Hello:

America is 7th in literacy, 27th in math, 22nd in science, 49th in life expectancy, 178th in infant mortality, 3rd in median household income, and number 4 in exports.

We are exceptional at only 3 things: the rate of incarceration per capita, the amount of people who believe in angels, and defense spending, where we outspend the next 26 biggest countries combined.

We used to lead the world in those things.. The only way we can do it again is to STOP pretending we still do.

excon

PS> (edited) Ok, I made up the one about the angels...

And it is for these specific reasons that people from China, Japan, India and Korea COME HERE TO STUDY AND LIVE!

So people aren't still busting their humps to get here?

And it is for these specific reasons that people from China, Japan, India and Korea COME HERE TO STUDY AND LIVE!!Hello m:

Well, as long as people are still coming, those numbers are OK, huh?

That doesn't sound so exceptional.

excon

Nice to know you are on a voyage of discovery ex and you are right speech some are and some aren't,

Does it surprise me ? Almost 50 years of hard left central planning and indoctrination . 178th in infant mortality is that before or after abortion is factored in ? Probably not which makes the infant mortality rate much worse.

A little perspective. At one time the American economy was the only game in town . A large part of that was because the world was digging out Post WWII . It was inevidible that the rest of the world would catch up .So it wasn't that our economy was in decline . It was just unrealistic to think the economy would dominate as it had in the past.
I think many of those same factors are at play with some of the other stats raised here. Part of it is decline . But a lot has to do with the world catching up .

Hello:

America is 7th in literacy, 27th in math, 22nd in science, 49th in life expectancy, 178th in infant mortality, 3rd in median household income, and number 4 in exports.

We are exceptional at only 3 things: the rate of incarceration per capita, the amount of people who believe in angels, and defense spending, where we outspend the next 26 biggest countries combined.

We used to lead the world in those things.. The only way we can do it again is to STOP pretending we still do.

excon

PS> (edited) Ok, I made up the one about the angels...



Part of the reason for the decline in education is we have taken a path away from excellence. Shools have changed into baby sitting institutions rather then education and preparation schools. Even now many colleges and university's have to teach high school level classes.

Its time to remove the namby pamby attitudes and go back to those that cause children to exceed our expectations rather then setting the bar to the lowest value.

Some children are going to fail, some will rise above others. Its not a bad thing its part of nature. Another thing is lets stop pushing drugs on kids so quickly. Low expectations is not the answer.

Almost 50 years of hard left central planning and indoctrination .Is the right really that impotent that they can't make any inroads into education or government?

Is the right really that impotent that they can't make any inroads into education or government?

Slowly ,but there is great resistance . Meanwhile the more enterprising ones open learning centers and do tutoring to teach kids the things they are supposed to learn in school.

Is the right really that impotent that they can't make any inroads into education or government?

This is where you get under the unbrella of constant compromise. The center gets moved to one side and the situation as a whole becomes unstable.

This is where you get under the unbrella of constant compromise. yes, I've notice the Repubs 'constant comprise' this electoral season LOL.

yes, I've notice the Repubs 'constant comprise' this electoral season LOL.

Michelle Rhee was the chancellor of the Washington DC district from 2007 to 2010. During her tenure she was instituting a variety of reforms based on accountability and results . In doing so she stept on the toes of the entrenched .
She shut down 23 failing schools, fired 36 principals, 241 teachers and cut 121 unnecessary office jobs. She initiated new programs ;and renegotiated the teacher contracts. She supported a voucher system to aid poor parents in giving their children a choice in education. She wrote in an editiorial that vouchers give " poor families access to publicly funded scholarships to attend private schools,"..."All children deserve the chance to get a great education; no family should be forced to send kids to a school they know is failing."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704739504576068142896954626.html

Well that lasted until the 2010 elections in DC .IT became a referendum on her reforms .The incumbent lost ;and Rhee resigned before she got fired. DC sqaundered a golden opportunity for real change in favor of the failed status quo.

So no ,it is not conservatives that resist change . The established left is the entrenched group that has managed this failure.

I was on Skype last night ( yes I am moving into this century) But I was talking with two college teachers from China, They were telling me how it is America that is far behind in civil rights, and equality for the people. They were telling me how much less the taxes are in China for the people, that race is not a issue, And how women now have better rights though divorce and the such.

Often how we preceive our world is based on where we are at.

that race is not a issue

Tell that to the Uighur ,Tibetan ,or anyone else that isn't ethnic Han.


how women now have better rights though divorce and the such.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/07/world/asia/chinese-womens-progress-stalls-in-varied-standards.html?pagewanted=all

I was on Skype last night ( yes I am moving into this century) But I was talking with two college teachers from China, They were telling me how it is America that is far behind in civil rights

Let's see, China has a two child policy, or is it a one child policy? Or is it a one child policy for ethnic Chinese but they can have two if they pay a fine or face forced abortion? And churches? Got to be official churches, no sharing your faith with others, no house churches? Their civil rights are so confusing.

Is the right really that impotent that they can't make any inroads into education or government?

I guess you haven't paid any attention to the all out leftist assault the past couple of decades on charter schools, school voucher programs, home schools - anything that might take students out of or siphon money from failing public schools where they can keep them under their spell and support incompetent, entrenched union teachers.

I guess you haven't paid any attention to the all out leftist assault the past couple of decades on charter schools, Hello again, Steve:

This post, and the ideology behind it, are the REASON why the numbers are what they are... It further represents the CURRENT state of our politics... "Our way or the highway". Nothing gets done, and our decline continues...

excon

The inertia is in the status quo. There are no new ideas coming from the left on education. It is throw more money into old mortar and brick... and make sure the NEA gets their cut.

Hello again, Steve:

This post, and the ideology behind it, are the REASON why the numbers are what they are... It further represents the CURRENT state of our politics... "Our way or the highway". Nothing gets done, and our decline continues...

excon

I have never said "our way or the highway." The left and the NEA (one in the same) just whine and say "we need more teachers," "we need more money," but that experiment has failed which is the reason for this this post. You can't blame those numbers on the right.

Back to basics, dude. Teach them and have standards as opposed to coddling the little farts to keep from damaging their little psyches and doing stupid stuff like sing songs to Obama.

