Is ‘social justice math’ creeping into your child’s curriculum?

With American children heading back to school, Thursday’s Glenn Beck Program focused on the latest developments related to the Common Core standards and how it impacts the future of education in this country. Dana Loesch spoke to Kyle Olson, co-author of Conform: Exposing the Truth About Common Core and Public Education, about a disturbing trend in classrooms: Social justice-inspired math.

Get Glenn Live! On TheBlaze TV

As Dana explained, because of the way Common Core has been implemented, not all private school or homeschool curriculums are safe. Furthermore, as Kyle pointed out, college entrance exams like the SAT and ACT are going to be reformatted in the coming years to be “Common Core aligned,” which means children who do not receive a Common Core curriculum will be at a disadvantage.

“Just because you homeschool or go to a charter school or private school or whatever the case may be, it is critical parents are engaged in that process, aligned with the teachers and school leaders to make sure their child is getting a proper education and one they expect for their kids,” Olson explained.

Perhaps most disturbing, however, is a trend Olson described among math materials that seeks to recalibrate the economic principles from which concepts are taught.

“There is a huge movement to push what is known as ‘social justice math,'” he said. “Proponents of social justice math don’t like how much consumerism is in math.”

If you think back to your elementary school years, your math equations probably centered around going to the store and making a purchase or having to make change in some way. Not anymore. Now, progressives are pushing to have themes like climate change and casualties of war worked into these problems.

“A typical math problem would be you have 13 cents and a green pencil is 3 cents – you know, that sort of problem. They want to get rid of those sorts of problems,” Olson said. “Instead, they want to calculate war deaths, or they want to calculate the number of liquor stores within a particular radius of the school, or problems related to global warming – those sorts of things.”

Ultimately, there is a push to insert a political and ideological bias into areas of the curriculum that should be straightforward and fact-based.

“They want to put an emphasis on those things and drill the political issues to make a political point versus just simply educating and teaching kids math,” Olson concluded. “They have long said math has been an area where they have not been really penetrating and pushing those sorts of issues. But this is making headway.”

  • Yo Mamma

    I like this math!

    100 men, black and white murder and are convicted. They’re on death row, with only minutes to live and eat their last meal. Check which statistically the meat they will eat for the last meal.

    A. Beef
    B. Chicken
    C. Fish
    D. Pig

    Children, if you chose any one BUT C, you would be correct. Approximately 2% of all last meals, avoid pig altogether. And children there is good reason for that. They don’t want to face God Creator with stinky pig breath.

    • landofaahs

      Who BEE This?

    • landofaahs

      Is this the 99%?

    • landofaahs

      This b common core occupy?

      • Pachy Serrano

        That means conservatives are a minority?? That’s why you guys can’t win . . . Majority always win. That’s democracy in action, sorry!

        • TC

          You do realize they are not actually 99% of anything right?? I can make signs all day long with crap on them…does not make it true. HAHA

        • Chris

          You do realize that America is NOT a democracy right? It is a Constitutional Republic.

        • landofaahs

          That may well change when the crash comes. By the way. How many different handles do you go by? What happened to Yo Mamma? You are nothing but a democrat hack and I intend to deal harshly with you.

        • in_awe

          Hmmm, when the 47% of households that pay no net federal income tax reach 51% of the voters casting ballots the growth rate of entitlement spending will approach infinity.

          When labor unions provide 90% of campaign funds for liberal politicians and 98% of union contributions go to liberals, calculate the annual raises given to federal, state and local union employees. Then tally the number of leftist laws passed by the “democratically elected” legislature. Rinse and repeat.

    • landofaahs

      Who cares what they eat as long as it’s like them. SMOKED

    • landofaahs

      They are murderers and I would not follow their example. Besides, all my bullets are dipped in pig grease. Just target practicing makes me hungry sometimes. After all as the head of the house it’s my job to “bring home the bacon”. Besides, fish that has skin like good old catfish are considered unclean by Jewish law. The fish must have scales and fins to be clean. So you are in error by lumping all fish together dumbass.

      • Yo Mamma

        I should never doubt your intelligence or knowledge of Jewish law (Talmud), seeing you are mostly jewish – lol

        Or is it half jewish half christian, either way, you’re a real mess

        • landofaahs

          You no doubt have never heard of a Messianic Jew. You have heard about bigotry since you are displaying it right now. So I guess you could call me a mess for short. You should also know that I am blessed when you revile me according to Matthew 5:11-12. But I could expect nothing more from a janitor. Shalom

          • Yo Mamma

            You are one of the many varieties that HATE God Creator. Its that simple sport – Quote something intelligent from your stolen Torah

          • landofaahs

            Occupy sucks and so do atheists.

        • landofaahs

          Thanks. I wanted you to admit you were a bigot and you finally did. That is all I needed and everyone sees the truth now. Shalom Baby

          • Yo Mamma

            Nothing wrong in being a bigot or racist

            Don’t hate
            Don’t Tolerate

    • landofaahs

      Silence you cloven hoofed moron.

  • landofaahs

    Who B this?

  • landofaahs

    Who this B?

  • landofaahs

    Who this doctor B?

    • Pachy Serrano

      That Dr brought a trick our of his tribe . . . No more insurance rejection for pre-existing conditions, health care plans for align with outcomes rather treatment pills, and millions of American citizens with health insurance that didn’t have it before . . . . I take that deal anytime!

      • Sandy Ratigan

        do you pay attention to the people who were supposed to be better supported or to be covered by the new health plan? it didn’t happen, what country are you living in – Obama Care has not done what it promised and when the bill after one year comes in EVERYONE’s insurance rates will go up – cuz the insurance industry is not going to cover this, they are a BUSINESS

        • fawn

          We pay out the rear end for our insurance! The rates have been raised two to three times in the last 2 years. Close to 900 bucks a month. The doctor billed our insurance 195.00 for a pneumonia shot(52.00 to administer the shot!) All of us are paying for those who are not paying ‘their fair share”. I thought it was supposed to bring the rates down.! Lied then, lies now. Free market and competition are the only vehicles to bring prices down.

          • Allen Santee Summers

            Funny, mine went down from 100 a month to just under 20, with a $30 co-pay on doctor visits, as opposed to the 50 it was before, and I have broader prescription coverage. Damn that ACA for forcing my employer to improve my insurance plan!

          • Riley Reynolds

            Allen you’re the ones Obama wants, those that will zombie up and drink the koolaid. Probably getting free education as well. Good on ya, the rest of us are paying for your sorry behavior. It won’t last enjoy the freebies while you can. We out here paying our taxes and working are getting a little tired of putting up with all the lazies in this country.

          • Allen Santee Summers

            I put vodka in my kool-aid, and no, I’m not on any form of welfare; food stamps, educational assistance, ACA subsidies, or anything of the sort. My employer voluntarily changed their insurance program to become compliant, and I fulfilled the requirements on my part for the insurance reduction, which, in my case, meant stop using tobacco products. Also, statistically, red states are the most reliant on assistance programs, which means food stamps, living assistance, blah blah blah. Hell, even the state governments borrow money from the feds. Why? So they can have low tax rates. Most of them don’t even give a 100% return on the lending!

          • in_awe

            My wife’s employer covers 95% of premium costs for several different healthcare insurance plans for her to choose from. Starting next year the Obamacare Cadillac plan tax will PENALIZE her employer for being too generous with its benefits for its 10,000+ employees. The question is whether it will absorb the penalties or just stop offering healthcare coverage as a benefit.

            Having looked at the premiums, co-pays and deductibles we’d pay for an inferior Obamacare plan available in our county we’ll pay almost $110,000 more over 5 years for worse coverage. Oh one more thing, my wife has leukemia – her MD and the cancer hospital that have treated her for the past 10 years are not in ANY Obamacare plan. Obamacare is just great.

          • Marbran

            Pachy doesn’t care. He’s one of the ones not paying.

      • ben

        You seems to believe everyone has money to blow on this health insurance. Forcing an individual to pay for their health insurance is different than giving them a choice.

      • bluuplanet

        If you’re in a trade union, you’ve likely already rejected that deal–(or your union leaders did so on your behalf.) It costs way too much. You can’t afford it. No one else can either.

      • landofaahs

        All designed to cover AIDS patients.

      • landofaahs

        A communist like you would. Why should everyone else pay for parasites like you?

      • Invicta81

        That the rest of us are paying for….

      • Riley Reynolds

        Tell that to several of my friends that are still rejected. Which country are you from that you are this delusional? Unless you’re a koolaid drinker and really don’t care who’s paying for you, it all works. But for those of us that just had our premiums tripled because we actually work for a living, well we’re getting tired of you freeloading obama zombies.

      • landofaahs

        You’re a known turd and I flush you

    • Krimsen King

      very convincing point you make…. and so eloquently made, as well……………

  • bluuplanet

    David Coleman, the architect of Common Core, has now redesigned the SAT.
    At the end of a speech promoting it, he said:

    “I have saved for last a major development in the redesign of the SAT. Because it
    embodies this principal that informs the whole of the redesign: Doing a few things very well that have a demonstrated capacity to transform possibilities for everyone and anyone. There is no better example of such concentrated excellence and such transforming power than America’s founding documents and the great global conversation they have inspired. The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, The Bill of Rights, and the Federalist Papers have managed to inspire an enduring conversation about freedom, justice and human dignity, not only in this country, but throughout the world. A conversation that continues to reverberate in the likes of President Lincoln, President Eisenhower and Dr. Martin Luther King. In recognition of the remarkable achievement of these documents and their impact, in every SAT, one of the passages students encounter will either be a founding document or a text from the great global conversation they have inspired.”

    Here’s my summary of what Coleman said:
    There will be only one question in the new SAT on an item from one of our nation’s founding documents, or alternatively, from a Marxist-Leninist refutation if it.

    • Shiprex

      You’re saying that Marxism-Leninism was sponsored (that’s the free market term) by the US constitution? OH NO!

      • bluuplanet

        I didn’t even use the word “sponsored.” and no, I’m not saying that. Not even the left-wing creep David Coleman said that. I’ve read some of your other posts. You thrive on your own caricatures of other’s out-of-context sound bites to throw out sarcastic straw-man arguments. Your rants are totally juvenile. You must be in a trade union.

