KHS81
-
Posts
130 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Articles
Media Demo
Posts posted by KHS81
-
-
Where was your crystal ball when you voted for Bush?
Did'nt vote for Bush numbnuts. I voted for Kerry, Although I will not vote for Barack E Urkel. My God the guy looks like a cross between Alfred E Neuman and Steve Urkel. Yeah I want him for president " Did I do that"
-
The Bush nightmare without end.......
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/poli...8_bush29.html?4
$4-a-gallon gas? Predictions surprise Bush
By Seattle Times news services
RON EDMONDS / AP
President Bush speaks Thursday during a news conference at the White House.
Related
Pelosi seeks investigation of Bush aides
Archive | Gas prices soaring as crude oil tops $101
WASHINGTON — The bulletin reached President Bush toward the end of his news conference Thursday.
Peter Maer of CBS News Radio asked: "What's your advice to the average American who is hurting now, facing the prospect of $4-a-gallon gasoline, a lot of people facing ... "
"Wait, what did you just say?" the president interrupted. "You're predicting $4-a-gallon gasoline?"
Maer responded: "A number of analysts are predicting $4-a-gallon gasoline."
Bush's rejoinder: "Oh, yeah? That's interesting. I hadn't heard that."
The president, once known for his common-guy skills, sounded eerily like his father, who in 1992 seemed amazed to discover that supermarkets had bar-code scanners.
The $4-a-gallon forecasts were reported widely in newspapers and on TV in the past week. The White House press secretary took a question about $4 gas at her Wednesday media briefing. A poll last month found that nearly three-quarters of Americans expect $4-a-gallon gas.
The president, however, had difficulty grasping the possibility, even after Maer told him.
"You just said the price of gasoline may be up to $4 a gallon — or some expert told you that," Bush repeated. "That creates a lot of uncertainty."
Bush's acknowledged unfamiliarity with the recent cost of gasoline produced some fumes at the pump.
At a Shell service station in San Mateo, Calif., the price of a gallon of regular had already reached $4.29, well above the California average of $3.42, as measured by AAA.
"Bush is out of touch with a lot of things we are facing today," said Marisa Cajbon, 33, who was filling her Toyota Sequoia SUV. "I have to buy gas. I need to work. I have two kids. I think it's unfortunate. I think it's a crime."
Bush also tried to put the best spin he could on months of bleak economic news. "I don't think we're headed to a recession, but no question we're in a slowdown," he said.
When NBC's David Gregory invited him to criticize Democratic presidential candidates for not knowing much about the expected new Russian president, Dmitry Medvedev, Bush replied: "I don't know much about Medvedev, either."
Agence France-Presse's Olivier Knox asked Bush why he was going to the Olympics in China despite the country's human-rights record. "I'm a sports fan," the president said.
Bush waded into presidential politics, criticizing the Democratic contenders for their positions on free trade and taking particular aim at Sen. Barack Obama for his comments about the wisdom of meeting the new leader of Cuba.
Bush did not attack by name either Obama or his rival for the party's nomination, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. But there was no masking his disdain for the Democrats' positions on several campaign issues, including the war, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the political transition in Cuba.
While both Democratic candidates have called for renegotiating NAFTA, the president stood behind the pact.
"The idea of just unilaterally withdrawing from a trade treaty because of trying to score political points is not good policy," he said.
He reserved his harshest comments for Obama's recent statement that he would be willing to meet the new leader of Cuba, Raul Castro, "without preconditions."
Bush has refused to meet with foreign adversaries such as Kim Jong Il of North Korea and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran.
"What's lost by embracing a tyrant who puts his people in prison because of their political beliefs?" Bush said in reference to Castro. "What's lost is it will send the wrong message. It will send a discouraging message to those who wonder whether America will continue to work for the freedom of prisoners."
Bush went on: "I'm not suggesting there's never a time to talk, but I'm suggesting now is not the time — not to talk with Raul Castro."
But "sitting down at the table, having your picture taken with a tyrant such as Raul Castro, for example, lends the status of the office and the status of our country to him," Bush said. "He gains a lot from it by saying, 'Look at me, I'm now recognized by the president of the United States.' "
Material from The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times and Chicago Tribune is included in this report.
Copyright © 2008 The Seattle Times Company
You people make me laugh, You believe that Obama will be the Savior of the USA. That somehow once he's elected he's going to bring down the price of gas not only can't he do it he won't, That Obama will end the war in Iraq not only won't but can't stop the war. My predictions should Obama become president, Gas will continue to rise in cost, the war in Iraq will continue and we'll be at war with Iran before his term is up. Of course you take your rant from the Liberal rag the Seattle times
-
BUSH BIZARRO WORLD.............where peace is war, life is death and terror is what we are told it is!!