Guess we left behind a lot of kids behind when we had all those years of not leaving them behind. What doesn't work was compassionate conservatism. Now you guys want a severe conservative. Right wing rhetoric is loud, but produces nothing but a mess that may take more than 4 years to clean up.

If the conservatives stop getting in the way as they always do. I mean,ain't things slow enough for you to keep up yet?? You have to do more than holler and blame. Eventually you will have to put money where your mouth is better than you did in the first part of the century.

What you forgot about that debacle? No you haven't, you just choose to blame the janitors, and hide the mops.

Again, no one is clamoring for a "severe conservative" solution to the public school failure, but when we try to put our money where our mouth is the NEA and their "me first" entrenched unionized teachers cry foul. But I already said that.

You want compromise let's compromise, leave the ideology (and Planned Parenthood) out of our textbooks and our classrooms and teach the kids math, science, reading and writing and eliminate this revisionist leftist history. Stick to the facts - you say you like facts but I don't see any evidence of that - and hold children and the teachers to a higher standard.

and eliminate this revisionist leftist history. Stick to the facts Hello again, Steve:

Like these "facts" (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/education/13texas.html)?? You guys are silly.

excon

NCLB was an attempt at that compromise stuff Tal talks about . The President pretty much adopted a Kennedy intiative . Now they pin it on Bush when it inevidibly fails ;and say the reason it doesn't work is because there was not enough money thrown into the plan. You can recite their meme in your sleep. It's so predictable; so droll.

Hello again, Steve:

Like these "facts" (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/education/13texas.html)??? You guys are silly.

excon

Did I say replace a leftist world view with a conservative world view? No I did not.

Hello again, Steve:

Like these "facts" (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/education/13texas.html)??? You guys are silly.

excon


One of the problems is that it is impossible to understand your own history without understanding the history of Europe first. The whole idea of the Founding Fathers was to break away from a dominant clergy.

One needs to know the reason for the Enlightenment and how people such as Locke and Montesquieu fit into the picture. Once this is done then we can begin to understand the history.

Tut

Like most great ideas, it sounds good on paper, but the implementation is a beeyatch. NCLB was a disaster because like The voter ID law, it was a rushed job that was poorly planned.

We lack balance and flexibility, because that child who isn't a math major, may be excellent in other areas. NCLB destroyed the parts of the school curriculum that were not about math and science, and lead to many cover ups and exploitations to make the numbers look right.

The whole idea of the Founding Fathers was to break away from a dominant clergy.

While it's true that many of the original settlers of the colonies fled religious oppression ;it is not true that the founders of the nation were .The King of England had become the oppressor ;the Parliament of England had become the oppressor. You won't find a word in the gripes and grieviences documented in the Declaration of Independence that makes the claim that the Church of England was being oppressive.


The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States

Like most great ideas, it sounds good on paper, but the implementation is a beeyatch. NCLB was a disaster because like The voter ID law, it was a rushed job that was poorly planned.

We lack balance and flexibility, because that child who isn't a math major, may be excellent in other areas. NCLB destroyed the parts of the school curriculum that were not about math and science, and lead to many cover ups and exploitations to make the numbers look right.

So I offer compromise but it's too difficult? Why ask then?

While it's true that many of the original settlers of the colonies fled religious oppression ;it is not true that the founders of the nation were .The King of England had become the oppressor ;the Parliament of England had become the oppressor. You won't find a word in the gripes and grieviences documented in the Declaration of Independence that makes the claim that the Church of England was being oppressive.


Hi Tom,

This is correct, but I should expand on my point. My reference to, The Enlightenment was made in light of Ex's reference the curriculum changes. Specifically in relation to the idea that the founders were guided by Christian principles.

The answer is they were not. In fact the opposite is the case. They deliberately set out to make sure that government was based solely on the principles of human reason. That was the whole idea.

No amount of quality teaching can overcome a flawed curriculum. The same type of argument also applies to the reference on evolutionary theory. How can you teach what isn't the case when you don't know what is the case?

Well Tut ,I could give you many founders quotes that dispute that narrative. Suffice it to say that they all had their vision of what a civil and moral society should resemble. The common purpose was first to address their grieviences against the crown;and later to create a functioning Republic philosophically guided by many of the Enlightenment thoughts.(... although not exclusively... don't forget ,much of the disaster that was the French Revolution was also founded on Enlightenment principles sans religious foundation)
So I won't go out on a limb and say that was the only guiding principles ;and it is a mistake for school systems to exclude any of the founding principles from the curriculum .

Well Tut ,I could give you many founders quotes that dispute that narrative.


Please do. I would be most interested.




Suffice it to say that they all had their vision of what a civil and moral society should resemble. The common purpose was first to address their grieviences against the crown;and later to create a functioning Republic philosophically guided by many of the Enlightenment thoughts.(...although not exclusively ...don't forget ,much of the disaster that was the French Revolution was also founded on Enlightenment principles sans religious foundation)



While there are many similarities there we as many differences so it is not a valid comparison. Are you saying the French Revolution had its basis in some type of religious movement?



So I won't go out on a limb and say that was the only guiding principles ;and it is a mistake for school systems to exclude any of the founding principles from the curriculum .

So you are saying there are more? What exactly are these 'mores' that need to be included? From a historical and philosophical point of view I mean.


Tut

Are you saying the French Revolution had its basis in some type of religious movement? No the contrary... I think one of it's fatal flaws was that it was anti-religion. Actually it was viciously hostile to religion to the extreme point that they took 16 cloistered nuns and killed them with the guillotine for the henious crime of praying .


So you are saying there are more? What exactly are these 'mores' that need to be included? From a historical and philosophical point of view I mean.
I mean there are Christian principles to the founding that should also be taught from a historical perspective .

No the contrary ... I think one of it's fatal flaws was that it was anti-religion. Actually it was viciously hostile to religion to the extreme point that they took 16 cloistered nuns and killed them with the guillotine for the henious crime of praying .

I mean there are Christian principles to the founding that should also be taught from a historical perspective .



Hi again Tom,

Perhaps your are right it may have well been a fatal flaw with the French Revolution but we'll never know.

