Politics

[Grahambo]

Me and Buster have different ideas politically but we still bro-love each other!

 

[pkt77242]

4) Fundamental transformation...in Obama's eyes, off the top of my head:

Stimulus: jobs come from government
Health care: government needs to provide
Businesses: you didn't build that
Military: we're cutting your benefits. paper pushers in DC need $100k salaries
Foreign policy: Need I say anything here?
Congress: Pen and a phone is all I need. Congress doesn't exist to me

LOL. Now I see the problem. Anything that you disagree with is fundamental transformation.

Lets break these down.
Stimulus: You do know that almost of all economists wanted a stimulus right. In fact many want a much larger stimulus then we got. LOL, fundamental transformation my ass. Also the stimulus doesn't mean that jobs come from the government and the fact that you think that is mind boggling.

Healthcare: Wait did we pass a single payer system? I don't see the government providing healthcare any more then it already did between the VA, Medicare, and Medicaid.

Business: LOL, again. The fact that conservatives still get upset about this statement that he made, while he worded it badly (and then was completely taken out of context by places like fox and all of the conservative bloggers out there) is still true. Sorry. Truth is not fundamental transformation.

Military: Why don't you talk to Congress about that. Last time I checked the President didn't control that. Nice try

Foreign Policy: Yes he made some changes. I don't know if I would call it a fundamental transformation and some of the things are about damn time (dealing with Iran differently, and Cuba are great examples that some of it are working).

Congress: Lol. So you are going to have to explain why you think that executive orders are wrong, as it is within his power to direct how laws will be carried out. Also you might have to explain why you are against Obama using them when all President's use them and many have used them much more often then Obama (Bush, FDR, TR, Truman, Eisenhower, Reagen, Clinton, etc).

So for example, lets look at one EO for Bush.

No. 3: Finessing the Geneva Conventions
Executive Order 13440 (PDF)
July 20, 2007

What the order says: After the Supreme Court pushed back against the Bush administration's efforts to hold the Guantanamo detainees indefinitely and without charges, doubts arose about the legality of the CIA's use of coercive interrogation techniques (or torture, if you think water-boarding amounts to that). For a time, the CIA's interrogation squeeze was on hold. Then Bush issued Executive Order 13440, and the interrogators started rolling again. The order isn't explicit about which practices it allows—that remains classified—but it may still sidestep the protections in the Geneva Convention against humiliating and degrading treatment. According to the New York Times, water-boarding is off-limits, but sleep deprivation may not be, and exposure to extreme heat and cold is allowed.

So allowing torture isn't fundamental transformation? This is my idea of fundamental transformation.

The top Bush executive orders that Obama should scrap immediately.

 

[Buster Bluth]

At the end of the day many conservatives think they have a monopoly on what America is and anything isn't that is unamerican, so anyone who would approach policy different doesn't love the dreamland "America" they've conjured up among themselves.

Goes right along with conservatives thinking they have a monopoly on stuff like values, capitalism, patriotism, defense, etc. Just as dumb as the liberals thinking they have a monopoly on caring for the poor and middle class. Both sides' talking heads keep the conversation at a 1.

 

[DonnieNarco]

Oh no not a socialist! That's one of the bad words.

 

[DonnieNarco]

It sucks that I hate this country because I fundamentally disagree with the Scott Walkers and Chris Christies of the world. Ah well.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Well "in a tizzy" is an understatement. I'm pissed. The question isn't fair at all and it's laughable that a grown man can think the fucking President doesn't love his country. It's like saying Jim Harbaugh took the Michigan job to bring it down from the inside. It's almost not worth a response but there are millions of conservative adults out there who actually believe it. Simply stunning.

I love a good discussion over political disagreements, but this shit just makes me angry as an American.



This invites a person to defend Bill Ayers. I won't. But if you think Bill Ayers' actions from when Obama was ten years old had an impact on him, then that's something you need to elaborate on, because you sound like a crazy person. Do I think Bill Ayers is an A+ dude? No. Do I think it's incorrigible that a politically active guy runs in the same local political circles as another politically active guy? Also no.

Also I'm still waiting for you to tell me what he was convicted of. You said your facts were undeniable, and google tells me the FBI dropped his case and he got away with it.



I knew when I typed it you'd response with exactly "show me one who sat throw a sermon where X was said!" I can't. Such a test is childish. The list of people who quietly sat through sermons they didn't agree with is endless. Start with our first five Presidents.