(BTW, sorry about the "left wing" wacko news source for this nugget)
http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print...2257659301.html
Why Is Bush Helping Saudi Arabia Build Nukes?
By EDWARD J. MARKEY
June 10, 2008; Page A15 in the Wall Street Journel
Here's a quick geopolitical quiz: What country is three times the size of Texas and has more than 300 days of blazing sun a year? What country has the world's largest oil reserves resting below miles upon miles of sand? And what country is being given nuclear power, not solar, by President George W. Bush, even when the mere assumption of nuclear possession in its region has been known to provoke pre-emptive air strikes, even wars?
If you answered Saudi Arabia to all of these questions, you're right.
Last month, while the American people were becoming the personal ATMs of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was in Saudi Arabia signing away an even more valuable gift: nuclear technology. In a ceremony little-noticed in this country, Ms. Rice volunteered the U.S. to assist Saudi Arabia in developing nuclear reactors, training nuclear engineers, and constructing nuclear infrastructure. While oil breaks records at $130 per barrel or more, the American consumer is footing the bill for Saudi Arabia's nuclear ambitions.
Saudi Arabia has poured money into developing its vast reserves of natural gas for domestic electricity production. It continues to invest in a national gas transportation pipeline and stepped-up exploration, building a solid foundation for domestic energy production that could meet its electricity needs for many decades. Nuclear energy, on the other hand, would require enormous investments in new infrastructure by a country with zero expertise in this complex technology.
Have Ms. Rice, Mr. Bush or Saudi leaders looked skyward? The Saudi desert is under almost constant sunshine. If Mr. Bush wanted to help his friends in Riyadh diversify their energy portfolio, he should have offered solar panels, not nuclear plants.
Saudi Arabia's interest in nuclear technology can only be explained by the dangerous politics of the Middle East. Saudi Arabia, a champion and kingpin of the Sunni Arab world, is deeply threatened by the rise of Shiite-ruled Iran.
The two countries watch each other warily over the waters of the Persian Gulf, buying arms and waging war by proxy in Lebanon and Iraq. An Iranian nuclear weapon would radically alter the region's balance of power, and could prove to be the match that lights the tinderbox. By signing this agreement with the U.S., Saudi Arabia is warning Iran that two can play the nuclear game.
In 2004, Vice President Dick Cheney said, "[iran is] already sitting on an awful lot of oil and gas. No one can figure why they need nuclear, as well, to generate energy." Mr. Cheney got it right about Iran. But a potential Saudi nuclear program is just as suspicious. For a country with so much oil, gas and solar potential, importing expensive and dangerous nuclear power makes no economic sense.
The Bush administration argues that Saudi Arabia can not be compared to Iran, because Riyadh said it won't develop uranium enrichment or spent-fuel reprocessing, the two most dangerous nuclear technologies. At a recent hearing before my Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman shrugged off concerns about potential Saudi misuse of nuclear assistance for a weapons program, saying simply: "I presume that the president has a good deal of confidence in the King and in the leadership of Saudi Arabia."
That's not good enough. We would do well to remember that it was the U.S. who provided the original nuclear assistance to Iran under the Atoms for Peace program, before Iran's monarch was overthrown in the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Such an uprising in Saudi Arabia today could be at least as damaging to U.S. security.
We've long known that America's addiction to oil pays for the spread of extremism. If this Bush nuclear deal moves forward, Saudi Arabia's petrodollars could flow to the dangerous expansion of nuclear technologies in the most volatile region of the world.
While the scorching Saudi Arabian sun heats sand dunes instead of powering photovoltaic panels, millions of Americans will fork over $4 a gallon without realizing that their gas tank is fueling a nascent nuclear arms race.
Rep. Markey (D., Mass.) is chairman of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming.
Was'nt it Carter who screwed up the 1979 Iran hostage rescue and was'nt it Clinton who let the chief Saudi Terrorist OBL slip through his fingers. Were'nt they both Democrats.
-
Does the inner workings of the construcion business need to have 2 people on the same page? 1. The general contractor, 2.The Architect, Do these people control the purse strings? Mr Stevenson being in the construction business should know this and needs to let his fellow board members know how materials are purchased, how subcontractors are selected, who influences who does the work, Again we would hope that Mr Stevenson will educate his fellow board members on the inner workings of the construction trade so to avoid and prevent possible abuse of the system, with the goal of making every tax dollar count in the interests of the Kearny Taxpayers and MOST OF ALL "THE SCHOOL CHILDREN OF KEARNY"
In the case of the town of Kearny you have the Engineer, Architect,and General contractor. What you need to understand is that once the school board decides to build either a new buidling or improvements on an existing structure, The school board will bring the proposal to a Architect to design the project along with an engineering firm, From there a dollar amount will be assigned to the project in terms of what it will cost to build or repair. At this point the School board will put out to bid the project. The contractor with the lowest bid wins, the GC will put out a bid then for subcontractors or rehire subs they have worked with in the past. Material purchased are done so by the different building trades, this is where the engineer comes in he/she will approve or disprove the material suppliers. Again low bid gets the job. Whether Mr.Stevenson tells his fellow board members or not is up to him. If any board member does not understand the inner workings of how construction practices are done, they do not belong on the board.