As far as the answer to my questions; the only thing you have come up with so far is the claim that you find it incredulous that there cannot be any religious principles tied up with history and philosophy of the founding. Therefore, on that basis there must be some.

This is exactly the same error that we find in the link Ex provided.

Tut

Originally Posted by tomder55
Well Tut ,I could give you many founders quotes that dispute that narrative.

Please do. I would be most interested

"God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? Thomas Jefferson (1781, Query XVIII of his Notes on that State of Virginia.)

“We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We've staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” James Madison [1778 to the General Assembly of the State of Virginia]

“God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel” Benjamin Franklin ( Constitutional Convention of 1787)

"I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature."John Adams (letter to Thomas Jefferson on June 28, 1813)

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports….Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”
George Washington(Farewell Address 1796)

Here's more :

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” John Adams

“The only foundation for . . . a republic is to be laid in Religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments.” Benjamin Rush (signer of Declaration of Independence)

"Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith.”
― Alexis de Tocqueville(Democracy in America)

"God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? Thomas Jefferson (1781, Query XVIII of his Notes on that State of Virginia.)

“We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We've staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” James Madison [1778 to the General Assembly of the State of Virginia]

“God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel” Benjamin Franklin ( Constitutional Convention of 1787)

"I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature."John Adams (letter to Thomas Jefferson on June 28, 1813)

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports….Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”
George Washington(Farewell Address 1796)


Ok. Thanks for that. Now we have something to work with.

The next question I would ask is exactly this." How are all of the above accounts transferred into the U.S Constitution?" In other words, what references can you provide in the Constitution that make reference to God; directly or indirectly.

Tut

There is none... but the Declaration of Independence begins and ends with one.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States

I did not imply that they were setting up a theocracy . I'm just saying that they were not guided exclusively by Enlightenment thought; that the nation they were founding also had a firm foundation in Christian principles ;and that that should not be purged from the curriculum

There is none ... but the Declaration of Independence begins and ends with one.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States

I did not imply that they were setting up a theocracy . I'm just saying that they were not guided exclusively by Enlightenment thought; that the nation they were founding also had a firm foundation in Christian principles ;and that that should not be purged from the curriculum


Ok, now we are getting somewhere.

It is,"the firm foundation" bit I am disputing. If by this you mean that the majority of the founders were Christian then I agree- most would agree. However, that does not give us licence to translate that into the document itself as having a firm basis in Christianity. You see the difference?

Tut

Yes ,but the founding of the nation was more than the Constitution. It was also the values of the men behind it. If you are telling me that they valued the Enlightenment thinkers and in some cases were Enlightenment philosophers themselves ,I agree. But that was not the sole philosophical foundation. In fact ;neither would be the Enlightenment AND Christianity. They in fact borrowed from the native confederacies of the time too in constructing the government. ALL should be taught and NONE excluded from the education of the children. .

You can't blame those numbers on the right. Hello again, Steve:

Oh, no??

excon

Hello again, Steve:

Oh, no?????

excon

You can but it would be a lie.

Yes ,but the founding of the nation was more than the Constitution. It was also the values of the men behind it. If you are telling me that they valued the Enlightenment thinkers and in some cases were Enlightenment philosophers themselves ,I agree. But that was not the sole philosophical foundation. In fact ;neither would be the Enlightenment AND Christianity. They in fact borrowed from the native confederacies of the time too in constructing the government. ALL should be taught and NONE excluded from the education of the children.
.



No. I am saying they more than valued it- they implemented it.The sole philosophical foundation for the document is what we find in the document.

There may well have been other influences. I'm not denying that. The philosophical foundation must be in the document. Where else are we going to find it.

Tut

No it is not .Without discounting the impact the Enlightenment had on the founders thinking ,it was not the sole inspiration. As an example; the governing bodies are closer in structure to the Iroquois Confederacy model than any European Parliamentary model .

The founders had high hopes when they wrote the constitution, but as humans they didn't exactly meet the mark, because history tells us for all their morals,and high hopes, they had many exemptions to the goals they professed, and they justified through their morality, about what men qualified for life and liberty,and the pursuit of happiness, and the rest they subjugated.

Just as today, the minorities are subjugated by that same morality that continues to deny them access to the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Saying the words is the easy part.Turning them into actions has been less easy.

Just as today, the minorities are subjugated by that same morality that continues to deny them access to the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Saying the words is the easy part.Turning them into actions has been less easy.

Yes, and Democrats should be ashamed for holding African-Americans hostage.

You can but it would be a lie.Hello again, Steve:

I showed you what the Texas school book people wanted to do with the text of our history books.. They want to DUMB it down.. They want to bring RELIGION into science class. You do too, don't you??

Religion ISN'T science... As long as people like you INSIST on dumbing down our science curriculum, we're going to fall FURTHER and FURTHER down that list...

You're DAMN right I blame the right wing.

excon

Hello again, Steve:

I showed you what the Texas school book people wanted to do with the text of our history books.. They want to DUMB it down.. They want to bring RELIGION into science class. You do too, don't you???

Religion ISN'T science... As long as people like you INSIST on dumbing down our science curriculum, we're gonna fall FURTHER and FURTHER down that list...

You're DAMN right I blame the right wing.

excon

My offer at compromise has been made clear more than once so I'm not going to honor your distraction with a response.

The fact is liberals have been running public schools and the majority of higher education for decades, the failing results belong to them.

Yes, and Democrats should be ashamed for holding African-Americans hostage.

You're just mad because they run from you guys like a plague, and cannot understand why they refuse to act against their own self interest like you guys do. Females, and minorities have rejected the policies of Romney, and the conservative right wing.


The fact is liberals have been running public schools and the majority of higher education for decades, the failing results belong to them.

States run their own school districts, and the red ones are no more successful than the blue ones.

I seem to have missed the compromises you and Tom have submitted, sorry, if you could help me find it,I would be grateful.

Did you not read my posting about Michelle Rhee ?