        • Shiprex

          I used the word sponsored because that’s a word most people lapping up the drivel of Beck would understand. The point I was clarifying was the comment about about Marxism-Leninism came across as having being influenced by the American constitution. It wasn’t a sound bite it was a poorly thought out comment and I was pointing out the flaw in it.
          Isn’t it better to be silent and thought a fool than to press your keys and remove all doubt?
          I was in a trade union though right now I am having some time away from working as I am able to do that where I live because they have a welfare system that allows me to return to education and support me, to investigate alternative avenues of work etc. but that’s because we’re all commies and pinkos over here.

  • landofaahs

    common core and occupy wall street and communism are one and the same

    • Pachy Serrano

      Its like poor education, tea party rallies, and corporate welfare are one of the same . . . Yea, I got that!

      • agadofive.leti

        Hippie, liberals stuck in their bubble of ignorance.

        • Pachy Serrano

          Yep, like hate mongers conservatives that stayed back on the 19th century mentality. Wake up we are in 21st Century!!

          • 04TXS1836

            Go back to PR B*tch…

          • Bill Wright

            I think he should stay here. His delusions are hilarious. Guess he never heard of Solyndra.

          • Allen Santee Summers

            So a startup company went bankrupt because of something out of their control, like, in this case, the cost of materials drastically changed in a short timespan. The only reason it’s a big deal is because the government invested in it to try and create jobs.

          • Marbran

            No…Solyndra failed because it was trying to push a new type of solar technology that the market did not have a use for. The market could find products that gave similar outcomes for a cheaper price. But the Government wanted the new technology to succeed, or at least that was their cover story. Half a billion in government loans were given to the company in order to guarantee success, which never works in a free market economy.

            Let me make it crystal clear why Solyndra was bad for America: in a free market, investors take on the risk for the potential of profits later on, while with Solyndra the government used tax money from ALL of us to back something that had no use or profit potential since it had no market.

            See the difference?

          • Allen Santee Summers

            “On 31 August 2011, Solyndra announced it was filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, laying off 1,100 employees, and shutting down all operations and manufacturing.[26] In Solyndra’s quarterly employee meetings, employees were told that the company was losing money, and that production costs, while declining, were still higher than the also-declining market prices for solar panels. The decision to lay off employees and cease operations came about as the result of a board meeting on 30 August in which terms for the injection of additional capital could not be agreed upon. This left Solyndra with virtually no cash.”

            That, combined with the article I read earlier, leads me to conclude that they were using materials that were more expensive than the ones in use by other companies, and that they couldn’t adapt their manufacturing hardware to make use of the cheaper materials in a cost effective manner.

            The problem with your line of reasoning is that there’s around 27 billion dollars in government grants handed out every year for the express purpose of starting a business. http://sba.gov
            How many of those fail? Find me statistics on those, instead of stating one case of failure. 500 million is a drop in the bucket compared to 27 billion.
            EDIT: Found the statistic as of 2009. 19.4%. that’s an 80.6% success rate in creating American jobs. The question I ask you is how many American jobs did Mitt Romney, a Republican presidential candidate, destroy and send overseas?

          • in_awe

            All you need to know is the names and political affiliations of the “investors” in Solyndra and the other “green” companies that the DOE favored with grants and loans. Then you see that the terms of the agreements were rewritten to shield the “investors” in the event of a BK of the green company. The taxpayers would protect the “investors”. It is called privatizing the potential profit while socializing the inevitable losses.

          • Pachy Serrano

            Ask Western Virginia citizens how those energy corporations are contaminating their water and soil for the sake of “fossil fuels”. But time will tell how sick we’re going to be. U and me won’t see that, but my children and my kid’s children will. We can’t keep this pace forever . . . that’s reality.

          • Pachy Serrano

            I think am staying. I am an American citizens and with “earned with blood fighting on your stupid wars”, but its ok . . . your ladies love me and they have more fun with me, though. That’s why u are the B****!!

          • in_awe

            All Hail progressive tyranny!

          • landofaahs

            The black community is the second largest hate group second only to muslims.

          • agadofive.leti

            The hate mongers are the liberals who keep name calling and accusing anyone who doesn’t agree with their debased morals, values, and ethics.

      • Michael Tucker

        Have you ever heard these words?

        “A Government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have”?

        • Pachy Serrano

          Yes I heard that one . . . But Big Govt. is as bad as Corporate Cronyism. One take all your hard earned money, while the other make itself richer and fatter at the expense of working class folks like you and me . . . and then they play with your mind and your vote when you don’t get them what they want. Nice business model, ah??

          • Chad

            the difference is that the free market polices itself .. corporations fail.. unless Big Govt which has NO WATCHDOGS .. bails them out.. Crony Capitilism.. what you have to ask is who are the cronies and who is in control… what has failed in the past and what bailed out those that failed.

          • Bradley Gill

            Exactly what I was going to say… When all the power goes to government, you can see what happens… Hard Drives disappear and nobody cares.. At least when Corporations screw up, the Government can step in..

          • Gregory Garner

            Last time I checked, we still have elections and, shockingly, politicians occasionally lose. If we continue to elect idiots, thieves, and tyrants, is it the fault of the politicians? If a company retains an employee who they know is ripping off a customer, that company can get sued for negligence. In politics, we’re the employer. All of us. If we don’t like how things are going, but do nothing to change it, we have nobody to blame but ourselves.

          • motherall

            You have a choice in how to spend you money…you have no choice with the feds.Corporations are in the business of profit. Government should not be.

          • Pachy Serrano

            That’s call Plutocracy and others call it . . . “Am rich and with power . . . you are poor and powerless, so . . . u don’t count only to make more for me”. Nice review about how “screw up our Capitalism system is”. My father used to say: “I love cake and I want it all, but is there is enough for everybody . . . why not share it?? I will get sick if I eat it all . . .”

          • Shawn Cameron

            Yeah like GE right?

        • Invicta81

          Thomas Jefferson said that.

        • Krimsen King

          yes, what a nice sounding phrase… just like reagan’s great bumper sticker ‘government IS the problem’…. and just like every other slick nonsensical bumper sticker philosophy, IT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO REALITY… in case you ain’t noticed… our government has ALWAYS been MORE than big enough to take away ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING from any individual… THIS DOES NOT MEAN WE MUST FEAR IT… we must only fear when the very few, very wealthiest control ALL ASPECTS OF SOCIETY… when the voices of WE THE PEOPLE are diminished to a whisper… we must ONLY fear what our sacred ‘job creators’ and ‘corporate innovators’ have now actually created for us… we must only fear becoming an OLIGARCHY…. oops… too late ;)

          • in_awe

            ” in case you ain’t noticed… our government has ALWAYS been MORE than big enough to take away ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING from any individual..”

            True if you believe the government started with FDR and there is no Constitution.

            You see, what changed was the attitude of the government elites about the role of government. For FDR it was the Depression and WWII that he believed gave him free rein to expand government and use force and the threat of force (you do remember internment camps don’t you?) He even attempted to expand the Supreme Court so he could stack it with progressives when it wouldn’t rubber stamp all of his plans.

            The moment came when it was determined by the ruling elites that the people served the government and not the other way around that we all started losing our freedom and liberty.

          • Krimsen King

            good grief… ‘government elites’…… I said it was BIG ENOUGH… not ENTITLED TO… so… very good, you actually got to my exact point….. hahaha good grief the partisan delusion……. WE STARTED LOSING OUR FREEDOM AND LIBERTY WHEN OUR ELECTIONS STARTED MAKING LOTS OF PROFIT$ FOR LOTS OF PEOPLE… and we lost our freedom and liberty and VOICE when we officially, literally became an oligarchy.

          • in_awe

            and it got BIG ENOUGH (as you put it) when?

            What was the size of the federal government civilian workforce in the 1700’s? The 1800’s? 1900? 1920? 1930? 1935? 1940? 1950? 1960? 1970? 1980? I wonder if the rise of the liberal/progressive era correlates with a huge growth in the federal government and the number of agencies that enforce rules on the population? Now even the FDA and EPA have SWAT teams.

            Money has less to do with it than political ideology that dsdains the Constitutional limitations on the role of government.

          • Krimsen King

            your problem with ‘big government’ is with the FDA, EPA, and SWAT teams???? Not the NSA or hundreds of other redundant, intrusive intelligence agencies??? Not the ridiculously bloated military budget that even the military says is too much???? You must try not to ascribe the most radical beliefs to just anyone you believe you disagree with.. it would be like saying ALL ‘conservatives’ are violent militia members… liberals are not ‘anti-Constitution’ any more than conservatives are ‘anti-humanity’… only the tiny, most radical hard-liners believe those ridiculous cult-like beliefs.

          • ladykrystyna

            I have a problem with the national security departments that are looking too much inward without profiling instead of outward, yes. But I also have a problem with many other unconstitutional agencies.

            Leftists are, by definition, anti Constitution because the entire ideology revolves around a type of government that was not provided for in the Constitution – a limited one with enumerated powers. You guys use the Constitution when you think you can benefit from it and ignore it when it gets in your way of gaining more power and control over people.

            This ain’t our first rodeo, clown.

          • Krimsen King

            why do you believe that you and your ‘side’ have some special knowledge or ability that somehow NOONE else can possess, especially those of this perceived opposing ‘side’???? How can you be so expert in ‘leftists’ and ‘leftism’ without any real depth of understanding of your own side’s positions… only superficial, simplistic PLATITUDES like ‘following the Constitution’ or ‘personal responsibility’ or ‘free market solutions’… platitudes that sound real nice and MEAN VIRTUALLY NOTHING AND ANYTHING… please, do go on telling me what ‘us guys’ believe and want and do…. hahahahaha good grief the partisan delusions…

          • ladykrystyna

            You have the knowledge. You just ignore it.

            I am an expert in leftism because this country is steeped in it. On the news, on TV programs, in movies and music, in education from K through graduate schools.