-
To try and salve some of the bitterness and hostility, I think I'll start a thread where we can share some of our recipes.
Red Beans and Rice
Ingredients:
2 Cloves of garlic (crushed)
1/2 cup chopped green bell pepper
1/2 cup chopped celery
1 cup chopped onion
salt to taste
cayenne pepper to taste
1 pound red beans (sorted and soaked for 8 hours)
6 cups chicken broth or stock
1 pound sausage (andouille if you can get it, otherwise polish is decent), sliced
2 cups cooked rice (white, usually)
Preheat the oven to 250 F. Saute the garlic, onion, celery, and bell pepper in the medium of your choice (I use butter) in the bottom of a heavy, oven safe pot with an oven safe lid. In a seperate pan fry the sausage until browned. When the onions turn transluscent, add the sausage, chicken broth, and beans and bring to a boil. Remove from heat, lid the pot, and put it in the oven. In an hour and a half you should have perfect beans. If you want a thicker broth make a blonde roux* and stir it in while cooking the finished beans over medium heat until desired thickness is reached. Serve over rice or stir in the rice.
*A cajun roux is made from oil and flour rather water and flour. Mix equal amounts and heat over low heat, stirring constantly. A blonde roux is barely darkened at all.
What about Italian sausage could that be used. What brand of red beans would you recommend I've tried Goya but have always found them to be a little tough. As soon as I remember where I put my chili recipe I'll post it up.
-
-
In other words, you require absolute proof for science and no proof at all for "God." You have two standards. That's not a judgment of you, just a statement of fact.
The question is, if you had to justify it rationally, could you do it?
No what I think I was trying to say is that I belive in a higher power creating evolution,the planet stars and universe. but if science could prove without any lingering doubt that they have the answer to how evolution began or how the planet,stars and universe were created, than I'd be more than willing to say that I was wrong in my thinking.
-
There is alot of construction being done on these schools. Where millions of dollars are being spent we need to be very aware of the people who oversee this work. One would hope that the entire school board watch with great interest Mr. Stevenson (who is also a member of the Kearny Planning Board)and is in the construction business, works his expertise. Each board member needs to know 1. who is doing the work 2.Where the contractor buys his materials.3.If there are any sub contractors, their names and who recommended them. My hope is that Mr. Stevenson would educate his fellow board members on the inner workings of the construction business so the board can be fully aware of these very important areas mentioned which could result in a possible cost savings for the school district.
If and I say If the SCC is involved in any school construction it is being overseen by the DCA thats the Department of Community Affairs in other words the State of NJ. When the SCC gets involved in school construction the local planning board and BOE have very little input if any. All plans are approved by the DCA prior to construction. As for the materials end of it the SCC and the DCA require that the General contractor of the site hire an independent construction testing labratory. The testing lab will oversee all aspects of the construction making sure the structural engineers specifications are followed to the letter. Also the inspection lab will do daily spot checks on the construction such as testing the strucural steel by magnetic or magnaflux inspection, welds, bolting is checked. Concrete being poured will be sampled and sent in to the lab for compressive strength testing. Backfill being placed will be checked for moisture content, for density and compaction. I know this because I work for a construction testing labratory for the past 18 years and am involved in the construction of several schools around the state of NJ. Like I said if the SCC is involved the local BOE has no say in the daily building of a school.
-
I feel liking giving you a medal just for having the integrity to engage the discussion. If I had the energy, I'd look up your name since you did publish a letter in the Observer last year. Or you could just tell us.
I don't agree with your argument as a whole, though I agree with parts of it taken in isolation. Here's my explanation.
You're right about the internal logic of the relationship between a hypothetical creator-god and evolution. There is no necessary contradiction between evolution and creation by a supreme being or otherwise. To that extent, we have no quarrel at all. As an interesting footnote, I argued that case in my history class as a junior in high school. It was my term project, and its reference point was the Scopes trial. I have changed my views considerably since then.
Where we part company today is in your implicit assumption that the two (god-creation and evolution) can be addressed in the same way. We know evolution is true, the data are overwhelming. So in a sense, you're not really addressing the nine points I made, you're just moving past them without disagreeing. That's a little disappointing, because this subject matter merits more attention than just moving past it with the comment that its "nothing more than a scientific principal (sic: principle) like gravity or electricity."
