Schools to Big Brother Barack: Stay Out!!

yeh, i think that those repubs who don't set themselves apart and are busy playing footsie with the prez are complicit. This is evident as many of them just gave a yes nod to cass sunstein despite the new czar's desire to eliminate certain amendments from the bill of rights.
They took an oath to defend the constitution and if they can't do that because of peer pressure or are concerned about appearing disruptive, then they have no place in congress and will be broomed.

And how, pray tell, would a czar abolish ANY amendment?

well hammy since you asked this question which is not really the point of my post. The point is that they approved a czar with said desire.
Czar whispers in obama's ear that gun's should be outlawed for certain purposes, obama whispers into pelosi's ear "get your bulldozer and ram this down the throat of the people, congress obeys pelosi and reed and said law is written regardless of constitutional concerns. Much like the healthcare bill is being forced on us, by using the same saul alinsky tactics.

Are you understand how to repeal an Amendment?

hammy, i know this scenario i gave seems wacky, but thes are wacky times.These people don't care about the constitution. Consider the power this new czar has-----

The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) “reviews and alters regulations created by federal agencies,” according to Congress Daily.

Sunstein, who has published 15 books, would have broad powers to review, recommend changes and possibly engineer changes in all federal regulations, including those about dog ownership, farming, hunting on federal lands, and enforcement of gun control laws.

In his published writings and speeches, Sunstein has advocated:

* Giving animal rights groups the power to file lawsuits on the behalf of animals against their owners.

* Very strict regulations about animal ownership, farming and hunting.

* The elimination of hunting.

* The elimination of the individual right
to keep and bear arms.

* Moving toward a vegan vegetarian society.

* Rewriting the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

* And restrictions on free speech.

Seems wacky because it is wacky. Black helicopter, tin foil hat wacky. Fake moon landing wacky. Elvis is still alive wacky. Obama was born in Kenya wacky. Nobody will take anything you say seriously ever again wacky.

You are right about living in wacky times. It's a time where scare tactics and conspiracy theories are all the right has to offer. Sure it's wacky, but more than that it's pathetic and lame.

Yep, and when all is said . . .still no answer on how to go about repealing an amendment from the bill of rights?

Don't hold your breath Chique. All this czar talk is about an inch deep. All you have to do is ask how any czar is going to do anything that circumvents the constitution and they don't have an answer. The reason is, there isn't one. That or you can mention that Bush appointed 35 of them.

hey fag i don't give a shit how many czars bush had as he is not the fucking president
And yes i know how an ammendment to the constitution is accomplished, but if you read my post above you will see that is not the point.
Im not here to spar over these mattters especially with unarmed nitwits.

Clearly you're not equipped to spar if all you have at your rhetorical disposal is bigoted slurs and expletives.

But it's not you incredibly limited verbal skills that makes you so obviously impotent...it's your inability to answer a simple question. Want to try again? Use whatever language you feel you need.

I've got to admit Krag, that monte does have the name calling and curse words down pat.

me thinks that you and krag are butt buddies.

I'll take that lame response as an admission that you can't answer the question. What a shocker.

Easiest way to shut up a bigot is to ask a direct question. Works every time.

just because i observed that you guys are fags doesn't make me a bigot, simply pointing out the obvious.
You think that by butting in on the conversation i was having with hammy and trying to difuse it with elementary basic questions that have nothing to do with the post is going to steer away from the topic.
If you need an answer to your question just go to www.mynoseisupobama'sass.net and ask some of your friends.

Still no answer. Pathetic.

You're pointing out the obvious? One of us is female so you even got your name calling wrong.

Besides, I thought "butting in" was kind of the point on Current.

joe wilson was right on, in the midst of untold number of lies by the prez, he was the only one with the balls to call him out on one of them. He will be reelected with a majority for actually doing his job.

The fringe talking to the fringe. And of course you and Joe are wrong.

http://mediamattersaction.org/factcheck/200909090009

If you want to be taken seriously...please site facts and provide citation like the one above. If not...enjoy your game of checkers.

he he he you think media matters has facts.
Actually the prez lies, he is caught on record as saying he will veto any bill that locks out the illegal alien.
That my friend IS a fact.
Media matters has proven that it carries the water for progressives. it has no validity here.
We all know that it was started by clinton and moveon to try and confuse the public about facts.
don't be a dupe!

So...you've provided no citation at all. And you're only defense of the citation I provided is that you don't like who posted it. Even though it references the bill itself.

Really? That's your response? I think checkers is too complex for you. I think you're playing Chutes and Ladders. How 'bout I get you a juice box and put you down for a nap.

Fail.

Sec. 59B, Pg. 170, Line 1—“Any NONRESIDENT alien is exempt from individual taxes.”
This is a well known, and the fact that you demand a citation for it because your ignorant, is a juvenile game intended to muddy up the issue.