Michelle Rhee was the chancellor of the Washington DC district from 2007 to 2010. During her tenure she was instituting a variety of reforms based on accountability and results . In doing so she stept on the toes of the entrenched .
She shut down 23 failing schools, fired 36 principals, 241 teachers and cut 121 unnecessary office jobs. She initiated new programs ;and renegotiated the teacher contracts. She supported a voucher system to aid poor parents in giving their children a choice in education. She wrote in an editiorial that vouchers give " poor families access to publicly funded scholarships to attend private schools,"..."All children deserve the chance to get a great education; no family should be forced to send kids to a school they know is failing."

Michelle Rhee: In Budget Crises, an Opening for School Reform - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704739504576068142896954626.html)

Well that lasted until the 2010 elections in DC .IT became a referendum on her reforms .The incumbent lost ;and Rhee resigned before she got fired. DC sqaundered a golden opportunity for real change in favor of the failed status quo.

So no ,it is not conservatives that resist change . The established left is the entrenched group that has managed this failure.

And what is the compromise? Where do the kids go that are not accepted ,due to no more room, or underqualified? Your position is unclear to me so I beg your indulgence.

You're just mad because they run from you guys like a plague, and cannot understand why they refuse to act against their own self interest like you guys do. Females, and minorities have rejected the policies of Romney, and the conservative right wing.

Blacks don't run from me and I don't run from them, neither does Mitt - unlike the current president.

Dude, we're not the ones telling them that all their problems are caused by white people and their only hope is government, particularly black politicians. We can see how the first black president has shown that vision to be hopeless, so yeah, why would blacks vote against being used as tools for the left's big-government agenda?

Or why would women vote against being told they're too helpless to take care of themselves, they're all just Julia's waiting for Obama to come to their rescue?

It just tells me the liberal indoctrination in schools has worked, blacks and (liberal) women are now too stupid to see what's in their own best interest.


I seem to have missed the compromises you and Tom have submitted, sorry, if you could help me find it,I would be grateful.

Sorry, not going to do your work for you.

It just tells me the liberal indoctrination in schools has worked, blacks and (liberal) women are now too stupid to see what's in their own best interest.

That's been the conservative religious argument for centuries. YOU know what's best for someone else because they are stupid, and only you are smart.

Translation- " My way, or the highway"!! Your interpretation of the word compromise is FLAWED!

Follow-up to the last post, Obama has made another move in his imperial presidency, he just gutted work rules from welfare reform.


Chairman Jordan: Add Welfare Reform to the List of Laws Obama Won’t Follow (http://rsc.jordan.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=303038)


Washington, Jul 12 - Republican Study Committee Chairman Jim Jordan responded to today’s announcement by the Department of Health and Human Services that it would violate the 1996 welfare reform law by waiving work requirements for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program.

“President Obama just tore up a basic foundation of the welfare contract. In exchange for taxpayer-funded TANF payments, the law calls on able-bodied adults to work, look for work, take classes, or undergo drug and alcohol counseling. It’s the tough love that gives people motivation to help themselves.”

“By waiving the law's requirements, President Obama will make it harder for Americans to escape poverty. He is hurting the very people he claims to help.”

Yes of course, one more way for the class warrior in chief to divide America and build on his government dependent constituency instead of helping people improve their lot in life.


“Today’s action is also a blatant violation of the law. After immigration, education, marriage, and religious conscience protections, we can now add welfare reform to the list of laws President Obama refuses to follow.”

Laws? We don't need no stinkin' laws, King Obama has decreed it and thus it is so.

Thats been the conservative religious argument for centuries. YOU know whats best for someone else because they are stupid, and only you are smart.

Translation- " My way, or the highway"!!!! Your interpretation of the word compromise is FLAWED!

Been hanging out in opposite land again Tal? I made the compromise offer, you first ignored it, then said it was too difficult, then said you missed it so you're just pulling answers out of your rectum instead of dealing with reality.

No it is not .Without discounting the impact the Enlightenment had on the founders thinking ,it was not the sole inspiration. As an example; the governing bodies are closer in structure to the Iroquois Confederacy model than any European Parliamentary model .


If you are saying that government has manifested itself in practice through a variety of inspirations then I am happy to go along with that.

However, that is to the point I am making. The history of government is littered with examples of theory not quite matching practice. Sometimes it turns out that theory has very little do do with practice. But again this is not the issue I am raising.

I was putting up a challenge to the claim that the founders were NOT committed to secular government. I think we have established they were because the document is actually a secular document. Isn't that a commitment?

Therefore, I know they were in fact committed to a secular government because the evidence is in the document. Are you wanting to challenge this aspect? I am not challenging your other claims as they may well be correct for all I know.

Tut

was putting up a challenge to the claim that the founders were NOT committed to secular government. I think we have established they were because the document is actually a secular document. Isn't that a commitment?

Therefore, I know they were in fact committed to a secular government because the evidence is in the document. Are you wanting to challenge this aspect? I am not challenging your other claims as they may well be correct for all I know.


Then we wasted a bunch of words. I have never challenged that

. But I think you are missing the point... Trust me ;the fact that a "secular state " was estabilshed is being taught .It iis drilled into our heads .;;;;; and the rest is being excluded from the liberal education . It is a purging of anything that doesn't toe the liberal line. That is why Texas is taking the bull by the horn... to reintroduce the missing facts from public education.
Being a product of the same education;it took me years to deprogram .

Then we wasted a bunch of words. I have never challenged that

. But I think you are missing the point ...Trust me ;the fact that a "secular state " was estabilshed is being taught .It iis drilled into our heads .;;;;; and the rest is being excluded from the liberal education . It is a purging of anything that doesn't toe the liberal line. That is why Texas is taking the bull by the horn ...to reintroduce the missing facts from public education.
Being a product of the same education;it took me years to deprogram .

I am assuming you have read Ex's link. So you are happy with everything that is said in the article. Does this represent in you view what the curriculum should pursue in relation to history and evolution? In other words, this approach would represent is a legitimate reflection of some of the missing 'facts'?

Tut

Yes they would... It is way too simplistic to say 'they created a secular government ' while excluding the other factors that influenced their thinking .I have provided enough evidence of the fact that there was much more on their mind than secular Enlightenment thought. To exclude it is to create an agenda based education system .