The invitation to defend Rev. Wright is there, and I won't oblige you. The guy is a joke. But the onus is on you to draw a line to any policy Obama has backed. I will say, if Obama attends that church after his Presidency you'd have a small point. I'll put all my vbucks on it that he won't.

Your inability to ask yourself "did any of this actually impact Obama?" makes total sense considering it destroys your entire argument.



Yawn. Even with your misrepresentations, it's not exactly secret commie Muslim stuff I was promised by the Right (I say that as someone who was 100% on board with everything you typed in 2007/2008. But now seven years later conservatives' fear tactics have absolutely nothing to show for it. Where is the fundamental transformation and secret America loathing?). Newsflash: Barack Obama and the Left see public policy differently than conservatives. The sad thing is, if I asked you why he backs those things, would you be able to answer? Do conservatives know an answer other than "he's a socialist!" or "he's unamerican!"? My second biggest gripe about Guiliani's comments (after the absurd assertion that Barack Obama doesn't love his country...jesus fucking christ) is that it keeps the level of political conversation at about a 1 on a scale to 10. Why does the left think differently? Easy answer: they hate you. Repeat and drive it into the brains of everyone listening to Fox and conservative radio.

If questioning Obama's background and influences on his idealogy pisses you off, as an American you haven't done enough homework or would rather just pick a fight with me. Either way it's a you problem. Run this through your head again...our president is the son of an anti-colonial (mostly British influence) father, was influenced and buddied up with Bill Ayers, and was in a building (won't call it a church) for 20 years listening to Jeremiah Wright spew his racist hatred of America and white people. Now before you get mad and pound your keyboard...take two minutes and let all that soak in.

In closing, I'm glad Guiliani said what he said because the question is legitimate and fair. Frankly, it should've been asked a helluva lot more in 2007 and 2008.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

LOL. Now I see the problem. Anything that you disagree with is fundamental transformation.

Lets break these down.
Stimulus: You do know that almost of all economists wanted a stimulus right. In fact many want a much larger stimulus then we got. LOL, fundamental transformation my ass. Also the stimulus doesn't mean that jobs come from the government and the fact that you think that is mind boggling.

Healthcare: Wait did we pass a single payer system? I don't see the government providing healthcare any more then it already did between the VA, Medicare, and Medicaid.

Business: LOL, again. The fact that conservatives still get upset about this statement that he made, while he worded it badly (and then was completely taken out of context by places like fox and all of the conservative bloggers out there) is still true. Sorry. Truth is not fundamental transformation.

Military: Why don't you talk to Congress about that. Last time I checked the President didn't control that. Nice try

Foreign Policy: Yes he made some changes. I don't know if I would call it a fundamental transformation and some of the things are about damn time (dealing with Iran differently, and Cuba are great examples that some of it are working).

Congress: Lol. So you are going to have to explain why you think that executive orders are wrong, as it is within his power to direct how laws will be carried out. Also you might have to explain why you are against Obama using them when all President's use them and many have used them much more often then Obama (Bush, FDR, TR, Truman, Eisenhower, Reagen, Clinton, etc).

So for example, lets look at one EO for Bush.




So allowing torture isn't fundamental transformation? This is my idea of fundamental transformation.

The top Bush executive orders that Obama should scrap immediately.

Grow up. Whether I disagree with it is irrelevant. Flipping the country upside down, throwing away this country's first basic principle of limited government, and having everything run through Washington DC (regardless of party) is fundamental transformation.

Stimulus: Are you saying the stimulus was NOT passed to create jobs? What planet are you on? And all the stimulus did was add $840 billion to out debt. Sweet.

Health care: Scam from day 1. It was all a lie.

Business: He hates the private sector. All good comes from government.

Military: Couldn't happen without his signature.

Foreign policy: Nuff said.

Congress: Executive orders are one thing. Changing ACA was illegal and telling Congress he's moving on with his agenda with or without Congress is arrogant and stubborn.

What else ya got Mr. Giggily?

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Oh no not a socialist! That's one of the bad words.

Ladies and gentlemen the new "Democratic" party of the USA

 

[pkt77242]

Grow up. Whether I disagree with it is irrelevant. Flipping the country upside down, throwing away this country's first basic principle of limited government, and having everything run through Washington DC (regardless of party) is fundamental transformation.

