on Poverty began has been an expensive failure.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessManko

I was taught US History incorrectly. I was told the Carter recession was Carter's fault by my history teacher. It wasn't until I took an interest in economics I realized it was due to NIXON's withdrawal from the Bretton Woods and that our investors panicked since our dollar was no longer backed by gold.

Thank God you found a Republican to blame Carter's incompetence on.

Well neither is completely true. It was a combination. The onset of the embargo contributed to an upward spiral in oil prices with global implications. The price of oil per barrel first doubled, then quadrupled, imposing skyrocketing costs on consumers and structural challenges to the stability of whole national economies. Since the embargo coincided with a devaluation of the dollar, a global recession ensued.

Wiki:

The recession in the United States lasted from November 1973 (the Richard Nixon presidency) to March 1975 (the Gerald Ford presidency), although its effects on the US were felt through the Jimmy Carter presidency until the mid-term of Ronald Reagan's first term as president, characterized by low economic growth.

Didn't need to look very far or hard to find 'a republican' to blame for a whole lot more than that.

Please spell out Carter's incompetence. How about some facts since he we was twice the man and leader that Ronald Reagan was and did as much pr more to end the cold war.

Oh and as for educaction...not to worry:

HERE

and HERE

Unilateral disarmament helped to end the cold war?
The reason Reagan had to spend so much on the military was because Carter had gutted it.
Remember his national security adviser telling us that our time as a major power was over and our only choice was to ally ourselves with either the Russians, the Chinese, or the Muslim fundamentalists? Remember that the last two years of his administration were among our worst years ever for inflation, in everything but wages. Remember that Ford had inflation under control when he left office. Do you remember that his misery index doubled under his administration. Only a revisionist would think that Carter was competent let alone good.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003

Let me first say that I am more in line with the Republican point of view on immigration. That said, I see nothing wrong or misleading in the first picture. Obama is trying to build a pathway to make it easier for illegal immigrants to become citizens. Is he, or is he not? That is exactly what is depicted in the picture.

As it seems to me, a path to citizenship for immigrants is one thing and a path to citizenship for illegal aliens is another.

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003

As far as the second picture. . .I seem to remember a Mitt Romney speech concerning the 47%. Directly in line with the corrected answer in the second picture. Again, it seems accurate to me.

I don't recall the speech, but then I never paid much attention to Romney. That said, however, I think the difference lies in what each side considers "help". So far, helping the poor by just about every means attempted since the War on Poverty began has been an expensive failure.

K.

That actually isn't true, it is the lie that keeps being spun so much by the anti government tea party idiots that it has been accepted as gospel. There are government programs that have been a disaster areas, there is no doubt about it, programs that threw money at something without thinking about it, but others have been successful but ironically have been gutted by the very people claiming they don't work. Head start works, studies show that it improves educational performance and the ultimate lifestyle of those who went through it. Programs that made a serious attempt to get workers skills to get good jobs have worked, job training programs in chronically poor areas, like appalachia, to train people in skills like Nurses assistants worked. Programs back in the 60's and 70s to train people to work in semi skilled manufacturing jobs worked, the only problem being that our dear government decided that it was much better to send the jobs to China and India, giving companies huge tax breaks to do so. Programs that provided daycare for poor women so they can work did pretty well as well.

And there is ultimate proof. In the decades after Johnson's great society, the poverty rate declined, and the gap between rich and poor actually started to close. Since the GOP revolution starting with Saint Reagan, the poverty rate has increases, and the gap between rich and poor (or hell, rich and anyone under them) has exploded, and this can be charted against the gutting of programs designed to help pull people out of poverty. Kind of hard to take people out of poverty when you send the kind of well paying jobs they can get to China, India and Vietnam, I guess the war on poverty came to mean the war to keep people in poverty, by chasing the dirt cheapest wages they can.

The war on poverty has destroyed the black family.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003

Let me first say that I am more in line with the Republican point of view on immigration. That said, I see nothing wrong or misleading in the first picture. Obama is trying to build a pathway to make it easier for illegal immigrants to become citizens. Is he, or is he not? That is exactly what is depicted in the picture.

As it seems to me, a path to citizenship for immigrants is one thing and a path to citizenship for illegal aliens is another.