Yes they would .... It is way too simplistic to say 'they created a secular government ' while excluding the other factors that influenced their thinking .I have provided enough evidence of the fact that there was much more on their mind than secular Enlightenment thought. To exclude it is to create an agenda based education system .

Don't worry about it Tom. It's a circular argument.

Tut

Maybe from the outside looking in... From here it amts to another front in a ideological war. Not all the 'facts ' taught in our public k-12 education system are facts ;or if they are facts ,they are facts spun and filtered through an ideological agenda. The Texas school board is looking to restore balance.

The Texas school board is looking to restore balance.Hello again, tom:

Let me say again, that Intelligent Design is RELIGION.. If you think it's science, and INSIST on teaching it in SCIENCE class, you're contributing to the decline of those numbers in the OP..

That is just a fact, and I don't care if they don't believe it in Texas.

excon

maybe from the outside looking in ... From here it amts to another front in a ideological war.


Yes, well if everything else fails may as well conduct a war.

Well Ex ;Tut and I were discussing the founders and their beliefs .

But if the conversation is about ID ;then let me tell you AGAIN ,that ID is not Science . It is not science because it does not offer an alternate scientific explanations to the highway size holes is pokes through Darwin's theories. Instead it's fall back position is Creationism ;and as you know,there is no way to prove or falsify Creationism . Therefore it is not a science.

Yes, well if everything else fails may as well conduct a war.

Tut ,they drew 1st blood.

Hello again, tom:

Let me say again, that Intelligent Design is RELIGION.. If you think it's science, and INSIST on teaching it in SCIENCE class, you're contributing to the decline of those numbers in the OP..

That is just a fact, and I don't care if they don't believe it in Texas.

excon

First of all Texas is not teaching that ID or creation is science. You guys just have a problem with alternative theories because that might actually make children think.

P.S. Is gutting work requirements (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/american-exceptionalism-harrumph-681591-6.html#post3193785) for welfare part of making America exceptional again?

And here I thought the President wanted to go back to Clintoon era policies .

You guys just have a problem with alternative theories because that might actually make children think.


No, I don't have a problem with alternative theories.

I have problem is with people who put forward alternative theories and fail to have a understanding of the theories they are putting forward.

well Ex ;Tut and I were discussing the founders and their beliefs .

But if the conversation is about ID ;then let me tell you AGAIN ,that ID is not Science . It is not science because it does not offer an alternate scientific explanations to the highway size holes is pokes through Darwin's theories. Instead it's fall back position is Creationism ;and as you know,there is no way to prove or falsify Creationism . Therefore it is not a science.

Tom creationism is an explanation as darwinism is an explanation and contrary to popular view neither are science. What I want to know is if we have been here for millennia and some scientists think this is so, what caused our sudden development?

Clete ,I said the ID people have poked huge holes in Darwin's hypothesis,and don't offer a scientific theory in return. However ,certain parts of Darwin's hypothesis have been validated as scientific theory .
My position has always been that evolution and creation are not inherently in conflict. Nor will be creationism and the apparent confirmation of the existence of a Higgs Boson (yes I used Capital letter in Boson to honor the forgotten scientist in the name ;Satyendra Nath Bose).

So we have discovered yet another among the two hundred particles that make up matter as we currently know it, Hooray! We can now go on to something more important and inherrently useful because I can't see the practical application for this so called advance in science, have we discovered a way to make things heavier, MacDonald's outstripped that research by years.

You see there really isn't a practical application for Darwin's theories because what he really theorised was that the earth was older than we thought. Well maybe it is, our written history encompasses about six thousand years, before that who knows? But one thing I do know is that those objects we are looking at in the cosmos for the most part no longer exist and so I don't see how that fact and Darwin are related. I also know that the dinosaurs disappeared in a mass extinction event and our written history includes such an event and that if we had been here for millions of years our species, because of it's very nature would no longer exist

so we have discovered yet another among the two hundred particles that make up matter as we currently know it, Hooray! we can now go on to something more important and inherrently useful because I can't see the practical application for this so called advance in science, have we dicovered a way to make things heavier, MacDonald's outstripped that research by years.

You see there really isn't a practical application for Darwin's theories because what he really theorised was that the earth was older than we thought. Well maybe it is, our written history encompasses about six thousand years, before that who knows? but one thing I do know is that those objects we are looking at in the cosmos for the most part no longer exist and so I don't see how that fact and Darwin are related. I also know that the dinosaurs disappeared in a mass extinction event and our written history includes such an event and that if we had been here for millions of years our species, because of it's very nature would no longer exist


Hi Clete,


These types of question would be better answer by physicists and biologists, but I will try a different perspective.

There is link between Darwin and the Higges Boson, and that link is the scientific method.

The Standard Model of partical physics has been around a long time. The problem is that you can only work with what you have. If this Standard Model is the only one available then this is what you work with.

As it turns out the Standard Model is inadequate when it comes to explaining mass. Yes, you are right the process has been for a long time smashing larger particles into smaller ones in order to get ever smaller ones.

The big problem is that when we total the mass of these particles they only can account for about 1% of the total mass. Where is the other 99%? Well that is the big question.

In terms of what is being talked about in this post- that must be one massive hole -in the explanation. I guess we can say that Darwin and Higgs (for the purpose of this exercise) have a lot in common. Large holes in the theories.

I think it is a common misunderstanding to think that science has all the answers. For some reason we seem to have this obsession with knowing 'the truth'. If something is not a total explanation then it can be discarded. I think it must be some type of psychological malaise we humans suffer from.Science would never even begin to say it has discovered the whole truth.

The reality is that science couldn't care less about the holes in their theories. They actually welcome it. The more holes the better. All science is interested in is filling in the holes using the scientific method. If the theory doesn't fit the observation then we think of a new theory. In this case the Standard Model is inadequate, hence Higges's new theory for the origin of mass.

In the final analysis Darwin is no different to Higgs. It is just that Darwin gets a lot more bad publicity because he seems closer to home. As you say, in the end most people couldn't care less about Higgs. After all it is a long way from home.

If you are interested I can have a go at trying to answer the questions in your previous post.
Can't say I will be successful though.