Stimulus: Are you saying the stimulus was NOT passed to create jobs? What planet are you on? And all the stimulus did was add $840 billion to out debt. Sweet.

Health care: Scam from day 1. It was all a lie.

Business: He hates the private sector. All good comes from government.

Military: Couldn't happen without his signature.

Foreign policy: Nuff said.

Congress: Executive orders are one thing. Changing ACA was illegal and telling Congress he's moving on with his agenda with or without Congress is arrogant and stubborn.

What else ya got Mr. Giggily?

LOL as usual you are about as biased as them come. You post like Rush Limbaugh. I have no problems with disagreeing with the President (Hell I disagree with some of the things that he has done) but your complete lack of speaking intelligently about the topic is laughable.

Stimulus: Was passed to help the economy. Not just to create jobs. Many of the jobs it was meant to create were in the public sector (construction, etc) not government jobs.

Healthcare: Again, you have yet to say how it was transformational.

Business: He doesn't hate the private sector. In fact that is laughable. Does he hate the insurance companies that he has handed millions of new customer too, does he hate the construction companies who benefited from the stimulus, does he hate the military contractors who are making a lot of money, etc. He might not view the private sector as the savior of the US but to say that he hate it shows how biased you are.

Military: Again, he doesn't pass legislation. You should be asking why Congress hates the military. Also how the fuck is this transformational?

Foreign Policy: LOL. About time we had some good changes to our Foreign Policy.

Congress: Again how is using executive orders to further his agenda stubborn or arrogant. Many previous presidents did it (yes including GWB and RR). You just hate it because he is doing things that you don't like.


Look the truth here is that you are simplifying everything into black and white with no nuance for what lies between the black and white. You either hate it or love it. He must think that the US's shit tastes like Filet Mignon or he hates the US. The truth is that you can dislike certain things about the US and want to change them while still loving the US. You seem to be of the opinion that if anyone wants anything differently from you then they must hate the US. Grow up and realize that you and conservatives don't have a monopoly on what the US stands for and what is best for it. I may have disagreed with Bush when he was in office but I couldn't imagine accusing him of hating the US.

 

[DonnieNarco]

Ladies and gentlemen the new "Democratic" party of the USA

Of course, socialism can't be democratic. There's not even a term for that. Bernie Sanders definitely didn't have a term to describe himself as one of these mythical "democratic socialists."

 

[GoIrish41]

Grow up. Whether I disagree with it is irrelevant. Flipping the country upside down, throwing away this country's first basic principle of limited government, and having everything run through Washington DC (regardless of party) is fundamental transformation.

Stimulus: Are you saying the stimulus was NOT passed to create jobs? What planet are you on? And all the stimulus did was add $840 billion to out debt. Sweet.

Health care: Scam from day 1. It was all a lie.

Business: He hates the private sector. All good comes from government.

Military: Couldn't happen without his signature.

Foreign policy: Nuff said.

Congress: Executive orders are one thing. Changing ACA was illegal and telling Congress he's moving on with his agenda with or without Congress is arrogant and stubborn.

What else ya got Mr. Giggily?

Lep,

I gotta say, at times you sound like a crackpot conspiracy theorist. He hates the private sector? Is that why he saved the auto industry? Is that why he is seeking to expand U.S. manufacturing to create better jobs for citizens? Is that why he has expanded by millions of Americans the number of people who have private health insurance policies?

We all get it ... you hate Obama. But when you reach like this to make your point, you wreck your credibility to have a reasoned discussion about politics. C'mon man.

 

[DonnieNarco]

AP U.S. History controversy becomes a debate on America - Adam B. Lerner - POLITICO

I don't understand all of the attacks on education that are happening right now.

 

[pkt77242]

AP U.S. History controversy becomes a debate on America - Adam B. Lerner - POLITICO

I don't understand all of the attacks on education that are happening right now.

I think the debate about the AP history (which is crazy) ties in with the Obama hates America debate. A certain segment of people (mostly conservatives but not limited to them) view that the US can do no wrong and if you point out what the US has done wrong in the past, then you must be telling lies and hate the US.

I think that this is a very problematic way of viewing the US (or for that matter oneself). When we start to gloss over the bad (or sometimes almost evil) things that we have done and only focus on the good, you run the risk of losing a balanced view of yourself (or country) and instead come to view yourself (or your country) as perfect and that you (or your country) can do no wrong.