            The problem is that you guys have no idea about what conservatives actually stand for. We say “limited government” you hear “no government”. Happens all the time.

            Go to NRO and read some articles and posts. Read any conservative writings and books. Thomas Sowell is especially good for economics.

            I don’t even care if you agree in the end. I prefer, as does Dennis Prager, clarity over agreement.

            But you are arguing from ignorance and that is the problem.

          • Krimsen King

            no… you say ‘limited government’, and when ‘we’ ask, you explain all the ridiculous things you want to cut from necessary programs, while depriving the public coffers of BILLIONS in OWED TAXES by the oligarchs.. the real problem is that YOUR political/religious cult has defined ANYONE who disagrees with you as some ‘ignorant’, radical, hard line leftist, rather than someone who simply disagrees with you… I’ve read ‘nro’ and sowell and prager, and aside from being ridiculously full of partisan delusion, they are also quite crude and rude about any disagreement with them, characterizing the PEOPLE who disagree, rather than addressing any actual argument or idea… just as you have done so ‘expertly’… yes, well done, you…. ;)

          • ladykrystyna

            “while depriving the public coffers of BILLIONS in OWED TAXES by the oligarchs..”

            There’s your problem right there sport. What you earn, whether as an employee of a company, or as a business owner, is YOUR MONEY. We accept a certain amount of taxes in order to run the limited government we were given. Nothing more, nothing less.

            We on the right believe that we should keep the government to Constitutional levels, not add in more agencies that need more of our money to harass us and slow down our economy if not ultimately destroy it.

            If the government is limited it doesn’t need as much money. You get to keep more of it, I get to keep more of it. I don’t see why that’s a problem.

            You would have it that any money earned automatically belongs to the government and they just let you keep some of it.

            That’s not classical liberalism or capitalism. That is statism.

            “I’ve read ‘nro’ and sowell and prager, and aside from being ridiculously full of partisan delusion, they are also quite crude and rude about any disagreement with them, characterizing the PEOPLE who disagree, rather than addressing any actual argument or idea…”

            No, you haven’t. If you had you wouldn’t have just lied, especially about Sowell and Prager and most of the writers at NRO.

            You can pretend you are not a leftist, but everything you have spouted here is leftism. It just is. It’s not pragmatism. It’s leftism. Proof of it in every one of your posts.

            Stop pretending. Just be proud to be a leftist, a statist. Why lie about it? Be proud of it.

          • Krimsen King

            and this is YOUR problem, sport… THEY STILL OWE THE TAXES… just because they can con you and everyone else into believing that tax shelters and subsidies and half the percentage of the rest of us is their due taxes, that DON’T MAKE IT SO.

          • ladykrystyna

            So, are you telling me that when you do your taxes, you don’t take advantage of any of the loopholes and credits. You just pay it all, right? No deductions or anything?

            And those companies and individuals get all those loopholes and credits, etc because of the crony system we have in place. The oligarchy we have in place. That is why many of us support the flat tax or the fair tax because then there are few to no loopholes, everyone has skin in the game and there are no “makers and takers”.

            You know how to nibble around the edges, but you just can’t seem to get anything through your thick skull.

          • Krimsen King

            hahahaha very nice… yes, those of us who can’t afford expensive accountants and lawyers don’t get to take advantage of the loopholes and credits… fyi, the ‘loopholes’ shouldn’t exist at all, neither should tax ‘havens’ or ‘shelters’ or even subsidies for the most profitable people and corporations in human history… but I digress… and also fyi… WE ALL ALREADY HAVE ‘SKIN IN THE GAME’… WE ALWAYS WILL… AND THERE JUST IS NO SUCH THING AS ‘MAKERS AND TAKERS’… IT IS A RIDICULOUS AYN RANDIAN DELUSION, JUST LIKE ‘RATIONAL SELF-INTEREST’.

          • ladykrystyna

            You can use Turbo Tax, moron. It’ll give you all you need to know about loopholes and deductions. And yes, individuals do have them as well.

            And you didn’t answer the question – do you or do you not use all deductions and loopholes available to you when you do your taxes?

            We all do NOT have skin in the game when over 40% of people pay no federal income tax (which means they get all their money back at the end no matter what might come out on their paychecks, if they are even working).

            That’s why we on the right support a flat tax or a fair tax, so that every abled bodied person has skin in the game.

            I love the way you morons bring up Ayn Rand. I’ve never read one thing written by her.

            And accusations of being Randian, of watching Fox news, etc, are all you guys have left when you’ve been obviously schooled.

          • Krimsen King

            yes, that’s the nice thing about a political/religious cult.. the basic precepts and ‘values’ espoused don’t need to be sourced… u see, ‘free market solutions’ and ‘personal responsibility’ and other vague platitudes exactly like them get passed around so fully and freely and without question that you all can take whatever simple, beautiful meaning you want from them… all you have to do is follow along… well done, you ;)

          • ladykrystyna

            Our Founders’ sources were many. This link may help:

            http://www.constitution.org/primarysources/influences.html

            Apparently, you have not been properly taught American history or you would know the source of “classical liberalism”.

            What is the source of your values?

          • Krimsen King

            and yeh, I’m sure billionaires use turbotax to get their money into tax-free offshore bank accounts……. good grief, the partisan delusions…

          • ladykrystyna

            You really lack reading comprehension. I asked YOU if you take any deductions and use loopholes. You blabbered on about rich people and their accountants and lawyers. I said you can use Turbo Tax to get all the deductions and loopholes you are entitled to without need of an accountant and/or a lawyer.

            So I ask again – do you just pay your taxes outright with no deductions or loopholes, or do you use deductions and loopholes? (And you do know you can call the IRS directly and they’ll actually tell you what your deductions and loopholes are.)

            And hey, Timothy Geitner used Turbo Tax and he’s no middle class guy. Except he was so stupid, he couldn’t even use that correctly and was nothing but a tax cheat.

            So can you answer the question, sport, or do you want to continue to deflect?

          • Krimsen King

            I didn’t want to be rude, but obviously IT IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS what is on or in or around my personal taxes… clearly, THIS is a deflection , as it has NOTHING TO DO WITH the subject at hand… now, re-read my response and maybe address any thought or idea you find there… u know, instead of dismissing it as ‘deflection’ ;)

          • ladykrystyna

            No, it is not a deflection. You brought up the fact that rich people take deductions and use loopholes. I pointed out that everyone gets deductions and loopholes and most people use them and I asked if you did. I don’t need to know the particulars. Just a yes or no will do.

            But you can’t answer it honestly because you do take the deductions and loopholes, as any sane person would do – to keep as much of his or her money that he or she has earned. And there is nothing wrong with doing that, not for you, or me or any rich person. Most of all because it’s LEGAL.

          • in_awe

            Actually I oppose all violations of the Bill of Rights. That includes the NSA, DIA, C IA, FBI, Homeland Security, police forces with license plate scanners, the Secret Service running algorithms on the web to identify people who are angry, the Library of Congress archiving all – every single – public tweets, the contract by the government to identify cynical comments about government in social media and blogs, the Homeland Security scanning of social media looking for threats behind 300+ hot button words like airport, station, border, pigs, and San Diego.

            I am not ascribing beliefs to anyone who isn’t already exhibiting them in word and deed.

          • ladykrystyna

            ” in case you ain’t noticed… our government has ALWAYS been MORE than big enough to take away ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING from any individual… ”

            No it wasn’t. The Constitution was just big enough to run a country on the national level and free enough to let people live without government breathing down their neck.

            It hasn’t been that way for 100 years, thanks to the Statists.

          • Krimsen King

            there weren’t 350+MILLION people in this country a hundred years ago… we don’t have to have ‘government breathing down our necks’ to have an EFFECTIVE, EFFICIENT, and yes, even STRONG government… and we don’t need to fear ANY government as long as it remains a freely and fairly elected democratic system, where WE THE PEOPLE are the government… we only need to fear government when we lose our voice.. when money is equated to speech, and where MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF MONEY flow through our elections to our politicians, where it FUNDAMENTALLY AND INHERENTLY CORRUPTS ALL OF THEM, REGARDLESS OF POLITICAL PARTY OR IDEOLOGY… that’s when we need to fear OLIGARCHY… which is what we have actually, technically become now in this country…

          • ladykrystyna

            Your CAPSLOCK is not working properly.

            “we don’t have to have ‘government breathing down our necks'”

            IRS Scandal. Sue and Settle EPA – just 2 examples. Just because they are not breathing down your neck doesn’t mean we don’t have a serious problem.

            And if you understood conservatives, you would know that we are not loyal to party (read: Republican), we are loyal to principles – our Founding Principles.

            “when money is equated to speech, and where MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF MONEY flow through our elections to our politicians, where it FUNDAMENTALLY AND INHERENTLY CORRUPTS ALL OF THEM, REGARDLESS OF POLITICAL PARTY OR IDEOLOGY… that’s when we need to fear OLIGARCHY… which is what we have actually, technically become now in this country…”

            Money will always flow. Things cost money. This isn’t Star Trek.

            And you know why money is more of a problem? Bigger government. Before the Feds went after Microsoft they had, if I remember correctly, may be 3 lobbyists in DC, maybe none. After they were rake over the coals, now they have 300.

            The more gov’t gets involved, especially where it doesn’t belong, it creates a form of economic fascism where you get to keep your private property, but you exist at the whim of the government. That creates plenty of reasons for bribes, etc. Creating an oligarchy.

            You know what DOESN’T create one – limited government and free markets. A government that says NO to any special interest group – and I don’t care what side of the aisle they are on – is a gov’t that has fewer chances of being bribed and becoming corrupt.

            See the Third World Countries – dictatorships and authoritarian regimes and you can’t get around without bribing someone.

            Corruption will never be eradicated, but it can be limited and controlled. And that is done when the gov’t isn’t so big that it gives people a reason to want to bribe so they can get the gov’t off their back.

            Why don’t you ponder that for a while.