Tut

You guys just have a problem with alternative theories because that might actually make children think.Hello again, Steve:

It rains... We know WHY it rains.. But, I think it's the rain fairy... That's an alternative to, you know, CLOUD based rain.. So, according to YOU, we should present THAT theory, as an alternative to, you know, CLOUD based rain, because it might make children THINK...

In reality, what it would do, is make the children STUPIDER, and STUPIDER, and even STUPIDER than that..

Now, tom has disavowed teaching ID IN a science class, but apparently YOU haven't... I think YOU represent the right wing in that regard MORE than tom does. Therefore, I say again, the things YOU, and your right wing cohorts, want to do, and ARE DOING, in our schools is the single item that is MOST responsible for the decline in the numbers in the OP.

excon

Ex ;you cannot deny the dominance that liberal progressives have had in shaping the majority of the public school agenda in our lifetime. Your conclusion could only be correct if there was a sudden drop in the last couple years in Texas only. The conservative kick back for more balance in the curriculum goes a lot further than ID and hard science .

because I can't see the practical application for this so called advance in science,
And because you can't find a practical application means that one doesn't exist ? I bet someone has thought of one ;maybe they are already working on it. Don't forget the spin off inventions that came from the race to the moon.

No, I don't have a problem with alternative theories.

I have problem is with people who put forward alternative theories and fail to have a understanding of the theories they are putting forward.

Fair enough, but the left here has a collective hissy fit at the mere thought of presenting a possibility other than Darwinism.

Darwinism and abortion are unassailable religious dogmas to them.

And because you can't find a practical application means that one doesn't exist ? I bet someone has thought of one ;maybe they are already working on it. Don't forget the spin off inventions that came from the race to the moon.


If you are interested I can have a go at trying to answer the questions in your previous post.Can't say I will be successful though.

Tut

Tom I'll try to answer both yourself and Tut at the same time, Science for sciences sake leads us nowhere but into a great big hole. Scientists split the atom, found a practical application and we have been trying to deal with the problems they created ever since.

There are some like yourself who like to justify the space race by the spinoffs it created when in fact it was just the US and the USSR satisfying their ego and testing some weapons at the same time

Tut the questions I was asking were rhetorical, I wasn't looking for a dissertation on science and darwinism. I don't happen to think that just because we think a thought it should be explored. Like Einstein, I just want to know the thoughts of God because everything else is just the details and that is all science is doing, playing with the details

Well Clete ,humans blew that chance at no curiosity when Adam gave Eve the apple.Also ,I'd argue that the splitting of the atom was a good thing and probably the key to our energy future.

"That which is impenetrable to us really exists.
behind the secrets of nature remains something subtle, intangible, and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion."Albert Einstein
Yes Einstein had it right . There is no conflict between science and religion. You should consider that .

Hello again, Steve:

It rains... We know WHY it rains.. But, I think it's the rain fairy... That's an alternative to, you know, CLOUD based rain.. So, according to YOU, we should present THAT theory, as an alternative to, you know, CLOUD based rain, because it might make children THINK...

In reality, what it would do, is make the children STUPIDER, and STUPIDER, and even STUPIDER than that..

Now, tom has disavowed teaching ID IN a science class, but apparently YOU haven't... I think YOU represent the right wing in that regard MORE than tom does. Therefore, I say again, the things YOU, and your right wing cohorts, want to do, and ARE DOING, in our schools is the single item that is MOST responsible for the decline in the numbers in the OP.

excon

You might have a point if you weren't just making assumptions. That seems to be a problem with liberals, the absence of evidence reinforces their preconceived notions.

I'm OK with leaving the ideology out of public education, but I said that already though I think you ignored it and Tal danced all around it after saying such a compromise was too difficult. That's my compromise and I'll throw in a bonus - let's leave religion out - including the religious dogma aspect of evolution.

Progressive indoctrination as opposed to critical thinking makes children stupider and stupider as your stats from this OP demonstrate perfectly.

Then why don't you tell kids you don't know? At least that's the truth. Maybe they will follow their own journey to facts and evidence, without our prejudices.

Then why don't you tell kids you don't know? At least thats the truth. Maybe they will follow their own journey to facts and evidence, without our prejudices.

Tal you can't tell them you don't know, they become confused, so what you should tell them is that some people think this and some people think that. However just as in the climate change debate some people think because they have an opinion that is the truth we have the same problem with darwinism and religion. What I have observed is that people don't know what they don't know, just a students doing a course have no idea of the breadth of knowledge the discipline encompasses, so the kids have no idea of what is possible unless we tell them at least what already exists

Tell kids the truth, and let them question. They won't be the only ones confused, since you are too! Maybe you both can learn something.

So Tal you think I am confused. What is it you think I am confused about? Sometimes things seen at a distance are clearer than those things that are right in your face

I should have quoted Speech,to avoid confusion, as I was referencing his reply to my opinion that you should tell the kids the truth, and if you don't know the answer to their question say so.

Or at least be honest when giving what you BELIEVE, as opposed to what you know. That's usually done by stating I don't know for sure, but I believe... etc,etc.

Or at least be honest when giving what you BELIEVE, as opposed to what you know. Thats usually done by stating I don't know for sure, but I believe..................etc,etc.

Yep

I should have quoted Speech,to avoid confusion, as I was referencing his reply to my opinion that you should tell the kids the truth, and if you don't know the answer to their question say so.

Referencing me on that that would be pretty good trick since I haven't responded to that post yet.

As I said, next time I will use quotes. But this was what I was responding to,


Progressive indoctrination as opposed to critical thinking makes children stupider and stupider as your stats from this OP demonstrate perfectly.

With this,


Then why don't you tell kids you don't know? At least that's the truth. Maybe they will follow their own journey to facts and evidence, without our prejudices.

Just saying your indoctrination is no different than mine, and we like our own ways to indoctrinate our kids our own way. Its just I admit I don't know where man came from, or how life started, and there are many opinions to that end, but no evidence, just speculations.

The possibility we all are wrong is very possible. It didn't make MY kids any stupider for it. I do have evidence of THAT!

As I was saying Tal, you referenced me replying to something I never replied to.