 

[IrishLax]

How many people here have actually reviewed the revised AP US History coursework? I haven't. From what I've heard, it's a SIGNIFICANT departure from how the course has been taught previously, including when I was in high school.

From what I've heard from a family member who is a school principal and is EXTREMELY liberal and has never voted anything but blue, the equivalent to the current course curriculum would be an AP German History class where they focus 80% on the Nazis.

Apparently, this course is like 80% focused on the evil nature of white people exploiting/being mean to minorities... and is an extension of the "white privilege" movement to get that material into grade school/high school. FWIW, I think that material has merit, but I also understand why people would be pissed that that's the central focus of an American History class.

 

[IrishLax]

I think the debate about the AP history (which is crazy) ties in with the Obama hates America debate. A certain segment of people (mostly conservatives but not limited to them) view that the US can do no wrong and if you point out what the US has done wrong in the past, then you must be telling lies and hate the US.

I think that this is a very problematic way of viewing the US (or for that matter oneself). When we start to gloss over the bad (or sometimes almost evil) things that we have done and only focus on the good, you run the risk of losing a balanced view of yourself (or country) and instead come to view yourself (or your country) as perfect and that you (or your country) can do no wrong.

I would say though that course I was taught already devoted a lot of time to this stuff. There was a very large amount of the curriculum devoted to slavery and the civil rights movement. There was also a very large amount of time devoted to Native Americans, how Andrew Jackson was an asshole, etc. I remember two of the essays I wrote on my exam were specifically about the "baggage" the United States of America has.

From my understanding, the issue many have is that the new curriculum paints literally everything from the Colonial Era to modern times with a bad brush. When talking about the Colonial Era, it's 80% about slavery and Native American displacement, 20% about everything else going on. When talking about post-Revolution up to Civil War, it's 80% about slavery and Native American displacement, 20% about literally everything else. And then post-Civil War, it's 80% about the civil rights movement, 20% about everything else.

And they're not just presenting it like "here is what happened. Here are your facts about Native Americans." It's "here is what happened... and now let's discuss how this means all white people and the United States as a whole are evil entities."

Just what I've heard, I haven't seen any of the material myself, so take this with a grain of salt.

 

[pkt77242]

I would say though that course I was taught already devoted a lot of time to this stuff. There was a very large amount of the curriculum devoted to slavery and the civil rights movement. There was also a very large amount of time devoted to Native Americans, how Andrew Jackson was an asshole, etc. I remember two of the essays I wrote on my exam were specifically about the "baggage" the United States of America has.

From my understanding, the issue many have is that the new curriculum paints literally everything from the Colonial Era to modern times with a bad brush. When talking about the Colonial Era, it's 80% about slavery and Native American displacement, 20% about everything else going on. When talking about post-Revolution up to Civil War, it's 80% about slavery and Native American displacement, 20% about literally everything else. And then post-Civil War, it's 80% about the civil rights movement, 20% about everything else.

And they're not just presenting it like "here is what happened. Here are your facts about Native Americans." It's "here is what happened... and now let's discuss how this means all white people and the United States as a whole are evil entities."

Just what I've heard, I haven't seen any of the material myself, so take this with a grain of salt.

Here is the link to what should be taught in the class.
http://media.collegeboard.com/digitalServices/pdf/ap/ap-course-exam-descriptions/ap-us-history-course-and-exam-description.pdf

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Lep,

I gotta say, at times you sound like a crackpot conspiracy theorist. He hates the private sector? Is that why he saved the auto industry? Is that why he is seeking to expand U.S. manufacturing to create better jobs for citizens? Is that why he has expanded by millions of Americans the number of people who have private health insurance policies?

We all get it ... you hate Obama. But when you reach like this to make your point, you wreck your credibility to have a reasoned discussion about politics. C'mon man.

Listen to yourself.

The president saved the auto industry? Are you nuts? First, the federal government shouldn't be bailing out any private companies. Second, he didn't save an industry. If GM fell apart and didn't exist today, we'd all be fine. Ford (proud owner here) didn't take a dime and they're doing well. And there are many others doing well. He bailed out GM to gain favor with the UAW. Joke.

It's also not the president's job to expand manufacturing. That's the private sector's job.

Health insurance: Care to mention all the people who lost their insurance because of him or are now paying more? Guess not.