          • Krimsen King

            you seem to see the very notion of government as the corrupting influence rather than the money that motivates… do you not recognize that EVERY WEAK THIRD WORLD GOVERNMENT IN THE WORLD IS AN OLIGARCHY JUST LIKE US… I wasn’t just makin stuff up… I was describing the system we have developed here… when we equate money and speech, we NECESSARILY give a GREATER VOICE to those with the already most powerful voices… and when the voice of WE THE PEOPLE is so greatly diminished, we technically, LITERALLY BECOME AN OLIGARCHY… ponder yourself ;)

          • ladykrystyna

            Federalist #51:

            “If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.”

            What makes you think that people in gov’t are angels, but people in the private sector are not?

            Our Founders understood human nature – we are fallible creatures and thus they tried to give us a system that would give us ordered liberty.

            Note this part of the quote: “you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”

            The gov’t must control itself. If it does not, oligarchies will rise, corruption and everything you fear.

            No matter the letter after their names, why do so many in government often come out richer than they went in? And that’s before they start getting speaking fees and publishing books.

            The idea is to take away the very thing that causes corruption in the first place – that is a gov’t so big and into everything that it encourages people to want to break laws and regulations that hurt them.

            And being free market doesn’t make any of us Pro business. Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, George Soros, and many others are LEFTISTS and push the leftist agenda especially to their benefit including crowding out competition which is the very thing that keeps business as honest as they can be. Competing for customers and clients makes you want to put forth the best product or service at the best price. Otherwise you will lose. Unless you get protection from the gov’t.

            It’s like with licensing. One famous story is already established florists demanding that the gov’t require licenses for their profession. Why? To keep out competition. Make it harder to become a florist, or a lawyer or a doctor or whatever and that benefits the ones already in that profession.

            It’s like you see the problem, but your answer is exactly the root of the problem – more govt.

            We are not asking for no laws or no regulations. We are asking that those things be limited to enumerated powers and specifically related to things like contract and fraud, so that free people can go about their business as unmolested as possible.

            Try reading some Thomas Sowell. That might help. Stay away from OWS types and Communists.

          • Krimsen King

            don’t just presume ‘leftist agenda’ is inherently an evil concept to just anyone and everyone… try to explain exactly how and why ACTUALLY PROPOSED POLICIES are effective or not… and try… just try despite everyone telling you otherwise… to come up with IDEAS AND THOUGHTS OF YOUR OWN… yes, maybe even POLICY PROPOSITIONS AND IDEAS FOR EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE… rather than perpetually arguing that we just need no governance at all.

          • ladykrystyna

            We are living the ineffectiveness of leftist policies and have been for years. The evidence is all around you. The black community is the biggest examples. Check their statistics out BEFORE The Great Society. Then check it out afterwards.

            Even Bill Cosby, not a known conservative, understands there is a problem. So do many other conservative blacks like Dr. Caron, Larry Elder, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, etc.

            I never said we don’t need any governance. Just goes to show that all you can do is create strawmen and knock them down. Therefore, it is clear that no matter what my propositions are you will twist them beyond recognition into nice little straw men and then knock them down with your leftist talking points.

            Again, not my first rodeo.

          • Krimsen King

            yes… only ‘leftists’ have been in control of this country for years… as for ‘statistics’… u know, there’s lies, damned lies, and statistics… obviously, they can be interpreted and manipulated to appear any number of ways… so, be more specific… however many rodeos you’ve been to, you shouldn’t assume that disagreeing with someone means they are on some opposing ‘side’… you did not say that we need no governance, but the simple, basic governance I suggested was abhorrent to you… so, by all means… do go on……. explain your position instead of using your talking points to demean, degrade and dismiss my thoughts and ideas ;)

          • ladykrystyna

            Oh, of course the statistics are no good unless they benefit your side. Got it. Thanks for the tip.

            In the black community today, 75% of children are born out of wedlock. Find me evidence that that is wrong, otherwise you’re just blowing smoke.

            And Hispanics and Whites – over 40% are born out of wedlock today. Whites had much lower numbers before The Great Society as well.

            How is that War on Poverty going? Oh, that’s right. The numbers have moved at all for 50 years.

            “so, be more specific”

            That is specific you moron.

            “you did not say that we need no governance, but the simple,”

            Then why did you accuse me of that?

            You were caught and now you backtrack. You are not very credible.

            “basic governance”

            According to you and that translates into big government and yes I abhor that.

            “explain your position instead of using your talking points to demean, degrade and dismiss my thoughts and ideas”

            I already tried that, but it didn’t work. I’ve had better conversations with a turnip.

          • Krimsen King

            you’ve got to try to keep reading through the bits you believe you find offensive… sometimes the end of sentences can change the entire meanings… haha wow… yes, those statistics are more specific… what is your interpretation of them? that these groups are somehow inherently incapable of behaving as ‘normal’ groups like yours??? hahaha you claim that this ‘great society’ policy has created problems, but your statistics are far too broad and vague to suggest any policy or philosophy has contributed to them… and still, you insist on characterizing ME instead of addressing specific thoughts or ideas of mine… and I am absolutely sure that you have had better conversations with vegetables hahaha tried indeed

          • ladykrystyna

            “you’ve got to try to keep reading through the bits you believe you find offensive… sometimes the end of sentences can change the entire meanings… ”

            That was incoherent.

            “yes, those statistics are more specific… what is your interpretation of them? that these groups are somehow inherently incapable of behaving as ‘normal’ groups like yours???”

            As I said, out of wedlock birth rates have gone up for EVERYONE since The Great Society and The War on Poverty. You are just incapable of using your brain to figure out why. WELFARE. Subsidizing bad behavior. Color is irrelevant. You just jump to that because you are conditioned to.

            It’s called human nature. Subsidize bad behavior, get more bad behavior. Ask someone in the insurance industry. They’ll explain “moral hazarad” to you. Perhaps with a coloring book and some crayons.

            ” but your statistics are far too broad and vague to suggest any policy or philosophy has contributed to them…”

            Welfare – plain and simple. Those welfare policies encouraged women not to marry, not to keep the man around and to keep having babies so that there were 3 generations of women on welfare, their color irrelevant.

            You can’t even rebut all you do is attack.

            “and still, you insist on characterizing ME instead of addressing specific thoughts or ideas of mine”

            I’ve addressed everything you’ve said and rebutted it and you have not done the same.

            You can keep putting in the “hahahaha”s, moron. But it just makes you look like a babbling idiot.

          • Krimsen King

            let’s stop basing our public policy on trying to ‘encourage’ this behavior or that.. we are not subsidizing bad behavior by helping people who just may have behaved badly, ‘welfare’ is not a fluking dirty word, and I have done NOTHING but address the few, feeble thoughts you’ve expressed… and if you think I give one flying fluke what you think I look like, HAHAHAHA you are ridiculously mistaken… now stop “quoting” me as some evidence for your argument and try to THINK FOR YOURSELF ;)

          • ladykrystyna

            “we are not subsidizing bad behavior by helping people who just may have behaved badly”

            Yes, we are. You apparently do not understand human nature at all. Look what happens when something is given away for “Free” – the lines form around the buildings and down city blocks for God’s sake. Are you that obtuse?

            Welfare is a bad word.

            Here’s some Benjamin Franklin for you:

            “I am for doing good to the poor, but…I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed…that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”

            Basic human nature. Our Founders understood it. You do not.

            “and I have done NOTHING but address the few, feeble thoughts you’ve expressed.”

            No, you haven’t. Nothing of the sort. Whenever I’ve made a point, you’ve deflected and attacked and never addressed it with any facts or evidence.

            Stop quoting you? Why? Embarrassed by your idiotic postings?

            I’ll continue to quote you and pass on your idiocy so that everyone knows how NOT to think.

          • Krimsen King

            reasonable conclusion… I don’t understand human nature at all… hahahaha… you know, you may be confusing ‘human nature’ and ‘basic animal nature’ and ‘animalistic instinct’… ayn rand did that too ;)

          • ladykrystyna

            Again, I don’t read Ayn Rand. And yes, we are talking human nature and you completely ignore it.

          • Krimsen King

            striving for something more than simple ‘self interest’, rational or otherwise, is not ‘ignoring’ anything… and believing that human society is capable of altruism, empathy and cooperation is also not any kind of weakness or ‘liberalism’ either.. it is the idealism that once inspired great political leaders BOTH ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’ and yes… even the mysterious ‘independent’ statesman…

          • ladykrystyna

            “striving for something more than simple ‘self interest’, rational or otherwise, is not ‘ignoring’ anything”

            You are ignoring human nature. Human nature is not just about self-interest. There is also goodness. But you can’t legislate either. All you can do is protect people from each other with the rule of law and a gov’t not big enough to trample people’s rights.

            “and believing that human society is capable of altruism, empathy and cooperation is also not any kind of weakness or ‘liberalism’ either”

            Ever hear of charity, sport? You can give of yourself every day of the week and twice on Sunday. In fact, that is the Christian way – to voluntarily give of yourself. Having 60% of your income forcibly taken away is not charity. And certainly 50 years of the War on Poverty have done nothing for the poor. They are in some ways doing worse, except that they are subsidized so that they can still have cell phones, cable TV and cars.

            Government and taxes are not charity.

          • Krimsen King

            of course they are not… and roads and highways and clean water and food and police and fire fighters and safe energy and substantive education are NOT CHARITY EITHER… they are BASIC NEEDS OF CIVILIZATION and things WE THE PEOPLE all used to help each other with… good grief, your cult has forgotten the entire POINT of the Constitution in its absolute, obsessively NARROW interpretation of it.

          • ladykrystyna

            Let me type this slowly: I and my fellow people on the right are not for no government. We are for limited government. Roads and police, and yes, even the military, etc. Those are fine as long as they are taken care of by the level of government that is supposed to take care of it.

            It’s all the other stuff that is not fine. We stick by the enumerated powers of the FEDERAL government. States take care of the rest (roads and police, etc.) and then we can haggle at that level about welfare, etc. If welfare were to exist at all, I would keep at the most local level possible so that people receiving it are looking at those people who are paying for it right in the eye.

            But you just skip that part and spew the leftist talking points about how we want no government. We want a rule of law. We want ordered liberty. We don’t want anarchy. But to you and your fellow statists, if it’s not a totalitarian gov’t telling you how to wipe your arse, it’s anarchy.