Nothing of the kind can reasonably be said about a creator-god. You can stick with anything you like, but in the manner you're doing it, it's strictly a personal choice based on a bias. You can suggest, as you seem to have done that your religion explains the "why," but it really doesn't because it's just a guess on your part. An sound explanation requires a sound and objective foundation, and your belief system doesn't have one.
The fact is, evolution does contradict some religions, but - taking you at your word - not yours. Kenneth Miller, who spoke about evolution at Kearny High, is a practicing Catholic who frequently makes the point that he sees no contradiction between evolution and his religion. But for someone like David Paszkiewicz, and the millions of other radical biblical fundamentalists who share his views, evolution and "God" are incompatible.
I wish it was simpler than that, but it's not.
In response to your inquiry " Letter to the Editor" Yes. School impact is also another of mine. The mayor has even called me a dedicated pain in his ass.As for Paskiewicz he's in serious need of mental health help, dinosaurs on Noahs Ark come on. I'm not disagreeing with you on Evolution it happened. I've been to the Museum of natural history in NYC, as I am a avid fossil and mineral collector. However my belief is that a higher power whether he be God,Buddha,Allah or as I commonly call him/her Bob. My belief is that this higher power created Evolution and the planet as a whole, Not in 7 days but rather in over a millenia. What I require is the scientific data that tells me without any doubt that evolution is behind the whole shooting match from big bang to today,As far as I know there is no such test. Why did I skip the other points I'm not denying that man evolved from a primative being, I never bought into the hype that man is created in gods image. I've always had issue with mainstream chrisianity such as how do you explain if you have Adam & Eve in the garden of eden then where do the dinosaurs fit in. You presume that I'm Christian I'm not nor am I Jew,Hindu.Buddhist,Islamic or Sikh. I am what I have been for the past 20 years a practicing Pagan.
-
Here, in brief form, is a summary of the overwhelming case for evolution.
1. The fossil record proves evolution. If you visit the fourth floor of the American Museum of Natural History at 79th Street and Central Park West in Manhattan, you will see one of the best teaching exhibits in the world. Paleontologists have identified how seemingly minor changes, in a bone in the inner ear or the mobility of the ankle joint - to cite only two examples - conveyed survival advantages, which led to the evolution of new species. As we trace the evolutionary record through fossils, not one piece is out of place.
2. Dating of fossils proves evolution. We do not just have fossils. We have dating methods that tell us how old they are. Every time scientists discover another fossil and date it, they give anyone who doubts the reality of evolution another opportunity to find an example that would prove the theory wrong. If, for example, scientists found human remains that pre-dated any other vertebrate, according to the dating methods, such a discovery would throw evolutionary theory or the science of dating physical objects into complete chaos. In science, this is called falsifiability. The theory makes predictions, and has been tested millions of times. Not once, in all those millions of times, has a fossil been dated in a way that contradicts evolutionary theory. On the contrary, all the dating verifies the functional story we see by looking at the fossil record in gross observation.
3. The genetic record proves evolution. Evolutionary theory leapt ahead by light years with the development of microbiology. We can trace the development of species through DNA, RNA, genes and chromosomes. As with the dating of fossils, a break in the pattern would disprove the theory, but yet again, after millions of genetic samples have been taken, evolutionary theory has a perfect record of verification. Anyone who doubts evolutionary theory should understand the enormous amount of information we now have, and the number of tests, any one of which could have proved the theory false. Just the opposite, all the testing has proved the theory true.
4. Evolution has been replicated. A common canard among those who would dispute evolutionary theory is that no one ever saw a monkey turn into a human. Of course not. Even if humans had descended from monkeys (we have a common ancestor), it doesn’t happen that way. Evolution occurs over many generations. We cannot see evolution happening among complex species like our own because a single generation takes at least fifteen years or so to occur. However, the same evolutionary principle applies to simpler species, and among those, scientists have replicated evolution in the laboratory. The most famous example is the drosophila fruit fly, which is commonly used for research. There are others, and as the science continues to advance, there will be more.
5. Evolutionary theory is so reliable that we use it in practical applications in two of our most important fields of science: biology and its cousin discipline medicine. As a result, life expectancies in the developed world have increased by more than a decade in recent years. Much of this is due to advances in medicine and biology as a direct result of evolutionary theory.