Um...didn't you say something about Obama being caught saying he'd veto any bill locking out aliens? Are we just supposed to take your word for that? Funny how when someone asks you to back something up...you just change the subject. And by funny I mean sad and desperate.

If you could back it up you would. The fact that you can't speaks volumes. Maybe Chutes and Ladders is too complex. Maybe you should try finger painting.

A Non Resident Alien is not an ILLEGAL Alien. Make sure you know what the law defines as a Non Resident Alien before you start tossing terms around as if you now what they mean.

Furthermore Subtitle C section 246 prohibits illegal immigrants from receiving this care. Are you sure you actually read the bill? Here is a link to the Bill MONTESOOMA, peruse it yourself. I did a search using your own cited search...to which you posted no PDF link. In all the search engines I typed it into, it always refered me to a conservative talking point. In no instance was I linked to the text of the bill, in fact I have looked at the bill, and can find no such section unless the titles and sections have been rena,ed and/or re-numbered.

In any case, I posted a link to the actual Bill, and you are free to look up the section I cited. Otherwise you have shown no evidence whatsoever to support your accusation.

"Under H.R. 3200, a 'Health Insurance Exchange' would begin operation in 2013 and would offer private plans alongside a public option…H.R. 3200 does not contain any restrictions on noncitzens—whether legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently—participating in the Exchange."
CRS also notes that the bill has no provision for requiring those seeking coverage orservices to provided proof of citizenship.

Amen Krag - and thanks for hanging in there with the logic - I can breathe again.

Hitler called himself a freedom lover, did that make him one? Please..if you can not create a coherent argument against Communism, then you have no idea what you are talking about.

Again, please make a case as to WHY Communism = Misery?

That Zurama has actually lived under communist oppression (and I venture to say that you have not) she does in fact speak with the authority of experience.
What is there to fear of communism one has asked?
Pray that you may never have cause to find out, as the legions throughout this past century have lived through the horror of its oppression have gave their very lives to either combat it or escape it.
Tell me please, if you find the concept of communism so appealing, why do those who live under its subjection attempt to escape it and those who utilize it restrain them from leaving?
Tell me, what is GOOD about communism?

There is NO Communist government on Earth today, nor has there ever been. So again, please explain to me how COMMUNISM is bad, not how STALIN is bad....I already know that. But Stalin, Castro, Mao, these men never ruled a Communist nation. Since in a COMMUNIST setting, there is NO RULER, they could not have been Communist. Instead they simply called themselves Communist in order to appeal to the masses. They were in Fact DICTATORS.

So if you insist on bringing up the tired argument of Soviet Russia, and Red China, then perhaps you should do some studying before you come back.

hammy please stop with the bullshit that there has never been communism -- unless of course you know far more than encyclopedias.
yes ussr system was communist.
Communism leads to bread lines, unemployment, starvation and ultimately the demise of its hosting country. That is what is wrong with it! the usa had a form of socialism during the colonies which proved to be a failure this is the reason we have property ownership and capitalism -- thank God because it ultimately helped the poor and downtrodden the world over. Please get a book u are insufferable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_the_Russian_Federation

You go to Encyclopedia Britannica and then say you have done your research? Please, Communism is the idea of NO STATE at all. Have you even read the Communist Manifesto?

Below is one of myriads of descriptions of communism as understood by world academia at large;

*communism:
~ An economic and social system envisioned by the nineteenth-century German scholar Karl Marx. In theory, under communism, all means of production are owned in common, rather than by individuals . *{In practice, a single authoritarian party} controls both the political and economic systems. In the twentieth century, communism was associated with the economic and political systems of China and the Soviet Union and of the satellites of the Soviet Union.

But what do they know, right? Being that you've so adamantly and obstinately claim that those who've spoke in opposition to it do not know of what they speak.
...please be so kind as to enlighten us with your higher intellectual plane of understanding and reveal to all academia what communism really is, after all these decades of time it is imperative that this delusion and ignorance no longer prevail...Hmmm?

akamiel is right. and you think that by arguing to technical meaning of the word communism that you will detract from the fact that Obama is in fact a statist and progressive who uses social justice and class envy as mechanisms to advance the power of the progressive elite. This may work on the obamatrons and koolaid drinkers but it doesn't work on us as we know how the man was raised, who he associates with and his statist philosophy.
Today he gave a speech to students telling them to work hard to succeed, but at the same time instituting policies that will make success frowned upon and maybe even impossible.

"under communism, all means of production are owned in common, rather than by individuals."

Thus Communism has never been realized, it has been used as a rallying cry by those who wish to obtain uncontested power, but not by people who wish to see a Communist State enacted. So NO, Communism has never been seen on any national level EVER.

I agree with your assessment of Obama by the way. I do not believe he has the "people's" interest at heart at all. He is a STATIST, and not a Communist. Despite all the claims to the contrary. A Statist and a Communist are two different entities. Though one may claim the other.