          • Krimsen King

            hahahahaha wonderful you believe you can speak for your ‘side’…. you must realize not everyone on your ‘side’ believes quite these same things… and don’t forget… NOT EVERYONE YOU BELIEVE YOU DISAGREE WITH IS ON SOME OPPOSING ‘SIDE’… and even your actual political opposition is not the exact opposite of you and yours… they are just your fellow human beings, your fellow Americans with a slightly different idea of how our government should run and what it should do… THEY ARE NOT OPPOSITE HUMAN BEINGS TO YOU… oh, and also you and yours don’t have some special, unique ‘knowledge’ or insight that your opposition is incapable of possessing..

          • ladykrystyna

            ” you must realize not everyone on your ‘side’ believes quite these same things”

            Like who? The really far right libertarians? Ooh, they are so scary. They wish to run for and win a seat in office and then leave you alone. How scary. I’m not worried about them. They aren’t interested in controlling me.

            “NOT EVERYONE YOU BELIEVE YOU DISAGREE WITH IS ON SOME OPPOSING ‘SIDE'”

            Like you? You really are on my side? Prove it.

            “they are just your fellow human beings, your fellow Americans with a slightly different idea of how our government should run and what it should do”

            But if they support big government, whether it’s out of a sense of “doing the right thing” or not, I’m going to oppose them. Just like they oppose me and what I want. What world do you live in where you think everyone just holds hands and sings kumbaya?

            The federal government has gotten bigger and bigger over the last 70 years and we have nothing good to show for it. More taxes, more regulations, a sluggish economy that really is basically in a depression (but no one really wants to admit it). And you guys want more and more government?

            “oh, and also you and yours don’t have some special, unique ‘knowledge’ or insight that your opposition is incapable of possessing”

            You are right, it’s not unique knowledge. It’s called history. Big Government destroys liberty, destroys the individual and causes great misery. The whole 20th century is a lesson we should have all learned. It’s not unique knowledge. It’s out there for all to see.

            I never said otherwise.

          • Krimsen King

            you are clearly a true believer in your cult… try to understand there are more than two ‘sides’ to any issue, far more than two perspectives to humanity and far far more than two solutions to any problem… careful your partisan delusions, monkey ;)

          • ladykrystyna

            Sure, there’s anarchist, libertarian, conservative, fascist, communist.

            Never said there were only 2 sides. But they can be broken down into this: liberty (libertarian/conservative) and tyranny (fascist/communist).

            You decide what kind of government you want. You could get the soft tyranny of European socialism or you could get the hard tyranny of the Soviet Union, North Korea, China, Cuba, etc.

            But the more government you want, the more it makes you less free and it makes you smaller.

          • Krimsen King

            whatever names you derive, whatever classifications you have, IDEAS AND THOUGHTS DO SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES… if you try to fit everything into neat little ABSOLUTE categories, often you find yourself within your very own stereotype, unable to see anything else but other stereotypes… sound familiar?

          • ladykrystyna

            Words have meanings. You think by not labeling something that it means it’s an okay thing. That’s just sleight of hand. You think you can dress something up with “ideas and thoughts” and have it mean nothing, but it means something. There is no such thing as “no labels”. That’s just an easy way to con people. I don’t trust people who want “no labels”. It’s the same as a guy who won’t commit to a relationship either verbally or by marriage. I wouldn’t trust him at all.

          • Krimsen King

            HAHAHA RIDICULOUS… it has NOTHING TO DO with ‘not labeling’… it has to do with OUR UNDERSTANDINGS OF THESE WORDS… and when you have very NARROW, very ABSOLUTE definitions of words that not everyone else who speaks the language shares… well, that’s when you start to form your cult… and when you define anyone ‘left’ of you as ‘leftist’ or ‘fascist’ or ‘communist’ or WHATEVER ridiculous names you find for them, YOU actually drive yourself deeper into the cult… it’s not about not defining words, or somehow losing the meanings of words… it’s about NOT LETTING YOU DEFINE THE OTHERS’ BELIEFS FOR THEM WITH YOUR RIDICULOUS CLASSIFICATIONS… there.. any clearer? :)

          • ladykrystyna

            Words have meanings. These are not my definitions. They are definitions that are part of the human language, already agreed upon.

            And human beings label. You can try and avoid that, but still, people label. You try to hide your political beliefs because you know if people knew what you really wanted, they would not support you. That’s what the Left does – it shies away from labels. I know this from experience. You bastardize words, you change their meaning, you steal them and use them for yourselves: Progressive, Liberal, Conservative, etc.

            You don’t want to be labeled because that exposes you. That’s just a simple fact. You don’t want to be exposed for the statist you are.

          • Krimsen King

            hahahahahaha just fluking ridiculous… yes, people always label and classify to help them understand the universe… and sometimes, some people take those labels and classifications to absolute and extreme levels… and obviously, interpreting definitions and classifications in a very limited, narrow and absolute way DISTORTS rather than clears perceptions… have you really not noticed your darkness? your reckless anger…. your belief in your own superiority over all those dumb brainy smarties…. careful your perceptions, monkey…. people don’t see so good in the dark ;)

          • ladykrystyna

            What is limited and narrow? What is distorted? What exactly is absolute and extreme?

            You have basically said nothing at all. You make conclusory statements and you offer nothing to back it up or support it.

            What “belief in my own superiority”? What “reckless anger”? What darkness?

            You basically having nothing substantive to offer. You don’t like being labeled. It’s as simple as that.

          • Krimsen King

            you have been recklessly vicious toward me from the very beginning… THAT’S what reckless anger and darkness… you consistently talk about how much better your understanding of government and the Constitution is than those evil ‘liberals’ and ‘statists’ you seem to despise so much… arrogant darkness… and you believe your interpretations of vague platitudes are somehow correct and more correct than anyone else’s interpretation… and of course I don’t like to be labeled… especially with names and classifications that are FALSE or ridiculously ill-fitting… would you like it if I called you a dirty liberal? hahahahaha your labels are not necessarily correct, but you ABSOLELY believe them to be ABSOLUTELY correct… there…. any clearer yet?? ;)

          • ladykrystyna

            100 years of history says that people who stand up for the Constitution, for limited government and individual liberty do know better than those who would destroy the Constitution in order to gain more power over their fellow man, and know better than those who would give up their liberty for promised economic security (that never comes).

            There is nothing false about any of the labels. They are what they are. You lack a basic understanding of our Founding principles and what liberty means.

            Sure, call me a liberal. Even call me a dirty one. Our Founders were liberals, as are their descendants – the libertarians and the conservatives.

            The labels are correct, you just don’t like them because they expose you for the statist you are. That is why you get so angry. You don’t want to be exposed. You want to speak to people in platitudes about how the government should take care of us and about those evil people with the money – that certainly works with certain people – of varying degrees of education, by the way. Universities are run by statists. It knows no one socioeconomic class.

            But your way has been tried for 100 years and it doesn’t work. It makes things worse. Those are the facts. That’s why I fight against big government, against power and control at the federal level. Because it is destroying this nation.

          • Krimsen King

            “There is nothing false about any of the labels.”… and still you recognize no arrogance, no absolutism… no flaws in your perceptions whatsoever, huh? hahaha oh well…. yeh, keep basing your entire worldview on these ridiculous (and often outdated) classifications and labels… oh, and whatever you do, don’t let anyone define themselves with any kind of nuance or complexity… no, just ascribe YOUR narrow definitions and classifications… impose them on everyone else so that you can keep your precious certainty about all things……. and you expect me not to laugh at you….. hahahahahahaha ridiculous monkey ;)

          • ladykrystyna

            Tell me what I said that was false. Statists like big government. They choose between socialism, fascism and communism to get to the ends they desire. Libertarians and conservatives are for limited government and free markets.

            What in that is false?

            Nuance and complexity? Again, this ain’t my first rodeo, sport. I know what that means – it means don’t label me because then you’ll find out what I’m all about.

            Why don’t you lay out your political philosophy in detail. What policies do you support or not support, etc. Be specific.

            Because otherwise, all you’ve been doing is bloviating about definitions and labels and not saying much of anything at all.

          • Krimsen King

            there we go… your ‘definitions’ problem… actually, “nuance” and “complexity” mean VERY different things than you seem to believe… and describing, in detail, all of my political philosophies would be greatly time-consuming and so far, you have not shown yourself the least bit capable of listening or understanding in any but the most narrow way… so, please excuse me… I’ll have to decline.. as with anyone and everyone else, I would be happy to share my thoughts and ideas on any specific issue you care to discuss… but if all you are capable of is telling me what I believe and think and do, while managing to avoid ANY thoughts or ideas or points of YOUR OWN.. well, in that case, don’t bother responding at all :)

          • ladykrystyna

            What a crock. You have shared nothing and been evasive. Now when I ask for some particulars, you are going to bow out and claim it’s my problem. I don’t care about whether or not we agree in our conclusions. I prefer clarity over agreement. But apparently, you’d rather muddy the waters with nuance and complexity.

            I am basing my conclusions about you on your own posts. If I have been wrong then you need to correct me – again with specifics. But you won’t. That’s not my problem, bub. That’s yours.

            I have made my thoughts known – you know I’m right wing, that I believe in limited government. You can extrapolate from there – not a fan of Obama, of Obamacare, of Obama’s foreign policy, of his immigration policy (or that of most of the GOP), of welfare and entitlements, of “crony capitalism” (which is really just economic fascism and has nothing to do with capitalism). I have held back no secrets. You are the one holding back, dear.

            Continue to do so, if you wish. It’s still a free country… for now.

          • Krimsen King

            IF YOU WANT A SPECIFIC ANSWER, ASK A SPECIFIC QUESTION… DISCUSS A SPECIFIC POLICY OR ACTION… stop using your political philosophy and affiliations as a bludgeon.. you’ll never convince ANYONE of your beliefs that way.

          • ladykrystyna

            I already have – I have asked you your thoughts on Obamacare, on foreign policy, on Obama himself, on immigration, on the economy. I haven’t gotten an answer yet. In fact, you told me you don’t want to tell me anything substantive.