Have a cup of coffee and realize I was the one replying to YOU!!

Now you're getting even more confused. No matter, just look at the FB standings and everything will be clear.

There is nothing like a circular argument in this case i didn't say that, i know you didn't say that, i did

The only one going in circles is Tal.

Hello:

America is 7th in literacy, 27th in math, 22nd in science, 49th in life expectancy, 178th in infant mortality, 3rd in median household income, and number 4 in exports.

We are exceptional at only 3 things: the rate of incarceration per capita, the amount of people who believe in angels, and defense spending, where we outspend the next 26 biggest countries combined.

We used to lead the world in those things.. The only way we can do it again is to STOP pretending we still do.

excon

PS> (edited) Ok, I made up the one about the angels...


GREED not GOD!

Real Estate was the only enterprise keeping our country fueled, and now that it is gone, Americans are still trying to make a living off other Americans.

Everyone I know is broke or going broke. School loans are being defaulted on at an unbelievable 83%. Students are forced to pay off federal loans...

So don't go to college without a fully paid scholarship. These young students graduate then end up working for minimum wage, can't buy a car, don't have any independence and end up back at their parents, if they can go back home.

When the roots of a tree die, eventually all the leaves will die too.

That is when America will rebuild.

When the roots of a tree die, eventually all the leaves will die too.Hello k:

**greenie**

excon

Prosperity to bankruptcy all it took was a few greedy men in an unregulated environment. How can this be a good system

In any system, there will be those that can exploit it. Greedy Lazy B@stards!

Doesn't make it right Tal, doesn't mean they should be given opportunity. The number of greedy B@stards is multiplying as the number of millionaires, etc, grows, you just have to look at CEO renumeration for confirmation. What is not good is that this is seen as the norm

in an unregulated environment.??
You have got to be kiddin!!

The housing bubble klarsenartwork referred to was totally a product of government design .

Government design in fostering a market, but the government didn't design the securatisation of the mortgage debt, virtual junk bond status, and market it internationally as a AAA investment, that was done by greedy individuals with no regard to the consequences and it was possible because loose regulation allowed it to happen

but the government didn't design the securatisation of the mortgage debt, virtual junk bond status, and market Again wrong. The 1st entities to deal with creative finacing was the GSE Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac . Government regulators forced private lending institutions to play the game.

Government didn't make banks do anything.They found a great way to increase profits through fees, and didn't care who they charged, or how they charged.

The more loans they processed, the faster they could bundle them and resell them. Don't blame government for corporate greed. They were allowed to take the money and run. Then they took the money and ran some more and are still fat and happy from their gluttony.

So much for less regulation, and low taxes.

Government regulators forced private lending institutions to play the game.Hello again, tom:

Yeah, I've heard this bit of right wing lore before... Old homosexual, Barney Frank MADE the banks lose all their money... Bwa, ha ha ha.

You know, if I was a bank, and got an order to LOSE everything... I would have just CLOSED up so I could SAVE some of the money... You're telling us that instead of doing that, the bankers ALL ran off the cliff...

Somehow, I don't believe that...

excon

His homosexuality had nothing to do with his failed agenda . After all ;his cohort Chris Dodd is straight as an arrow... a criminal ,but straight nonetheless.

But since you bring him up... Here is a refresher .
Barney Frank in 2005: What Housing Bubble? - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iW5qKYfqALE)

Blame Barney,Chris, or Barack! The money went somewhere, so lets see who has the loot, and who holds the empty bag!

Its safe to say that the guys sitting on TRILLIONS hollering for more are the ones who are greedy. Just logical. American Exceptionalism has been replaced by corporate GREED!

You would think the rest of us would be tired of holding those empty bags by now. Hmm, what's in your bag Tom??

My bag have already been picked by Uncle Sam and Andy . My property taxes is a 2nd mortgage on my home ;and I pay sales taxes to 3 different taxing authorities. The little bit I have squirelled away I did by denying myself the things that people consider necessities today.

So making the same bureaucracies that failed to prevent that crisis even bigger and more unaccountable is the solution to preventing another catastrophe.

That's like giving an alcoholic the key to your liquor cabinet.

That's like giving an alcoholic the key to your liquor cabinet.Hello again, Steve:

Yet, you want to give the banks that same key? Talk about INCONSISTENCY!

excon

Hello again, Steve:

Yet, you wanna give the banks that same key? Talk about INCONSISTENCY!

excon

It would be if that were my position but it isn't so it's nothing like that.

You keep playing this all or nothing game that has nothing to do with the reality of my beliefs. And like all libs you think trying to scale back government in any way, or say in this case making unelected bureaucrats accountable to someone, means we want uncontrolled, unregulated chaos.

Is there no in-between with you?

And like all libs you think trying to scale back government in any way, or say in this case making unelected bureaucrats accountable to someone, means we want uncontrolled, unregulated chaos.

Is there no in-between with you?Hello again, Steve:

Sure, there's some in-between. Here's some now.

I'd be HAPPY to make cuts to medicare and social security, if you'd pair down the unbelievably HUGE side of government that YOU like. I'm talking about defense, the DEA, the NSA, and the prison industrial complex, amongst others... You know, the COP side of government..

If we did that, we wouldn't have to raise taxes on ANYBODY... Is that in between enough for you, or do you want it all YOUR WAY? Never mind. I KNOW the answer.

Is there no in between with you?

excon

Blame Barney,Chris, or Barack! The money went somewhere, so lets see who has the loot, and who holds the empty bag!

Its safe to say that the guys sitting on TRILLIONS hollering for more are the ones who are greedy. Just logical. American Exceptionalism has been replaced by corporate GREED!!

You would think the rest of us would be tired of holding those empty bags by now. Hmm, whats in your bag Tom????

No mortgage lender had a more malign influence than Countrywide which bought itself political clout by giving cheap loans to important political and industry officials.Countrywide developed a special relationship with Fannie Mae and used preferential loans to win political influence through it's "VIP Program" ,which offered mortgages at special terms.

Countrywide's VIP loan unit made hundreds of loans to current and former Members of Congress, congressional staff, high-ranking government officials, and executives and employees of Fannie Mae, including Chairman Jim Johnson, Franklin Raines, and Daniel Mudd.