True communism is more like anarcho-syndicalism then what is called communism today.

You can't blindly accept what a book says even if it is a dictionary. Just as an example Merriam-Webster defines a skinhead as 1 : a person whose hair is cut very short 2 : a usually white male belonging to any of various sometimes violent youth gangs whose members have close-shaven hair and often espouse white-supremacist beliefs

even though the skinhead movement started with Jamaican reggae artist such as Toots and the Maytals, and the majority of skinheads aren't racist.

I realize that was a bit off topic but It was the first example i could think of.

Yes, but the ones that are racist, wow, watch out for them. I got beaten by them once for having long hair.

on this page there are 10 dictionaries with different defs for communism. for the record the "communism" we don't want here is the one that killed the ussr -- you know the communism that barak's mentor frank marshall davis was a member of. We don't want statism or marxism either as all these things are contrary to the idea of freedom and individualism.
http://www.answers.com/topic/communism

I myself do not ascribe to communist ideals, but you obviously do not know what those are or care to learn. Social programs aren't all evil many of them benefit you daily without you even knowing it. I personally believe there can be a healthy mix of business and government, we have just yet to find it. Having a conversation with you is like bashing my head repetitively into a brick wall. That website proves my point about looking things up. Just type in skinhead it has the exact same fucking definition I put up. Reading a small summary usually leaves out the majority of information on a subject, and it allows you to jump to conclusions based on pre-existing biases that you might have.

sdizzle - first of all, we never did have a conversation so something else must be causing you to bash your head against the wall.
Maybe it's the crazy idea that maybe fascism would work if it were just given a fighting chance.
This is the same rationale that the progressives give when their policies fail, they always blame it on something else as the reason it didn't work.
Like when barney frank used regulation to force banks to make bad loans and now we are in a recession because of it -- his excuse is we need more regulation (which is what caused it to begin with)
Or when govnment regulation of oil industry causes high fuel prices, the blame is put on a lack of regulation. Do you see a pattern here? The progressive uses his failures as excuse why he should be given more power.
Or statists like obama who badmouth lobbyists and corps to the public, but who strike deals with them and appoint them to high positions behind closed doors. GOVERNMENT lies at the heart of the problem why these economic situations will not ever work. and smarter men than you and me figured this out a long time ago.

Why do you say WE Montesooma? What about what I want? If you believe in freedom, then you should support my own decision as to what sort of society I wish to live in as well.

Also, smarter men have not PROVEN anything, only the men and women that YOU have read. I like to be open to all sides. Have you ever read anything written by Communist or anarcho/syndicalist economists? If you have, who were they? Also, I do understand that it takes an evolved mindest to be COMMUNALY minded, and a lot of people do not have what it takes. Perhaps we should allow certain areas of the US to form their own Communal governments and you may live your own community of similar minded people. Does that sound fair?

sure you can follow in the footsteps of charlie manson and form you a commune in some out of the way place.
good luck

So if the State of California decided to secede to become their own country under a Communal for of society, that would be acceptable to you?

Also, the Charles Manson reference was just ignorant.

charlie had a successfull commune, and its members lived about as well as you can under communism.

Like I said, Ignorant. Have you heard of the Menonites? Do some research into their Communal life before you claim a brainwashing murderer is the only way who had a succesful commune, or that his way is the ONLY succesful commune. You're an idiot who has no concept of the issues we are discussing.

The theory that the CRA caused the recession that we are in now is laughable. I myself am not a fan of the law. I think some people, like myself, can live rather comfortably in an apartment. That being said though, it never forced banks to make bad loans and only half of the subprime loans were made by banks regulated by the CRA, and even then the majority were only partially regulated by the Community Reinvestment Act.

sdizzle --nobody is laughing about the CRA as the failed loans are being payed by the taxpayer and now the govnment owns the mortgage industry. This did in fact cause the recession and the trustworthy govnment(barney frank and cris dodd) were all the while taking kickbacks and assuring us everything was fine and now they are back and given even more power(see my previous post to you) as this is exactly what im telling you about the progressives.
They are doing it again wit the healthcare plan- telling us they are going to protect us from the "evil" corps. This is the same govnment who looted trillions from the social security to pay for pet projects, they are the ones we need protection from.
How are we to trust one crook over another? most likely they just want to make sure that the money and power ends up in their filthy hands.

MONTESOOMA: Are you implying, or stating, that the whole sub prime fiasco and resulting economic collapse is a direct result of the CRA?

hammy, the CRA was not the absolute key piece of legislation that CAUSED the collapse, but a major COMPONENT that attributed to the destabilization of the ethereal house of cards upon which it was built... you need to do a TON of homework to tackle this subject...months ago here on current I've done just that....been there and done that!
...with the scars to prove it...