 

[IrishLax]

Here is the link to what should be taught in the class.
http://media.collegeboard.com/digitalServices/pdf/ap/ap-course-exam-descriptions/ap-us-history-course-and-exam-description.pdf

OK I skimmed it.

So here are some criticisms I found in a rather fair article written in late 2014 from a writer who interviewed a VP from College Board. He gives "ten thoughts" including ones where he points out the criticisms from others of the new curriculum that he finds erroneous or without merit.

I think all of these are very fair critiques:

For instance, the framework repeatedly refers to "whites" (as opposed to Native Americans or Africans) for much of the 18th and 19th century, which is a bizarre way to treat the immense divisions between Anglos, Irish, and the rest. Discussion of Catholicism and anti-Catholic sentiment is essentially absent. Special attention is paid to Mexican immigrants in the 1930s and 1940s (a relatively tiny population), yet the crucial Irish-Italian tensions of the early 20th century are entirely absent.

Whenever someone lumps all "whites" together in American history, it's Clue #1 that something stinks.

The new framework starts with nine pages of "Historical Thinking Skills," like "patterns of continuity and change over time" and "periodization." That's followed by eight pages of "Thematic Learning Objectives," which break American history into seven "themes:" "identity," "work, exchange, and technology," "peopling" (?!), "politics and power," "America in the world," "environment and geography- physical and human," and "ideas, beliefs, and culture." The problem is that this exercise makes it easy to defend dubious choices as reflecting these priorities--even if these priorities are a bizarre frame for making sense of American history. Thus, it becomes easy to say nothing more about Manifest Destiny than that it was justified by beliefs in "white racial superiority" and "American cultural superiority." Indeed, mentions of racism, oppression, inequity, and exploitation are so frequent, and mentions of American virtue are so scarce, that I can't help but feel like the framework portrays a one-sided and negative view of American history.

Makes sense to me.

the coloration is especially evident when things get partisan, as in the treatment of prominent Democratic and Republican presidents. FDR and LBJ are discussed in glowing terms, variously battling to "provide relief to the poor," "stimulate recovery," "end racial discrimination," and "eliminate poverty." Indeed, the framework explains that "liberal ideals were realized" with the expansion of "democracy and individual freedoms," only to trigger backlash from conservatives who "mobilized to defend traditional visions of morality" (whatever that means) and "the proper role of state authority." Indeed, where FDR and LBJ are warriors for justice, Reagan is described as a man of "bellicose rhetoric" who later "developed a friendly relationship" with Gorbachev. There is no sign of cause and effect, much less any discussion of Reagan's efforts on taxes, regulation, or much else.

Hey, hey, LBJ! How many kids did you kill today...

although several specific charges are untrue, I have real concerns about the framework. I see remarkably little attention to America's motivating ideals or to the resulting governing institutions. In the new framework, the only mention that the American Revolution might have had any historical significance is a clause mentioning that it had "reverberations in France, Haiti, and Latin America." There is little or no discussion of the intermediary institutions that are so critical to American culture, society, and government. While the standards talk often about ethnic and gender identity, I don't see any room for a discussion of whether there emerged any kind of distinct American "identity." There's little about economics that's not about government efforts to combat injustice. Students are introduced to decade after decade of American depravity, but there's nothing to offer context for 20th century U.S. international engagements. The old framework's attention to World War II-era "fascism and militarism in Japan, Italy, and Germany" is gone. Discussion of U.S. involvement in World War II and the Cold War mentions our "dominant" role and "position of global leadership," with nary a mention that we might've been on the side of the angels. On the other hand, the framework explicitly suggests that some of our actions in World War II, such as internment of Japanese Americans, debates over segregation, and dropping the atomic bomb, "raised questions about American values."

I don't see how anyone can argue with this criticism, and it's why years ago the College Board's president penned a letter basically saying "uhh... the new framework was developed before I was the president... soooo..."

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

LOL as usual you are about as biased as them come. You post like Rush Limbaugh. I have no problems with disagreeing with the President (Hell I disagree with some of the things that he has done) but your complete lack of speaking intelligently about the topic is laughable.

Stimulus: Was passed to help the economy. Not just to create jobs. Many of the jobs it was meant to create were in the public sector (construction, etc) not government jobs.

Healthcare: Again, you have yet to say how it was transformational.