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003

As far as the second picture. . .I seem to remember a Mitt Romney speech concerning the 47%. Directly in line with the corrected answer in the second picture. Again, it seems accurate to me.

I don't recall the speech, but then I never paid much attention to Romney. That said, however, I think the difference lies in what each side considers "help". So far, helping the poor by just about every means attempted since the War on Poverty began has been an expensive failure.

K.

That actually isn't true, it is the lie that keeps being spun so much by the anti government tea party idiots that it has been accepted as gospel. There are government programs that have been a disaster areas, there is no doubt about it, programs that threw money at something without thinking about it, but others have been successful but ironically have been gutted by the very people claiming they don't work. Head start works, studies show that it improves educational performance and the ultimate lifestyle of those who went through it. Programs that made a serious attempt to get workers skills to get good jobs have worked, job training programs in chronically poor areas, like appalachia, to train people in skills like Nurses assistants worked. Programs back in the 60's and 70s to train people to work in semi skilled manufacturing jobs worked, the only problem being that our dear government decided that it was much better to send the jobs to China and India, giving companies huge tax breaks to do so. Programs that provided daycare for poor women so they can work did pretty well as well.

And there is ultimate proof. In the decades after Johnson's great society, the poverty rate declined, and the gap between rich and poor actually started to close. Since the GOP revolution starting with Saint Reagan, the poverty rate has increases, and the gap between rich and poor (or hell, rich and anyone under them) has exploded, and this can be charted against the gutting of programs designed to help pull people out of poverty. Kind of hard to take people out of poverty when you send the kind of well paying jobs they can get to China, India and Vietnam, I guess the war on poverty came to mean the war to keep people in poverty, by chasing the dirt cheapest wages they can.

The war on poverty has destroyed the black family.

What destroyed the black and white poor families was Nixon's reform and creation of 'AFDC.'

What became termed the Aid to Families with Dependent Children would go no more to any household that had an able-bodied man living in it. So for the 'family' to survive the clutches of poverty...daddy had to leave. That single stipulation basically ended LBJ's 'war on poverty.'

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessManko

I was taught US History incorrectly. I was told the Carter recession was Carter's fault by my history teacher. It wasn't until I took an interest in economics I realized it was due to NIXON's withdrawal from the Bretton Woods and that our investors panicked since our dollar was no longer backed by gold.

Thank God you found a Republican to blame Carter's incompetence on.

Well neither is completely true. It was a combination. The onset of the embargo contributed to an upward spiral in oil prices with global implications. The price of oil per barrel first doubled, then quadrupled, imposing skyrocketing costs on consumers and structural challenges to the stability of whole national economies. Since the embargo coincided with a devaluation of the dollar, a global recession ensued.

Wiki:

The recession in the United States lasted from November 1973 (the Richard Nixon presidency) to March 1975 (the Gerald Ford presidency), although its effects on the US were felt through the Jimmy Carter presidency until the mid-term of Ronald Reagan's first term as president, characterized by low economic growth.

Didn't need to look very far or hard to find 'a republican' to blame for a whole lot more than that.

Please spell out Carter's incompetence. How about some facts since he we was twice the man and leader that Ronald Reagan was and did as much pr more to end the cold war.

Oh and as for educaction...not to worry:

HERE

and HERE

Unilateral disarmament helped to end the cold war?
The reason Reagan had to spend so much on the military was because Carter had gutted it.
Remember his national security adviser telling us that our time as a major power was over and our only choice was to ally ourselves with either the Russians, the Chinese, or the Muslim fundamentalists? Remember that the last two years of his administration were among our worst years ever for inflation, in everything but wages. Remember that Ford had inflation under control when he left office. Do you remember that his misery index doubled under his administration. Only a revisionist would think that Carter was competent let alone good.

No I don't remember any of that.

What I do remember was that Ford has no more control over inflation than Nixon did thanks to the devaluation of the dollar post Brenton Woods and also that the economy under Carter suffered a 2nd oil embargo in 1979.