If by major component you mean one of the numerous components that had an equal cause in the collapse, then I would agree. But, there was a NUMBER of components...the biggest of which was greed. (by consumers as well as bankers)

In order to put the fiscal situation of the United States into some context, a basic understanding of several factors is necessary. The CRA, Federal Housing Enterprises Regulatory Reform Act of 1992, ACORN, The Cloward-Piven Strategy, the Government Sponsored Entities (GSE’s) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and their relationship with Congress are all significant gears in the machine that stopped the economy in its tracks.

And dont forget about he Wars!

Cuba is not Communist. Next.

From your rhetoric, it appears that you're liberal...fine, now what would I call you?
Misguided.

Well, I believe the liberty of individuals is sacred. I believe in a balanced budget. I think the government should stay out of the gay's lives. I believe in separation of church and state. I believe in science. I believe other people have the right to offend me. I believe in protecting our environment and resources.

I believe in personal responsibility and I think that we all need to work together towards progress.

I don't believe in fear and paranoia. I'll risk my own life before I live in fear.

So if all those things make me liberal. I'll be proud of it. However, I've never labeled myself. So thanks for giving me a label.

So are we to be liberals and conservatives or communists and fascists?

How about constitutionalists? A republic appeals to me, and you?

ihta, covert indoctrination is the sop of socialist demoncrats....of course they can't possibly see any "harm", because leftist believe the ends justify the means because victory is necessary at all cost, to hell with what people think, after all, only the leftist elite "know" whats good for the common people...right?

"ihta, covert indoctrination is the sop of socialist demomcrats....of course they can't possibly see any "harm", because leftist believe the ends justify the means because victory is necessary at all cost, to hell with what people think, after all, only the leftist elite "know" whats good for the common people...right?"

And you're trying to say the right wing extremest aren't like that??? They are much worse but, much like mentally insane, they aren't aware of the fact.

ah yes, another socialost* sop, accuse the opposition of using the very tactics which they themselves employ... pathetically so predictable.

*socialost=obfuscating socialist demoncrat

Time for the tinfoil hats.

I bet you get your tips on how to deal with the people who speak the truth out of the book rules for radicals don't you?

Tin foil hats, that is so predictable and lame.

Wow...I can't tell you how much it hurts to hear you say that. Your opinion is so important to me.

Look, I get that you're bitter because you now look like such an idiot, but you can't say I didn't warn you. Oh...right he changed his speech. He was going to deliver the communist manifesto...good thing you stepped in. lmao. Like I said...stupid, hyper-partisan, unbalanced, racist or all of the above. It's a pick 'em.

Tin foil hats and now the race card.
Now who saw that one coming?

akamaial,

What makes you think only leftists believe "the ends justify the means because victory is necessary at all cost"?

When I was little I heard Gordon Liddy say that It was justified to kill innocent people for the greater good of the country.

I know he wasn't speaking for all conservatives but at the time I was young and it made a lasting impression of the Republican party on me.

G Gordon Liddy was and is a loyalist party fanatic... the same traits that is easily seen within the democratic (socialist) party today, and those who deny that the democratic party is socialist need to re-examine what really is their party's purpose and affiliations.
http://www.dsausa.org/dsa.html

I wasnt saying it was a bad change. I was just pointing out the change happened after the parents bitched.
I am pretty sure his actual speech was changed also. He had to "tone it down" because of the concern.

no, he didn't have to do anything. he could have left it exactly as it was, but he chose to re-write, which shows me a president who is responsive to the voice of the people, interested in what they have to say, and paying attention.

now where have we NOT seen that before?

I am not a right winger, I hate them all. All politicians that is.
So a guy who has been posting here for what 6 or 7 days, according to your profile, isnt going to read my posts anymore.....I'm crushed. What will I do know? I used to post here just for you to read and comment on.

Your name calling does not bother me. I have been here for a long time, you are not the first and I don't think I even need to tell you that you wont be the last.

no his real plan was to kill all are kids but he changed that plan to.

I seem to remember doing this sort of thing when I was in elementary school and Reagan was President. Again in High School when Clinton was President. Is it OBAMA that you have the problem with, or would you / were you as adamant when Reagan was President?

This is a viewpoint expressed by many, many parents, I am not personally involved...however this is posted in response to the vitriol aimed at those who "dare" question the purpose of a POTUS they apparently do not trust.

Here is a link to the "lesson plan," . . . whether it is the former or "revised" plan I do not know.

http://www.ed.gov/teachers/how/lessons/prek-6.pdf

I have no problems with parents taking their children out of school to avoid the President's speech. But I think it is the worst sort of hyperbole to associate Obama's intentions in addressing schoolchildren with those of Stalin and Mao. This is not substantiated by anything, not even the manuals. WHICH, I have read.

They walk among us every day...

Thats funny coming from you.

Agreed.