Business: He doesn't hate the private sector. In fact that is laughable. Does he hate the insurance companies that he has handed millions of new customer too, does he hate the construction companies who benefited from the stimulus, does he hate the military contractors who are making a lot of money, etc. He might not view the private sector as the savior of the US but to say that he hate it shows how biased you are.

Military: Again, he doesn't pass legislation. You should be asking why Congress hates the military. Also how the fuck is this transformational?

Foreign Policy: LOL. About time we had some good changes to our Foreign Policy.

Congress: Again how is using executive orders to further his agenda stubborn or arrogant. Many previous presidents did it (yes including GWB and RR). You just hate it because he is doing things that you don't like.


Look the truth here is that you are simplifying everything into black and white with no nuance for what lies between the black and white. You either hate it or love it. He must think that the US's shit tastes like Filet Mignon or he hates the US. The truth is that you can dislike certain things about the US and want to change them while still loving the US. You seem to be of the opinion that if anyone wants anything differently from you then they must hate the US. Grow up and realize that you and conservatives don't have a monopoly on what the US stands for and what is best for it. I may have disagreed with Bush when he was in office but I couldn't imagine accusing him of hating the US.

Stimulus: Those construction jobs (short term) had strings to local and state governments, who got the money from the feds. Oh, and unemployment went UP after that. Again, jobs come from the private sector, NOT government.

Health care: If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. That's all.

Business: Yes, he has talked very negatively about the insurance companies. His health care plan was the great savior, and it was a scam. Majority of the US still against it.

Foreign policy: ISIS doing what they're doing, he refuses to call it what it is, and you continue to giggle. Amazing.

Military: So many in this country get a lot while paying for nothing, yet our military gets benefits cuts.

Don't think there's much sense in discussing this with a guy who's living on a different planet, but I'm glad the topic is out there and at least being discussed. It's a fair question.

 

[GoIrish41]

I would say though that course I was taught already devoted a lot of time to this stuff. There was a very large amount of the curriculum devoted to slavery and the civil rights movement. There was also a very large amount of time devoted to Native Americans, how Andrew Jackson was an asshole, etc. I remember two of the essays I wrote on my exam were specifically about the "baggage" the United States of America has.

From my understanding, the issue many have is that the new curriculum paints literally everything from the Colonial Era to modern times with a bad brush. When talking about the Colonial Era, it's 80% about slavery and Native American displacement, 20% about everything else going on. When talking about post-Revolution up to Civil War, it's 80% about slavery and Native American displacement, 20% about literally everything else. And then post-Civil War, it's 80% about the civil rights movement, 20% about everything else.

And they're not just presenting it like "here is what happened. Here are your facts about Native Americans." It's "here is what happened... and now let's discuss how this means all white people and the United States as a whole are evil entities."

Just what I've heard, I haven't seen any of the material myself, so take this with a grain of salt.

In fairness, these are guidelines for AP History courses designed to inspire critical thinking about events that shaped the nation and the world. It goes beyond the content that is typically taught to students in American public schools ... those events that most of us learned about in history classes during our K-12 classes. It is difficult to inspire critical thinking without understanding the drivers of history. I have not read the proposed curriculum and am basing this response on what I have read and seen on the topic. The fact of the matter is that it is diffucult to know what is accurate and what is political theater on this topic (and most other topics).

 

[pkt77242]

Stimulus: Those construction jobs (short term) had strings to local and state governments, who got the money from the feds. Oh, and unemployment went UP after that. Again, jobs come from the private sector, NOT government.

Health care: If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. That's all.

Business: Yes, he has talked very negatively about the insurance companies. His health care plan was the great savior, and it was a scam. Majority of the US still against it.

Foreign policy: ISIS doing what they're doing, he refuses to call it what it is, and you continue to giggle. Amazing.

Military: So many in this country get a lot while paying for nothing, yet our military gets benefits cuts.

Don't think there's much sense in discussing this with a guy who's living on a different planet, but I'm glad the topic is out there and at least being discussed. It's a fair question.

Really tell me more. Look you hate Obama, we all get it. All you have done is point out how you disagree with his policies and you have not posted a single thing showing he hates America. The fact that you can't understand the difference between those two things is scary.

 

[dshans]

Just to shoot the breeze a bit:

Rudolph W. Giuliani ... challenged reporters last week to find examples of the president’s love of country.