6. Evolutionary theory is the organizing principle for modern biology. That is how important it is. It is the principle that brings together all of biology, to such an extent that biologists are virtually unanimous in saying that modern biology cannot be understood without evolution; or to put it another way, biologists could still do some biology without evolution, but they could not understand it. Because evolutionary theory advances understanding, exponentially, beyond what would be possible without it, most biologists and most scholars of intellectual history say that it is among the greatest discoveries in history. Many say it is the greatest and most important of all, because it profoundly alters what we know about ourselves. Perhaps that is why some people oppose it so vehemently.
7. Evolutionary theory applies to all organic and quasi-organic systems. Every dynamic system that survives by reproduction in any form operates on the evolutionary principle. For example, social interactions are governed by evolutionary principles. All other things being equal, if an aspect of human behavior conveys a disadvantage, it will tend to disappear from the population; if it conveys an advantage, it will tend to spread. That is why political candidates pander and lie, why news media spoon-feed us entertainment instead of presenting real news and why religions tend to offer comforting stories: We reward them for it, and as a result those behaviors thrive and “reproduce.” An entire discipline, called game theory, has been developed from this understanding, has attracted some of the most brilliant minds in the world, and has been applied to everything from simple children’s games to business transactions to arms negotiations.
8. As our fund of knowledge increases, verification of evolutionary theory becomes progressively stronger. Because it makes accurate predictions, evolutionary theory has opened entire disciplines, and brought others from a barely coherent infancy into the realm of genuine science.
9. If we discarded what we have learned from evolutionary theory, our modern standard of living would not be possible. People who argue against evolution simply do not understand it. They assume that we would enjoy the advantages of modern life without it, but the truth is, we would not. No doubt, some of evolution’s critics have benefited from medical advances that evolutionary theory made possible. Fortunately for them, we do not withhold medical care from those who say they reject the very things that made it possible, but if we did, opposition to evolutionary theory would collapse very quickly.
I have used the word theory several times. Most people do not understand what the word means, so they say things like “that’s just a theory, it can’t be proved.” A theory can be proved. A theory may also be a fact. Evolutionary theory is both. It is a proven fact. A “theory” is an organized explanation for a set of phenomena, based on evidence and reason. Newton’s theory of gravity is a theory. If you have read the above with a misunderstanding of what a theory is, I can only invite you to read again with the proper definition in mind.
No doubt we will see the usual litany of smart-aleck remarks and non-responses from those who do not wish to know the truth if it conflicts with what they wish to believe. I can only invite them to have some courage, take a deep breath, read, think and evaluate. It's not going to go away just because you refuse to believe it.
And whether you accept it or not, it is very important to the kind of life we have chosen to live together. Think about how we are bound together socially whether we like it or not. This isn’t possible without evolution.
This is a lengthy exposition for a forum like this, but it barely scratches the surface of this vast and exciting subject. I invite anyone who doubts the truth of evolutionary theory to get out of their comfort zones long enough to study it – not what its most ignorant detractors write about it, but what its practitioners have written about it. Let them read books by Mayr, Gould, Eldridge, and dozens of others. Then let them re-evaluate their views. If they study with an open mind and a modicum of intelligence, they will embrace one of the most well-established and useful principles in all of science.
Evolution does not in fact contradict religion, Evolution is nothing more than scientific principal like gravity or electricty.To scientifically test a religous belief one must first find a some type of Empirical test to determine whether the belief is true or false with the test results being predicted beforehand and not after the fact. Does Evolution contradict creationism, well creationism is two fold the first part. Evolution specifically common decent tells us how life came to where it is but does not say why. If the first part underlies the theme of Genesis That God created the world and the life in it Then evolution cannot explain why common decent chose the path that it did. While the second part if Evolution contradicts the literal interpretaion of the first book of Genesis This for the most part is where the conflict between creationist and evolutionists persist.
So did Evolution create the world or did God. If evolution is correct does that mean the bible is wrong well cosidering that the first book of Genesis cannot be proven or disproven scientifically. And since no scientific test has ever been created to to tell the difference between a world created by God or a world that appeared without him. Who's to say that God did not create Evolution, Science is mere theory that is constantly updating it's self. The only thing proven is mathmatics. I belive that there is a higher power. Since science can niether prove or disprove I'll stick with God
-
Oh good, 2dim4words finally realized that the people criticizing Matthew never address the issues.
Just because the topic was brought here from the one that was supposed to be about school uniforms doesn't mean that the topic was "switched" in the sense of avoidance. It was switched only in the sense that it was brought onto its own page.
A brain must be a terrible thing not to have.
Oh look it's the KOTW's own little cheerleading B**ch. So tell me slick how does it feel to never have an original thought. Next time we want your opinion one of us will give it to you.
-
If you are an example of the KHS system, there's not much to brag about. There's nothing wrong with trying to convince others to your way of thinking. You can't answer points by changing the subject.