          • Krimsen King

            so… for all these ‘kinds’ of people, your philosophy, politically, is to debase, demean, degrade, insult and diminish any thoughts or ideas they have with the purpose of implanting your own?? Do you not realize this is not how to convince people of your points or ideas??? hahahaha good grief, you ridiculous monkey ;)

          • ladykrystyna

            How do I debase, demean, degrade or insult or diminish.

            Say what you are – you like big government; you want it to have lots of control over everyone (only on the issues you care about of course; I’m sure you are pro-abortion). Just say it and be proud – that makes you a statist. Why hide from it and try to pretend you are not, or that you are just a pragmatist. Why hide from the labels? What are you afraid of? If your position is just and correct, then stand up for it. Don’t hide from it.

            I’m giving you my point of view, my principles and if anything trying to persuade through reason and logic. There is nothing wrong with that and that’s not implanting anything. It’s called a discussion.

          • Krimsen King

            STOP TELLING OTHER PEOPLE WHAT THEY ‘THINK’ OR WHAT THEY ‘WANT’… YOU DON’T KNOW, OTHERWISE YOU WOULDN’T BE SO BAD AT GUESSING.

          • ladykrystyna

            You left your CAPSLOCK on, dear.

            I’m not guessing, I’m going by your posts. You like big government. If you do not, show me how you do not. Tell me what you believe in that indicates you are for limited government.

          • Krimsen King

            DON’T YOU SEE??????? STILL???????? IT DEPENDS ON YOUR PERSONAL DEFINITION OF ‘BIG GOVERNMENT’!!!!!!! THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT OF A “PLATITUDE”…. THEY ARE SO VAGUE THAT THEY CAN MEAN VERY DIFFERENT THINGS TO DIFFERENT PEOPLE… good grief, how do you not see this????

          • ladykrystyna

            Your CAPSLOCK is still on, dear.

            No, “big government” has a meaning. The gov’t we have now is Big. Is it as big as North Korea? No. But it’s bigger than the one our Founders left us. It’s big enough to be a problem to our liberty.

            Again, it has a meaning. Instead, you’d like to pretend you can label it any way you want so you can avoid being labeled.

          • Krimsen King

            hahahahaha yes…. ‘Big’…. has a definition… actually several many… are you sure the ‘big’ government our oligarchs despise is the same kind of ‘big’ that you do?? hahahaha I would bet not ;)

          • ladykrystyna

            The oligarchs are the big government. They don’t want to be constrained by a Constitution. The Constitution is not “big government”.

          • Krimsen King

            yes… oligarchs are government… and everything else… let’s be sure we agree on a definition, here… OLIGARCHY: the societal system in which the very few, very wealthy control ALL ASPECTS OF SOCIETY (including government)… are you so certain we are so opposite?? hahahahaha

          • ladykrystyna

            What I find interesting is that you appear to get that, but you really don’t see who the oligarchs are and how to fix it. You appear to think that MORE government fixes the oligarchy, when it doesn’t. It just makes the oligarchy all that much stronger. The way to fix it (or to prevent it) is a limited government and a free market where no one is too big to fail and where you can’t use the gov’t to regulate your competition out of existence.

            But you like to talk in vagaries in order avoid what your real political philosophy is. Just come out and say who you support, what policies you support. Be open and honest. I have been. You have avoided honesty like the plague. You’d rather fight about definitions.

          • Krimsen King

            OF COURSE… “limited government”… but AGAIN… this is a RIDICULOUSLY VAGUE NOTION… limit WHAT, exactly.. limit it HOW, precisely… after all, we are a nation of 350+ MILLION PEOPLE… just how ‘limited’ do you believe this government should be, in a CIVILIZED SOCIETY? Of course, I agree that the ‘too big to fail’ nonsense is a HUGE part of the ‘crony capitalism’ problem, but I see the OLIGARCHS responsible as the banking ceo’s and ‘corporate innovators’ AS WELL AS their far too friendly friends in OUR GOVERNMENT… you see… we really are not so different as you think ;)

          • ladykrystyna

            Apparently, you’d rather be obtuse. Limited government is defined by our Constitution – the separation of powers, the checks and balances, the enumerated powers.

            The size of our country means nothing. We have states to take care of people on the issues that the Federal government has no power over. That is what limited government means. The Federal government was only supposed to do what the individual states themselves could not do. The Constitution was an answer to the failure of the Articles of Confederation which involved a federal government that was TOO limited and caused anarchy.

            Again, re-read your American history. It lays it all out. The fact that we are having this conversation goes to show that our educational system is a failure.

            Yes, there are some things the Tea Party and OWS agreed upon. What they don’t agree upon is the solution. OWS wants more government. The Tea Party understands that getting back to limited government is what will fix the problem.

          • Krimsen King

            WE DON’T NEED TO KEEP RE-READING HISTORY AND THE CONSTITUTION… good grief, do you believe yourself to be so uniquely equipped to understand our founding and our Constitution?? Do you not realize that there are LITERALLY MILLIONS of other people, FROM ALL POINTS ALONG THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM, with just as fine and pure an understanding as you, maybe even (gasp) MORE understanding than you possess?? Do you not understand that before your most recent political/religious cult that MOST people could agree on the basic things OUR government should do… but not anymore… no, now your cult has thrown EVERYTHING government does into question.. and not only that… it’s thrown into question the very notion of government… and like all your other cult followers, you use platitudes and vague notions of ‘less government’ and ‘free markets’ as some sort of evidence of your righteousness… the bottom line for your philosophy is this: do you believe one ‘side’ can be always good and right, while some opposing ‘side’ is always bad and evil? If so, you may be full of partisan delusion… and please.. stop trying to ascribe some group affiliation to me… I belong to none… I am on no one’s ‘side’ because no one is on my side… and just so you know… “getting back to limited government” IS NOT A SOLUTION, IT IS ANOTHER RIDICULOUSLY VAGUE PLATITUDE.

          • ladykrystyna

            And that is why you are wrong, grasshopper. The Constitution means something or it means nothing. If it means nothing we are open even more to tyranny, hard or soft.

            You obviously do not understand our Founding, our Founding principles or our Constitution because you are basically ignoring them and probably falling for the great Progressive lie that we have a “living Constitution” that just changes with the times. That we can just ignore things, change meanings and it all doesn’t matter. It’s all a means to an end. You think you can just ignore all of history because the world just began.

            “Do you not understand that before your most recent political/religious cult that MOST people could agree on the basic things OUR government should do… but not anymore… no, now your cult has thrown EVERYTHING government does into question.. and not only that… it’s thrown into question the very notion of government… and like all your other cult followers, you use platitudes and vague notions of ‘less government’ and ‘free markets’ as some sort of evidence of your righteousness.”

            And then you don’t want me to label you a statist? We have history to show us that limited government and free markets work. And that big government and centrally controlled economies do NOT work. But you’d like me to just ignore all that?

            I never said everyone opposite me was bad or evil. I think most are simply misinformed and not properly educated. But for some of the higher ups on the Left, I do believe they are bad because I know that they know what they are selling doesn’t work as advertised, and they don’t care. They want power and control. And that is the same for the Progressives in the GOP – they want power and control.

            Getting back to limited government is the solution.

            But I notice that you don’t tell me what the solution is.

            You’ve told me what you are against. But you have not told me what you are for. Not once.

            So we can keep this dance going if you’d like (you must be lonely), or you can drop the BS and actually start telling me what you are for, what your thoughts are on Obamacare, on immigration, on the economy and how to get it moving, on foreign policy.

            Or not, your choice. But I’m about done teaching this pig how to dance.

          • Krimsen King

            yep… something or nothing… those are the only two options… platitudes and catchphrases and bumper stickers and ABSOLUTISM… black and white, up and down, liberal and conservative… something or nothing…. good grief

          • ladykrystyna

            Your response indicates that you do not understand the Constitution – it’s radical nature, it’s radical changing of history.

            Yes it means something or it means nothing. In other words it has meaning. It’s not just words on a page to be referenced only when it suits you.

            Again, I direct you to our history as a country, The Federalist Papers and The Anti-Federalist Papers.

            Sometimes things really are black and white and, yes, that simple.

            As I said in my other post, discussion is now closed. Your game is tiresome and circular.

            Have fun talking to yourself.

          • Krimsen King

            Sorry, friend… but things are NEVER just black and white, simple or easy… these are delusions created by your cult to ease the confusion and fear of its members.

          • Krimsen King

            p.s. you shouldn’t be telling anyone how to think or ‘how NOT to think’… and if you care to enlighten, why not summarize these ‘points’ you’ve made so that I may respond more properly… but please do try to be more specific… the ‘liberals don’t obey the Constitution’ is NOT really a ‘point’ and I really don’t care what everybody’s opinion is about ‘liberals’ anymore… why don’t we try to figure out SPECIFIC POLICIES AND IDEAS FOR GOVERNANCE from ‘conservatives’ or hey… how about just anybody, ‘liberal’, ‘conservative’, WHATEVER? hahaha no? hahahaha

          • ladykrystyna

            I’m not telling anyone how to think. I’m giving you facts to think about, but you are apparently incapable of it. All you have are CAPSLOCK and “hahahaha”, like a frickin’ hyena.

            Summarize my points? What’s a matter, sport, can’t keep up? Need the Cliff Notes version? Apparently you are the poster child for the Low Information Voter. Maybe if I made it into a Reality TV show staring the Kardashians, maybe then you’d understand it better?

            “the ‘liberals don’t obey the Constitution’ is NOT really a ‘point’ and I really don’t care what everybody’s opinion is about ‘liberals’ anymore.”

            You don’t care because you don’t want to know the truth.

            “why don’t we try to figure out SPECIFIC POLICIES AND IDEAS FOR GOVERNANCE from ‘conservatives’ or hey.”

            I’ve already shared some and the fact that you are asking for such information again shows that you have nothing left to say that is of substance. You just post to hear yourself type and you think you are very intelligent. You are as dumb as a post. Probably about, what, 22, 25? Still on mommy and daddy’s insurance? Mom still makes you PB&J with the crust cut off?