In 2008, when he was still a presidential candidate, Mr. Obama told thousands in Berlin: “I also know how much I love America.” At the Democratic National Convention later that year, he did it again: “I love this country, and so do you, and so does John McCain.” And again in 2001, in a meeting with voters in Illinois, recalling “why I love this country so much.”
Over hundreds of speeches, Mr. Obama has paid tribute to the United States as “the greatest democratic, economic, and military force for freedom and human dignity the world has ever known.”
Mr. Obama – as Mr. Giuliani, the former New York mayor – and other critics have pointed out, has also been vocal in discussing what he considers to be the country’s shortcomings. In fact, several of Mr. Obama’s most emphatic expressions of patriotism appear in proximity to his critiques of America.
“I know my country has not perfected itself,” Mr. Obama said in Berlin. “But I also know how much I love America.”

– Michael Barbaro and Michael D. Shear (NYT)


The theory of democratic government is not that the will of the people is always right, but rather that normal human beings of average intelligence will, if given a chance, learn the right and best course by bitter experience.

– W.E.B. Du Bois, educator, civil rights activist, and writer (23 Feb 1868-1963

 

[GoldenToTheGrave]

Listen to yourself.

The president saved the auto industry? Are you nuts? First, the federal government shouldn't be bailing out any private companies. Second, he didn't save an industry. If GM fell apart and didn't exist today, we'd all be fine. Ford (proud owner here) didn't take a dime and they're doing well. And there are many others doing well. He bailed out GM to gain favor with the UAW. Joke.

It's also not the president's job to expand manufacturing. That's the private sector's job.

Health insurance: Care to mention all the people who lost their insurance because of him or are now paying more? Guess not.

Clearly you don't know much about financial or supply chain contagions. A GM bankruptcy would have killed already struggling parts makers which supply ALL the manufacturers. The already panicked financial markets would have run for the hills, and even otherwise healthy companies in the auto sector would have struggled to raise capital when they were already on their knees.

Not doing the bailouts in and support to the financial system would have been a foolhardy ideological move. Most people who grandstand against them had/have little understanding of the danger that we faced.

 

[RDU Irish]

Clearly you don't know much about financial or supply chain contagions. A GM bankruptcy would have killed already struggling parts makers which supply ALL the manufacturers. The already panicked financial markets would have run for the hills, and even otherwise healthy companies in the auto sector would have struggled to raise capital when they were already on their knees.

Not doing the bailouts in and support to the financial system would have been a foolhardy ideological move. Most people who grandstand against them had/have little understanding of the danger that we faced.

So it is your opinion that GM was going to be liquidated, not reorganized? That is the only stance I can see that supports the idea that all auto manufacturing as we know it was going to cease to exist if gubment didn't bail out the unions at the expense of bond holders. The BK process would have solved this just fine with bondholders taking over ownership of the company, unions taking a pay cut, and concessions made to honor warranties to preserve the viability of the company. Cars would have kept coming off the assembly line the whole time.

And if you didn't notice, NOBODY could raise capital in March 2009 (and thereabouts).

 

[GoIrish41]

So it is your opinion that GM was going to be liquidated, not reorganized? That is the only stance I can see that supports the idea that all auto manufacturing as we know it was going to cease to exist if gubment didn't bail out the unions at the expense of bond holders. The BK process would have solved this just fine with bondholders taking over ownership of the company, unions taking a pay cut, and concessions made to honor warranties to preserve the viability of the company. Cars would have kept coming off the assembly line the whole time.

And if you didn't notice, NOBODY could raise capital in March 2009 (and thereabouts).

This all is easy to say in hindsight, but it didn't really seem like it was going to end well in real time. The auto industry was and remains too vital to the American economy to have done nothing. it would have been grossly irresponsible to allow the auto industry to fail (which, despite what you say above seemed inevitable given no bailout). Obama made the right call, and those who do not afford him the credit he deserves seem, IMHO, too blinded by politics to see what was right in front of their faces.

Now, if he did not act and the auto industry would have collapsed, Obama would have been ruined politically.

 

[connor_in]

Just to shoot the breeze a bit:

Rudolph W. Giuliani ... challenged reporters last week to find examples of the president’s love of country.