Ok punk. I'd like to see you answer a post, any post without trying to come off as the tough guy. I've noticed that you will attck anyone who disagrees with Paul the media ****** just my opinion, but **** **** ****** whenever his holiness pope paul opens his yap. So come on cheerleader are you up to it.
-
Let's move the discussion on the Pledge of Allegiance here, and broaden it to the topic of citizenship, which is what this is really all about.
Between voting and reciting the Pledge, which is the more important?
Why?
Does our behavior,
(a.) as participants in our democratic system and
(b.) in our reactions to our fellow citizens,
reflect what we say our values are?
If 100% of all the people in Yankee Stadium or Giant Stadium are standing for the national anthem, but only 50-60% of them vote, even in presidential elections, what does that say about us as a nation, a people and a culture?
In particular, what does it tell us about which aspects of citizenship could stand improvement?
Is it possible for a nation to place too much emphasis on outward displays? If so, how can we tell when that is happening, and what should we do about it? How much room does each person have in a free society to chart his own course, especially on matters of symbolic expression?
What can we learn about ourselves, our attitudes and our prejudices by considering these two examples, both of which are associated with citizenship?
While I did try answering some of your questions in this post, you and I will never see eye to eye. While you say that people are trying to conform you to their beliefs you are guilty of the same thing. I see no point in even trying to be civil with you since you have your ears closed to others. With that said have a nice life
-
Let's move the discussion on the Pledge of Allegiance here, and broaden it to the topic of citizenship, which is what this is really all about.
Between voting and reciting the Pledge, which is the more important?
Why?
Whats more important Pledging Allegiance to ones country is far more important than voting.While voting is important in it's own right. I know Marines and Army personal who currently are fighting for thier country They have pledged thier allegiance yet several of them have never voted. Anyone can vote once they have become naturalized or born here, But why vote at all if you have no alligence to the country you live in. Why even bother to vote if thats the case
Does our behavior,
(a.) as participants in our democratic system and
(b.) in our reactions to our fellow citizens,
reflect what we say our values are?
If 100% of all the people in Yankee Stadium or Giant Stadium are standing for the national anthem, but only 50-60% of them vote, even in presidential elections, what does that say about us as a nation, a people and a culture?
You say 100% are singing the National Anthem yet only 50 - 60% vote. Well first question I'd have to ask is how many of the 40 - 50% not voting are under the age of 18, how many are American Cititzens how many are past felons who gave up their right to vote. I'd have to say that a good percentage are under the age of 18 while the rest more than likely have lost their confidence in politicians. Politicians will tell you what you want to hear, take Clinton or Obama that are promising Universal health care. Now we all know that this will never come to fruition the candidate does'nt have that kind of power nor the resources to pull it off. Some don't vote because they know no matter how they vote the status quo will remain the same. While others don't vote because they have no interest in politics.So what does this say to us as a culture, It tells me that we are Americans and we have the right to choose whether we vote or not.
In particular, what does it tell us about which aspects of citizenship could stand improvement?
Is it possible for a nation to place too much emphasis on outward displays? If so, how can we tell when that is happening, and what should we do about it? How much room does each person have in a free society to chart his own course, especially on matters of symbolic expression?
What can we learn about ourselves, our attitudes and our prejudices by considering these two examples, both of which are associated with citizenship?
-
Look, the main issue here is that it is extremely dangerous for these bikers to ride around the Oval, the recreation dept. can't do a thing, if they could put up a fence, they would cut it down, like they did on the lower section of Bergen Ave. near Harrison Ave. and the way they do to get on the ball fields after they have locked, there is no quick solution except to have the area patrolled, on an hourly basis. But also, in regards to the assistant recreation supervisor chasing children off the fields, you have to understand that those fields are for local teams to play ball on, not for just a few kids to play on goofing around tearing the fields up with different objects, to keep these fields maintained for ball playing is a very expensive and time consuming job. You have to look at the big picture here, they can not put up a fence to keep the bikers out and if we as parents, grandparents see this happening then we call the police, and keep calling everytime we witness these bikers in the oval, they should get a ticket 1st offense, 2nd take away their license and 3 times buddy your out take the bike!!!!!!
I agree with you speedy, back in the day when I was a teen we used to ride our dirt bikes on the tracks or the dirt trails behind gunnel oval. While still illegal to do so the KPD kinda looked the other way since we were not riding on the streets or sidewalks creating a hazard. But lets not stop with just the kids or adults at Gunnel Oval doing this, the ***** ** ********* ******** who allows his kids to drive gas powered go karts on the sidewalk.
-
Isn't it obvious? The administration took advantage of the confusion to sneak legislation through that would never pass under normal circumstances.