          • Krimsen King

            very nice… ridiculously evasive, rude and pointless as usual.. if I have nothing to say of substance and you don’t care to have a conversation, why keep insulting and demeaning?? hahaha did you really ever have a point besides the persistent idea that I am personally so beneath you?? hahahahaha yes, please do go on…………………….

          • ladykrystyna

            Evasive about what? You don’t post anything of substance, only a lot of “hahahaha”s and CAPSLOCK.

            So I respond in kind. Say something substantive and I’ll respond in kind.

            As I said, I’ve provided you with facts and information. You just ignore it and keep giggling like a 5 year old girl with your CAPSLOCK on.

            Your posts speak for themselves. As do mine.

          • Krimsen King

            I asked you simply to summarize any points you’ve made… and far from doing so, you persist in this degrading, demeaning and angry tone… I do apologize if my laughter is offensive to you, but your posts are so ridiculous sometimes that they are incredibly amusing… I wasn’t asking you for ‘facts and information’… I was simply asking for a SUMMARY OF YOUR POINTS, if there were any… apparently, there were none…..

          • ladykrystyna

            Summarize what? Why? My posts are there for you to read. I’m not understanding your demand at all.

            I have made my points quite clearly. I’m sorry you can’t keep up.

            Your hysterical laughter says a lot about you.

          • Krimsen King

            hahaha no demand… I was just asking if you could summarize any points you might have made… apparently not…. ha ;)

          • ladykrystyna

            You are an idiot. Probably about 20 years old, right? Still wet behind the ears and snots under your nose.

          • Krimsen King

            and still you don’t realize your assumptions lead you into darkness….

          • ladykrystyna

            I base my assumptions on facts. You wasted several posts demanding that I provide you a “summary” of my “points” and then when I won’t you just laugh it off and say you really weren’t demanding them anyway.

            You are either an adult with serious mental issues or a child.

            And you have provided no reason for me to believe that you want any kind of real discussion. You already know what you are – a statist – you just refuse to admit it out loud. You play the “Third Way” game, the “pragmatist” game, the “I don’t like party politics” game.

            It ain’t my first rodeo, sport.

          • Krimsen King

            wonderful names you have… magnificent classifications… they do make you so certain of so many things… good for you hahahaha ;)

          • ladykrystyna

            Still laughing like a hyena, I see.

          • Krimsen King

            still being verbose, snotty and insulting… I see… hahahaha ;)

          • ladykrystyna

            That was a one line post. I don’t think you know the meaning of verbose.

            And if you want to take it as an insult, go ahead. You’re the one doing all the laughing. People who laugh like that are usually considered a bit unstable.

          • Krimsen King

            I don’t think you know the meaning of ‘conversation’… obviously I was referring to another post…. good grief……

          • ladykrystyna

            Well, since Disqus doesn’t make it easy to figure out what post someone is replying to, you can take it up with them.

          • Krimsen King

            it’s not that hard… many of your other responses to me have been ridiculously verbose… obviously those are the ones to which I was referring……. sheesh

          • ladykrystyna

            Then it was a pointless comment. You shouldn’t have bothered.

          • Krimsen King

            nor should you ;)

      • landofaahs

        Your English does not even begin to approach second grade level you idiot. I would not bring up poor education if I were you. You’re so dumb you don’t even realize how stupid you are. Your Ghettoness shines forth.

    • Krimsen King

      absolutism… yes, brilliant… and the violent anti-government militias, al Qaida and the tea party are all the same, too….. good grief……

      • Marbran

        Your handlers must really be pushing the ‘tea party’ meme again. I’m seeing tea party everywhere these days. Must be election season.

        • Krimsen King

          hahahahaha yes… anyone you believe you disagree with must be on some opposing ‘side’… yes, just like the ‘small government’ and ‘personal responsibility’ memes…. they all must be paid for, huh…. and we still don’t realize how UTTERLY CORRUPTING the MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF MONEY FLOWING INTO OUR ELECTIONS ARE…. you do realize the billions of dollars flowing through our elections to our politicians CORRUPTS THEM ALL, REGARDLESS OF POLITICAL PARTY OR IDEOLOGY, right… you do realize partisan affiliations are all but irrelevant anymore, don’t you? hahahaha yes, election season indeed…

          • ladykrystyna

            And exactly how do you want to stop the money flowing in? Who will pay for the campaigns? You do realize that Democrats get a ton of money from very rich people – billionaires. Like Soros and Buffet and Gates and Zuckerberg.

            And again with the “hahahaha”. You really are disturbed. Must be free time at the local asylum.

          • Krimsen King

            well, thank you for some civilized questions… very simple… WE DON’T NEED “CAMPAIGNS”… at least not remotely like the ones we have now… I mean, really… does ANYONE ANYWHERE LEARN ANYTHING FROM THE CONSTANT CAMPAIGNING??? Of course not.. each ‘side’ is intent on deceit and delusion, and intent on making sure their delusion is the one most believable… All it would take would be an objective department, say something like the FEC, with more oversight powers and duties… collecting and disseminating OBJECTIVE, FACTUAL information about any and all candidates would not cost NEARLY the billions poured into ‘campaigning’ now, and our representatives would only be beholden to their VOTERS, as they should be.. instead of the highest bidders who buy them all now.

          • ladykrystyna

            Objective department like the FEC? You mean the one whose members are appointed by each political party?

            “The Commission is made up of six members, who are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Each member serves a six-year term, and two seats are subject to appointment every two years. By law, no more than three Commissioners can be members of the same political party, and at least four votes are required for any official Commission action. This structure was created to encourage nonpartisan decisions. The Chairmanship of the Commission rotates among the members each year, with no member serving as Chairman more than once during his or her term.” http://www.fec.gov/about.shtml

            You really are delusional. Government is not necessarily objective. As was pointed out before – “If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.” (Federalist#51).

            And who would pay for that information to get disseminated? You do realize that would still cost money, right? So the taxpayers would fund it? More taxes then?

            Now I’m going to have to LOL. Actually more like ROTFLMAO.

            You think that there are no “partisan interests”. There are always such interests, whether you like it or not. People will always have some kind of “political philosophy” and that will dictate how they vote, who they appoint, how they govern.

            There’s no such thing as “pragmatism” in politics.

          • Krimsen King

            ugh… obviously, it would NOT closely resemble the system we currently face… obviously, no government is ‘necessarily objective’, but also obviously, there are ways to make it much more representative and much less corrupt… and without ‘more’ taxes, too… yes, if those holy, sacred ‘job creators’ paid a share of taxes closer to the rest of us, we’d have PLENTY of money in OUR PUBLIC COFFERS to do this and any other necessities our country needs… there may be no such thing as pragmatism in politics, but there’s a great deal of pragmatism within human society… hey, I know.. maybe we could get our political system to be closer to human society in this way, and maybe keep the ridiculous, hyper-partisan nonsense bickering to a minimum… hahaha yes, I know my thoughts and ideas seem outrageous, ridiculous… yes, even ‘delusional’ in the current political climate… but it was so long ago that many of them were discussed by partisans on ALL sides as helpful solutions to societal problems… u know, if you weren’t so absolute, puritanical and derisive, your perceptions might be a lot less narrow ;)

          • ladykrystyna

            How do you make government less corrupt by giving them more power? The more power you give the gov’t the more corrupt it gets. That is why limited government is best. So said our Founders.

            “es, if those holy, sacred ‘job creators’ paid a share of taxes closer to the rest of us, we’d have PLENTY of money in OUR PUBLIC COFFERS to do this and any other necessities our country needs..”

            Here’s some information for you:

            “In 2010, the top 1 percent of tax returns included 18.87 percent of all adjusted gross income and 37.38 percent of all federal individual income taxes paid. The top 5 percent earned 33.78 percent of income and paid 59.07 percent of taxes, and the top 10 percent earned 45.17 percent of income and paid 70.62 percent of taxes.” http://taxfoundation.org/article/what-do-americans-really-pay-income-taxes

            The top 10% pay over 70% of the taxes.

            We don’t have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem. We spend more than we take in. That usually means that spending has to be cut. That’s how normal American families deal with such a crisis. They cut out the Starbucks and the gym and the nail appointments and the expensive vacations. They shop at discount stores, etc. That’s always the first step.

            Works the same way for the government. It is too large, creating plenty of opportunities for graft and corruption, not just for the poor, but also for the rich. The middle class is usually the one getting screwed.

            The Left doesn’t want to hear the Right’s solutions. They ignore them and mock them and demonize them.

            We’ve already seen 70 years of what the Left’s solutions do, so no thanks.

            This whole “why can’t we get along” comes from someone with zero political principles, no focus, no foundation. Just do whatever and consequences be damned.

            That’s not the way the world works. Actions have consequences, both intended and unintended.

          • Krimsen King

            no, it doesn’t work the same way for government… our government is NOT like a family, it is NOT like a business.. in fact it is NOT like anything but a GOVERNMENT… used to be OF, BY and FOR WE THE PEOPLE, too… but your insistence on privatizing just anything and everything has turned it into an oligarchy.. when money is equated to speech, NECESSARILY only the wealthy have any say in their governance.. can you really not see this????

          • ladykrystyna

            Oligarchies are created by big government and big business getting in bed together. They get in bed together because they are both big and big business wants favors from the gov’t that include protection from competition. That is not “free market capitalism”. The big government, because it has decided it has the power, gives out favors to those who give it money for campaigning.

            A limited government that says NO to any special interests at all, no matter if it’s big business, small business, this group or that group, is a government that has less of a chance of getting into corruption and less of a chance of becoming an oligarchy.

            As I have said before – before the gov’t started poking at Microsoft, they had little to no lobbyists in DC. Since the gov’t started poking around, they now have 300 lobbyists.

            Figure it out. The more gov’t gets involved, the more lobbyists there are, the more money there is flowing into the gov’t and the more favors that are going out.

            Both parties have their pet causes and that is part of the problem.