In 2008, when he was still a presidential candidate, Mr. Obama told thousands in Berlin: “I also know how much I love America.” At the Democratic National Convention later that year, he did it again: “I love this country, and so do you, and so does John McCain.” And again in 2001, in a meeting with voters in Illinois, recalling “why I love this country so much.”
Over hundreds of speeches, Mr. Obama has paid tribute to the United States as “the greatest democratic, economic, and military force for freedom and human dignity the world has ever known.”
Mr. Obama – as Mr. Giuliani, the former New York mayor – and other critics have pointed out, has also been vocal in discussing what he considers to be the country’s shortcomings. In fact, several of Mr. Obama’s most emphatic expressions of patriotism appear in proximity to his critiques of America.
“I know my country has not perfected itself,” Mr. Obama said in Berlin. “But I also know how much I love America.”

– Michael Barbaro and Michael D. Shear (NYT)


The theory of democratic government is not that the will of the people is always right, but rather that normal human beings of average intelligence will, if given a chance, learn the right and best course by bitter experience.

– W.E.B. Du Bois, educator, civil rights activist, and writer (23 Feb 1868-1963

Just to ask a question, but didn't he also say that he was against same sex marriage and that if you like your plan you can keep it, and his would be the most transparent administration ever?

I mainly point this out to be a little sh!t, but the truth of the matter is that you can find examples against nearly every politician in today's world.

The takeaway being....ooooooh a politician said something...God knows if he is speaking the truth or not.

 

[GoldenToTheGrave]

So it is your opinion that GM was going to be liquidated, not reorganized? That is the only stance I can see that supports the idea that all auto manufacturing as we know it was going to cease to exist if gubment didn't bail out the unions at the expense of bond holders. The BK process would have solved this just fine with bondholders taking over ownership of the company, unions taking a pay cut, and concessions made to honor warranties to preserve the viability of the company. Cars would have kept coming off the assembly line the whole time.

And if you didn't notice, NOBODY could raise capital in March 2009 (and thereabouts).

GM had billions in unpaid accounts payable to its suppliers at the time. Most of those wouldn't have gotten paid in a bankruptcy court, and the combination of that, a bad business environment, and frozen credit markets would have cause cascading bankruptcies across the industry. Supply disruptions would have occurred and impacted even healthy companies. It would have gotten ugly quick.

 

[Grahambo]

Foreign Policy: LOL. About time we had some good changes to our Foreign Policy.

If you got time, I would love to hear why you think his foreign policy changes are good. Its interesting to listen to other people's opinions. I'm not educated enough in the other political realms to offer an intelligent response but this is an area that I do know since its my job.

 

[Grahambo]

OK I skimmed it.

So here are some criticisms I found in a rather fair article written in late 2014 from a writer who interviewed a VP from College Board. He gives "ten thoughts" including ones where he points out the criticisms from others of the new curriculum that he finds erroneous or without merit.

I think all of these are very fair critiques:


Whenever someone lumps all "whites" together in American history, it's Clue #1 that something stinks.



Makes sense to me.



Hey, hey, LBJ! How many kids did you kill today...



I don't see how anyone can argue with this criticism, and it's why years ago the College Board's president penned a letter basically saying "uhh... the new framework was developed before I was the president... soooo..."

Good response.

I love history and there's just so much of it not being taught today that it's a little bothersome. I don't like the idea of teaching on a particular topic and not including all the details, all of the facts, and all of the context.

Personally, just my opinion, that's how you truly get into critical thinking, etc.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

In fairness, these are guidelines for AP History courses designed to inspire critical thinking about events that shaped the nation and the world. It goes beyond the content that is typically taught to students in American public schools ... those events that most of us learned about in history classes during our K-12 classes. It is difficult to inspire critical thinking without understanding the drivers of history.

See Lax's post above with specifics. I can't vouch for its accuracy, but assuming such flaws are present in the guidelines, do you not see a problem with teaching high school history solely through the lens of Critical Theory (racial, feminist, Marxist, etc.)? Particularly when those kids almost assuredly have no idea what Critical Theory is, or the assumptions embedded within such a world view. Doing so is no less damaging than teaching a white-washed history of American Exceptionalism.

I have not read the proposed curriculum and am basing this response on what I have read and seen on the topic. The fact of the matter is that it is diffucult to know what is accurate and what is political theater on this topic (and most other topics).

It is difficult, because history cannot be taught well without imposing some sort of narrative on the events of the past, and doing so involves the assumption of at least some political values. Which makes it all the more important than history teachers acknowledge that there are multiple competing narratives. Based on what I've read about the new AP History guidelines, that doesn't seem to be the case.