I belive the legislation would have passed regardless. I wish there was more time for debate but under the circumstances of the time it may have seemed imperative to pass this immediatly. The average every day American Citizen and even those in other countries have nothing to fear from the Patriot Act. Only those who plan or plot harm to this country's citizens or infrastructure have something to be concerned about. whether they be a domestic or foreign enemy they have something fear and it is only befitting that they be placed in the darkest dankest hole that our government can find should they never see daylight again so be it.
-
KHS alumnus: I can see how a country whose people are conditioned to the idea that 100% participation in certain rituals is subject to tyranny. In a country like that, the people are vulnerable, especially in times of national crisis (real or perceived), to electing a leader with a committed core of followers who then equates dissent with disloyalty. In such a country, people's liberties will be eroded and thoughtful discussion of the issues most central to the people's security will be suppressed under the guise of "national security." People will be afraid to speak out in opposition to such a leader for fear of being labeled disloyal, or worse. This is exactly what has happened in the United States since 9/11/01 under George W. Bush. The worst leaders use rituals like pledges and flag salutes to consolidate their power and imbue it with dictatorial features.
By contrast, I can see no damage at all to a country if some citizens sit out patriotic rituals to make a point. This is not disrespectful to our soldiers, dead and living, but profoundly respectful of them - because such dissent preserves the same liberty those soldiers, and others, fought to preserve.
Please tell me, then, KHS alumnus, and I ask most respectfully:
1. How does Matthew's dissent harm our country? I see the harm to our country in your attitude, but I see no harm at all in his dissent. I think you have it exactly backwards. I don't see it, so please tell me.
2. If what I have described above does not describe what has happened in the United States since 9/11/01, including the suppression of news and the unthinking passage of the so-called "Patriot Act," even though virtually no one in Congress had read the bill before they passed it, then how do you explain it? Even if you agree with everything in this legislation, how can you justify the passage of legislation virtually no one had read? What does it tell you that it happened that way?
3. Can you appreciate that while you equate Matthew's dissent with disrespect, others see it differently? Is it possible that there might be another way for you to see it?
4. Why do you completely ignore his justification for sitting out the pledge?
KHS alumnus, you have taken the time to post here. Obviously, this is important to you. It is important to me, too. So please respond to his justification and to these questions, for no intelligent discussion can occur unless the opposing sides engage each other's points.
As for the Patriot Act I can't explain Congress's rush to pass legislation for national security. Other than the fear of getting attacked again, but lets not put the blame just on Bush. This was a bipartisan effort both democrat and republican.So are you saying that since 9/11 the media has been supressed, what planet are you living on, the media has been nothing more than very active whether it be coverage in Iraq or investigating Washington politicians. By sitting out the pledge your showing that you have no Allegiance to the country. I on the other hand am proud of the USA good or bad we are afterall the GREATEST nation on the planet.Am I brainwashed no I'm not I do this of my own free will. I will stand for the pledge I will place my hand over my heart. At 18 I was proud and honored to sign my selective service card, although i could not serve in the military due to a childhood illness, I would to this day lay my life on the line in defense of this great nation. could the same be said for you
-
O really so the Pepsi building, Wal-Mart, the new condos where the sopranos was filmed, and Riviera are dollars stores and/or laundry mats, gets a life. Look around do you want us to be a Harrison, North Arlington or Newark? Harrison is so corrupted it not even funny, North Arlington is so badly managed that resident’s taxes go up in the thousands and more to come. As for Newark, well I hope one day it can go to its former glory. The Mayor is trying to get those building near Kmart to be redevelop, the old baseball factory cleanup so it can be redevelop and the building near Seabras to be turn into new Condos. I remember the old mayor; I don’t ever want to go back to that again. If you have any suggest I would love to hear them, as for the sandbagger coming out of the closet I hope that not a personal request.
First the Soprano condo's have'nt even been built yet, The property next to Seabra's are slated to be $1500.00 a month apartments. With 232 new apartments there will be new children coming in. Can Franklin school handle a new influx of children with a current enrollment of 988 students K - 8 somehow I doubt it. So who's going to pay for a new addition not the state of NJ Kearny afterall is NOT a Abbott school district. that means the town will have to take out bonds and who will pay for that,why the Kearny taxpayer at up to 3 times the initial value. tax's will go up so that a developer can get rich. And where will the tenants of theis new complex park there is'nt enough room on the site what with retail stores on the first floor. So the developer will get town council approval to eminent domain someones property to build a parking garage to house between 232 - 464 vehicles so we take a few properties so that the mayor can look good and put more people on the unemployment rolls. Now what about the tax incentive package thats offered to new business's to lure them into coming to Kearny who picks up the difference? why the Kearny taxpayer does.
-
What difference does the location make? I guess you don't equate strip club with sleazy.