A dozen legislators and staffers received loans... including Sen. Christopher Dodd ,former chairman of the Senate Finance Committee(aka the "Senator from Countrywide"); Sen. Kent Conrad ,chairman of the Senate Budget Committee; and Rep. Edolphus Towns former chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

Countrywide ;and the two GSA s Fannie and Freddie resisted reform for years while the bubble grew larger . They were bolstered by the interference that Dodd ;Frank and their ilk ran for them in the halls of Congress.

So how were they rewarded ? With censure ? Expulsion ? A frog march out ? No .The 2 of them were given the power to write the reform legislation for the financial industry . Yeah I'm sure there was no influeunce peddling in those negotiations!

Hello again, Steve:

Sure, there's some in-between. Here's some now.

I'd be HAPPY to make cuts to medicare and social security, if you'd pair down the unbelievably HUGE side of government that YOU like. I'm talking about defense, the DEA, the NSA, and the prison industrial complex, amongst others... You know, the COP side of government..

If we did that, we wouldn't have to raise taxes on ANYBODY... Is that in between enough for you, or do you want it all YOUR WAY? Never mind. I KNOW the answer.

Is there no in between with you?

excon

That's hard to say since you keep basing your answers on an assumptions.

No mortgage lender had a more malign influence than Countrywide which bought itself political clout by giving cheap loans to important political and industry officials.Countrywide developed a special relationship with Fannie Mae and used preferential loans to win political influence through it's "VIP Program" ,which offered mortgages at special terms.

Countrywide's VIP loan unit made hundreds of loans to current and former Members of Congress, congressional staff, high-ranking government officials, and executives and employees of Fannie Mae, including Chairman Jim Johnson, Franklin Raines, and Daniel Mudd.

A dozen legislators and staffers received loans....including Sen. Christopher Dodd ,former chairman of the Senate Finance Committee(aka the "Senator from Countrywide"); Sen. Kent Conrad ,chairman of the Senate Budget Committee; and Rep. Edolphus Towns former chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

Countrywide ;and the two GSA s Fannie and Freddie resisted reform for years while the bubble grew larger . They were bolstered by the interference that Dodd ;Frank and their ilk ran for them in the halls of Congress.

So how were they rewarded ? With censure ? Expulsion ? A frog march out ? No .The 2 of them were given the power to write the reform legislation for the finacial industry . Yeah I'm sure there was no influeunce peddling in those negotiations !!

I am sure there was, and this election cycle has shown it has grown quite a bit.

I am sure there was, and this election cycle has shown it has grown quite a bit.
Yes because they cling to this 'too big to fail ' notion ;and set up regulations designed to concentrate the market into fewer hands . That is the Dodd and Frank legacy.

That seems to be the general theme in the economy. Concentrating all the wealth in fewer hands. Austerity for the less than rich, and no taxes from the wealthy who don't invest. Hoarding would be a more apt description of what the economy is going through.

Greed and reckless behavior tanked the economy, and it was not punished, so it just got worse. To be exceptional we have to do exceptional things and hoarding is not the path to exceptionalism. Hell trickle down without a trickle is just DOWN.

Not only is the Congress in need of punishment, so are the ones they aided, and abetted. Not class war fare, RESTITUTION. The rich who have done very well through a sluggish time should put something back in the empty bags they left us holding, not be rewarded by being given even more.

You can't really punish people and businesses who's only crime was to follow the laws that the lawmakers created . The evidence is clear. The government ;through a top down command style ,created the policy ,and directed the financial institutions to abandon sound lending practices to achieve the policy.

My take is different, they relaxed laws and regulations that prevented bad behavior and the banks took advantage of the relaxed laws and ran with it. So much for scouts honor. Legal is no excuse for bad behavior. Especially since it's the banks who pushed for this relaxing of the law. Started decades ago culminating in the repeal of Glass Steagall. About the same time that big oil was writing there own regulations.

Are these isolated incidents? Hell no, its big money writing their own rules. They made extraction legal. They may have escaped jail, or criminal actions but not the people taking back their authority, duly given in the Constitution. The power of the vote.

The government ;through a top down command style ,created the policy ,and directed the finacial institutions to abandon sound lending practices to acheive the policy.Hello again, tom:

This is the part I don't get... You SAY the banks all threw themselves on their swords, because the mean old government, like Barney Frank, TOLD them to... so, they DID!!

That confuses me.. You see, I'M in business... IF my government ORDERED me to DO things that would END my business, I actually WOULDN'T do them.. Nope. I'd CLOSE up, and keep what assets I had..

What YOU want us to believe, is that bankers, when faced with that very same decision, RAN OFF THE CLIFF instead of saving themselves..

Nahhh... It didn't happen. Only in right wing revisionism, did it happen... Oy vey..

excon

Were they ordered to relax lending requirements yes or no... answer yes . Did that result in a market bubble ? Yes . Is Holder again putting the pressure on banks to relax lending requirements ? Yes.

were they ordered to relax lending requirements yes or no ...answer yes . Hello again, tom:

The answer is No. They were ordered to lend to QUALIFIED people in neighborhoods which the banks had previously REFUSED to do.

Now, it appears the banks INTERPRETED that as YOU did, so they sought out every black crack dealer they could find and MADE them take loans.. They'll SHOW the government...

And, you expect us to BELIEVE that cockamamie crap?

excon

were they ordered to relax lending requirements yes or no ...answer yes . Did that result in a market bubble ? Yes . Is Holder again putting the pressure on banks to relax lending requirements ? yes.

Pressured yes, ordered NO!

We agree on the bubble, the banks got greedy though and that's what started the bubble.

Need a link for that Holder thing, but I do know that DOJ, and state prosecutors are hot on the BANKS butt for fraudulent practices.

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/279-82/12176-focus-banks-paying-huge-fines-for-wall-street-scam

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/lather-rinse-repeat-banks-big-profits-bilking-consumers-172854994.html

Were you referring to the lending to local, and community banks, by the big banks?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/caroltice/2012/07/06/5-big-banks-reject-the-most-small-business-loans/