But I do remember Carter not only fulfilling Rickover's dream (a man Carter served under) of bringing high technology to the Navy and all of the armed forces but also getting the Europeans to agree and over heated demonstrations against by both Americans and Europeans, to deploy Pershing II intermediate range nukes over there which ended any dreams of a very unlikely Russian invasion of NATO. Plus, doing as much or more to 'end the cold war' as anything Reagan did. (they just happened to be installed after Carter's defeat)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessManko

I was taught US History incorrectly. I was told the Carter recession was Carter's fault by my history teacher. It wasn't until I took an interest in economics I realized it was due to NIXON's withdrawal from the Bretton Woods and that our investors panicked since our dollar was no longer backed by gold.

Thank God you found a Republican to blame Carter's incompetence on.

Well neither is completely true. It was a combination. The onset of the embargo contributed to an upward spiral in oil prices with global implications. The price of oil per barrel first doubled, then quadrupled, imposing skyrocketing costs on consumers and structural challenges to the stability of whole national economies. Since the embargo coincided with a devaluation of the dollar, a global recession ensued.

Wiki:

The recession in the United States lasted from November 1973 (the Richard Nixon presidency) to March 1975 (the Gerald Ford presidency), although its effects on the US were felt through the Jimmy Carter presidency until the mid-term of Ronald Reagan's first term as president, characterized by low economic growth.

Didn't need to look very far or hard to find 'a republican' to blame for a whole lot more than that.

Please spell out Carter's incompetence. How about some facts since he we was twice the man and leader that Ronald Reagan was and did as much pr more to end the cold war.

Oh and as for educaction...not to worry:

HERE

and HERE

Unilateral disarmament helped to end the cold war?
The reason Reagan had to spend so much on the military was because Carter had gutted it.
Remember his national security adviser telling us that our time as a major power was over and our only choice was to ally ourselves with either the Russians, the Chinese, or the Muslim fundamentalists? Remember that the last two years of his administration were among our worst years ever for inflation, in everything but wages. Remember that Ford had inflation under control when he left office. Do you remember that his misery index doubled under his administration. Only a revisionist would think that Carter was competent let alone good.

No I don't remember any of that.

What I do remember was that Ford has no more control over inflation than Nixon did thanks to the devaluation of the dollar post Brenton Woods and also that the economy under Carter suffered a 2nd oil embargo in 1979.

But I do remember Carter not only fulfilling Rickover's dream (a man Carter served under) of bringing high technology to the Navy and all of the armed forces but also getting the Europeans to agree and over heated demonstrations against by both Americans and Europeans, to deploy Pershing II intermediate range nukes over there which ended any dreams of a very unlikely Russian invasion of NATO. Plus, doing as much or more to 'end the cold war' as anything Reagan did. (they just happened to be installed after Carter's defeat)

Then you have managed to forget that Carter tried to kill the B1 and that he said that he was going to adhere to Start 2 even though the Senate rejected it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003

Let me first say that I am more in line with the Republican point of view on immigration. That said, I see nothing wrong or misleading in the first picture. Obama is trying to build a pathway to make it easier for illegal immigrants to become citizens. Is he, or is he not? That is exactly what is depicted in the picture.

As it seems to me, a path to citizenship for immigrants is one thing and a path to citizenship for illegal aliens is another.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

I don't recall the speech, but then I never paid much attention to Romney. That said, however, I think the difference lies in what each side considers "help". So far, helping the poor by just about every means attempted since the War on Poverty began has been an expensive failure.

K.
[/font][/size]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

What could possibly be wrong with this?

Jim Strick, the Communications Director for the Neenah Joint School District, confirmed to IJ Review that Davis did in fact assign the politically-charged worksheet. However, Strick was adamant that the assignment was not intended to shape the children’s political views...

Yeah, no.

quote:


Wisconsin Mom Alarmed at What School Quiz Suggests Conservatives Think About the Poor

Students at Nathan Hale High School were asked to place this and other statements on a political spectrum...

We should not help the poor, it’s a waste of money.

The answer scored as correct is Conservative/Republican.



The student’s mother told Fox News the correction bothered her son... “We tend to only see what they are learning as parents when they need our assistance on something. I think that all parents need to realize that there are things taught sometimes to their kids that aren’t true or at best are misleading.”

This is what they want more money to teach?

K.