Your right I don't equate strip club with sleazy,So whats next for you prudes burning books maybe
-
Dear 81
Never in my post did I state that I didn't use my driveway!!! What I take exception with is the suggestion that people with driveways be denied a permit to park on the street, this is the policy endorsed by YOU.
I would imagine that any such policy, denying a tax paying home owning resident a permit to park on the street simply because they happen to have a driveway would be immediatley challenged and defeated in court. So if you could afford $33,000 in property taxes buy yourself a driveway and stop your WHINING!
So where should I put a driveway on a 6 family apartment building. I know I'll take the 1st floor and turn it into a driveway, I'll fill in the basement and force my tenants to put their furnance and hot water heaters into thier apartments. Yep that'll work. I could take this to the zoning board for their OK only I don't think my neighbors would like the taking of 2 more spaces off the street. I have 2 family homes on my street with garages and driveways yet those people park on the street, so wy should'nt they be forced to use their driveways.
-
Let me get this straight--the LaClairs should respect the sacrifice for the freedoms...by not exercising their freedoms? Something doesn't add up here.
How about you show some respect for all of the non-Christians who ALSO gave their lives for those freedoms by helping to remove that unnecessary phrase from the pledge that excludes non-Christians and paints them as second-class citizens?
Think about it.
I agree with you, the word under god should never have been placed in the pledge. The pledge was originally written by a Socialist as a poem for a socialist magazine. Sometime in the 1950's the Christian church petitioned congress to add the words " Under God" to the pledge. However I still stand by my earlier comments. If you don't want to say the words " Under God" then don't say them. Still though stand up and recite the pledge just leave out the words that offend you, now thats fair.There were those I went to school with that were Athiests and they stood for the pledge and left out the words under god but at least they stood and showed respect. By sitting thru the pledge this kid is not only being disrespectful but is showing his contempt for those who sacrificed their lives so that you and I can have this discussion.
-
Then stop forcing your religion and your rituals on us. (The religion isn't even Matthew's main reason.) Stop forcing us to pledge allegiance to what we do not believe. Stop insisting that we pretend along with you that rituals can substitute for citizenship. That is your fantasy world. We will not support you in it.
Your vision will not make our country better or stronger. It will make our country weak and frankly, stupid. We cannot stop you if you insist on making our country stupid, but we will not enable you while you do it.
Stop demanding that of us. Then you will have a quiet and peaceful town. If you force us to do what we do not believe, we will dissent. This is our vision of what being a good American means. You can say many things about us, but we are fighting for our country, whether you realize it or not, appreciate it or not.
And it's not underhanded. You just don't like it. We are completely out in the open, which is why you know who we are - unlike you, who chooses to remain anonymous. So in addition to everything else, you are a coward. And if you ever have the courage to tell me who you are, I will say it to your face. I'm in the book.
Well Paul maybe you and your kid should live on a commune. Maybe your kid who does'nt want to Pledge the flag, could at least show some respect by standing and showing some respect for the Men and Women who gave their lives so that have the freedoms that you enjoy so much, like the freedom of speech, freedom to practice whatever religion you choose. Your kid does'nt have to recite the Pledge. However by showing his disrespect by sitting through out the pledge shows to me he is nothing more than a punk.
-
So sleazy clubs in town don't bother you but people taking up parking on your block does?
Genius.
I don't see a " Sleazy" club as you put it in Town. I see a strip club opening up in the Industrial section of Kearny. I see a bar opening up 3 miles from the nearest residence,3.5 miles from the nearest school.So again I ask what does it matter. If it's prostitution your worried about try googeling prostitution Kearny NJ you'll get over 100 hits for prostitutes working in the greater Kearny area. If it's drugs anyone could be selling drugs I could name a few kearny high school students that I know are teen dealers.
-
Let me get this straight the person that has a driveway and pays more taxes than you do for that driveway should be banned from parking on the street? This in your mind is fair? Face it you choose to live in one of the most densely populated parts of the State, which is the most densely populated State in the Country! Do the math, stop your whining, get a drive way or move.
Signed A proud owner of A driveway and paying for it
Well goody for you. You have a driveway I also pay taxe's to the tune of $33,000 per year to the Town of Kearny for 3 properties. If you have a driveway use it then thats what it's there for. Why be greedy and take up parking that someone else who has no driveway could use.I'll bet your one of those people who park across your own driveway. I hope one of your neighbors calls the KPD and gets you ticketed for that small infraction.
Wondering
in Kearny
Posted
Um I'm not sure if you can sue. Actually Paul LaClair could answer that question for you better than anyone else on this board. I to maybe facing knee surgery damaged cartlidge and torn miniscus in my left knee. Slip and fall on a construction site.