            I’m looking for a constitutionalist and a free market capitalist. One who believes in limited government and free markets who will keep the gov’t out of business except for purposes of enforcing contracts and protecting against fraud. I want the gov’t out of any other aspect of my life that doesn’t involve crime or fraud.

            Comprendes, muchacho?

          • Krimsen King

            yes, you clearly misunderstand… of course I understand these premises as well as you or any of your fellow ‘conservatives’… what you seem to fail to understand is that ‘big government’ or ‘small government’ or ANY government is not necessarily corrupt simply because it has power… especially our formerly freely and fairly elected American democracy, since the power of THIS government would and should be the power of WE THE PEOPLE… you all seem to see ‘government’ as this big, bad ALIEN entity bent on the destruction of your personal liberties… it’s only when our government becomes completely corrupted by MONEY and those who use it to peddle influence does it become an alien OLIGARCHY truly bent on our enslavement.. how do you miss that???

          • ladykrystyna

            Yes, gov’t is corrupt if it has too much power. “Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.” That’s part of human nature.

            If we give the government too much power over us, it will gladly take it up and use it against us. As soon as we start ignoring the Constitution, we have President Obama saying he has as pen and a phone and he’s going to act without Congress. That’s unconstitutional. He has no power to make laws. Congress does. And if Congress isn’t doing it, tough luck. That’s the way our system works – separation of powers, checks and balances. Again, because that is the way our Founders wanted it based on their political philosophy of limited government and individual liberty. That is what they bequeathed to us.

            Gov’t becomes corrupted by money when it is so big it can start handing out favors in exchange for the money. Then it becomes an oligarchy.

            Try and follow the bouncing ball.

            Gov’t that is limited has less of a chance of becoming corrupted. There will, of course always be some form of corruption as human beings are not perfect. But there would be less of it, easier to find and stop and punish. Now it’s so pervasive even the American people don’t get up in arms over it anymore because they think it’s par for the course.

            Again, government is a necessary evil that we agree to so that it can do certain things that we can’t otherwise do (like make treaties, etc. See the Constitution for the powers that the Founders believed to be necessary for a Federal government). Government does not automatically equal “good”. Frankly, it’s pretty much content neutral and depends on how one sets it up and uses it. “Government is best that governs least”.

            You really should do a re-read of the Founders and their writings, including The Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers. Then maybe you would understand it better.

            You seem to think that once a person gets into gov’t, they are free of any human frailty.

          • Krimsen King

            BUMPER STICKERS AND NIFTY PHRASES ARE NOT PART OF HUMAN NATURE… only a sad symptom of weak minds.

          • ladykrystyna

            What bumper stickers and nifty phrases? What is it that you are looking for?

            We use words to describe things. I’m describing human nature. You seem to think that things can exist without any description or labeling. That’s simply not the case. It’s not how the human mind works, it’s not how human society works.

          • Krimsen King

            oh u know… things like ‘absolute power corrupts absolutely’, and ‘government can’t solve the problem, government is the problem’, and of course, your ridiculous, meaningless platitudes like ‘smaller government’ and ‘job creators’ and ‘free market solutions’… you know… things that sound real sweet and nice, but don’t really mean anything specifically…

          • ladykrystyna

            Yes, they mean something – you just don’t agree with it. You don’t agree with it because it involves a negative – it means gov’t getting out of the way and sticking to basics rather than regulating every little thing we do, both as individuals, and as businesses. Because it translates as a negative, you can’t comprehend it. You are all about DOING SOMETHING, specifically the GOVERNMENT doing something. You can’t compute anything else.

          • Krimsen King

            yes… tell me some more of what I think and feel and what I can ‘compute’ and what I can’t…. please do go on about my personal faculties and abilities… ridiculous arrogant monkey.

          • ladykrystyna

            Your posts speak for themselves. Why don’t you prove me wrong?

            But you won’t because you can’t.

          • Krimsen King

            wrong about what? I have repeatedly pointed out flaws in your perceptions and philosophies… what more could you be wrong about?

          • ladykrystyna

            No you have not. You cry about labels and words and whatever, but have not proven me wrong. You either believe in big government or you don’t. If you don’t like the labels, then give me examples: how you feel about Obama? Obamacare? Immigration? Economics? Abortion? Anything.

            You have provided nothing but complaints about labels without giving me one piece of concrete evidence that proves to me you are not basically a statist of one kind or another (whether it be a relatively benign European socialist or a full on lover of totalitarian regimes). If you are not, then prove it to me with specifics. Otherwise, stop whining about labels.

          • Krimsen King

            ugh… so obsessed with definitions, yet unaware of CLEAR WORDS… I never said I ‘proved’ you wrong… sheesh, I wouldn’t even know where to begin on that ‘proof’… I merely and SIMPLY pointed out FLAWS in your philosophy and reasoning… THAT’S IT.. that ain’t ‘proof’… and if you’re looking for proof that one ideology is always right and one always wrong, you will be searching in vain FOREVER… as for your obsession with my personal classification… I will stop ‘whining’ about your labeling and classifications when you stop IMPOSING THEM on people who don’t necessarily deserve them… now… enjoy your cult ;)

          • ladykrystyna

            “If you don’t like the labels, then give me examples: how you feel about Obama? Obamacare? Immigration? Economics? Abortion? Anything.”

            I asked those questions. You didn’t bother to answer them. Again.

            The proof that limited government and free markets work is part of our history as a country. The proof that big government and centrally controlled economies don’t work is also part of history – for this country and others.

            Prove me wrong. Point me to a country that is or was as wildly successful as the US was when it was about limited government and free markets.

          • Krimsen King

            ok… I never said you were ‘wrong’ about ‘limited government’ and ‘free markets’… I said they were PLATITUDES that were so vague that they meant virtually nothing… as for your other questions, I may have missed them, but they too are so vague as to require a novel-length response to go into any detail… so… please be more specific :)

          • ladykrystyna

            This describes you: ” Insisting that you don’t have an ideology is a great way to advance your ideological agenda without actually having to defend your ideology.” From this article: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/386937/obamas-faux-pragmatism-jonah-goldberg

            They do not mean nothing, they mean something. They are the starting point: if you believe in X, then when faced with Y, you do A or B or C. That simple.

            But you like to pretend you don’t have X so you don’t even have to answer straight forward questions.

            No they do not require novel length explanations. Yes or No will do. Maybe is fine. Parts of this but not of that.

            But you refuse. You demand details from me and refuse to provide any.

            So guess what – you can talk to yourself.

            And yes, I’m sure you’ll now gloat and think you’ve won, but you haven’t won anything. Your posts speak for themselves and so do mine. I was being honest and forthright. You were being deceptive and coy.

            Game over.

          • Krimsen King

            good lord, you are so full of nonsense… tho I do appreciate your honesty and forthrightness… you can still be honestly and forthrightfully deluded by a cult… just because you have these very precise and absolute definitions and classifications, this does not mean that your characterizations, definitions or perceptions are in any way correct… so, again… please stop trying to classify just anything and everything I say… please try to OBJECTIVELY address a thought or idea just by itself, without the ridiculous partisan baggage you seem to feel the need for… just one individual thought or idea at a time, as specific as possible.. enough with the lists… I really would be happy to share any thoughts or ideas on any of the subjects you listed if SPECIFIC.. the question “what do you think about the economy?”, for example, is just ridiculously vague, requiring a ridiculously vague response… do you have any thoughts or ideas or questions about specific policies or government actions? We might be able to understand each other better with those ;)

          • Krimsen King

            don’t let my coyness fool you… nobody can actually ‘win’ a conversation ;)

  • landofaahs

    It’s for the children. TEE HEE HEE

    • Dawn Haley

      Six months ago I lost my job and after that I was fortunate enough to stumble upon a great website which literally saved me. I started working for them online and in a short time after I’ve started averaging 15k a month… The best thing was that cause I am not that computer savvy all I needed was some basic typing skills and internet access to start… This is where to start>JobsBuck.com

      • landofaahs

        I bet you don’t even have to get out of bed to go to work. Ho, Ho, Ho.

  • ken.

    it has been creeping in since the 50’s, now it’s full speed ahead.

    • WARIII

      Unfortunately it really started just after the turn of last century when TR and Woodrow Wilson were president. During WW presidency we had 2 ammendments to the Constitution ratified, one gave us income tax and the other changed the way Senators are selected. Both of which screwed the USA.

      • in_awe

        Thank you. It is amazing how ignorant most people are about the way our Founding Fathers organized the government to create a natural tension that would rein in government as a whole.

        The House of Representatives was the People’s House of Congress – representation based on population, it was to be the voice of the citizen. The Senate was to represent the states and their interests. Only when the two houses of Congress agreed would a law pass – it balanced the interests of the citizens and the states while being limited by the Constitution.

        I seethe with anger every time I hear the “Constitutional Scholar” in the White House say that since Congress couldn’t/wouldn’t pass legislation that HE wanted that means he is free to act on his own as if Congress was a necessary but irrelevant evil in governing the nation. How DARE he ignore the principles laid out by the Founding Fathers? If Congress hasn’t passed legislation it is because its members are representing citizens with divergent opinions, and a compromise has not yet been reached. How hard is that to understand? His job is to ENFORCE LAWS not create them!!

  • Shiprex

    Hahah push CONSumption but informing them is bad.
    Critical thinking is BAD for business. Now back to work slaves

  • Pachy Serrano

    Its obvious that the conservative movement wants to dismantle public education, not because has failed, but because they hate government . . . They might be happy is education is a privilege, not a right. So, at least I hope they would continue to support school vouchers and charter schools ’cause if not . . . we are really in deep trouble!

    • KCisKing

      You are completely clueless on the conservative movement aren’t you? No, conservatives don’t want to dismantle the public educaiton system, they do want the brainwashing with liberal ideas being snuck into the course work to stop, big difference. Take the time to educate yourself on what conservatives believe instead of buying into the talking heads.

      • Pachy Serrano

        Well I watch Fox News often and I saw many conservatives saying . . . “We should get rid of DofE, so what that means?? It seems clear to me. Please educate me . . . Plus I don’t think our education system will jump from #19 in the World to #1 or #2 just with conservatives ideas.

        • ruburnt

          Ask your self …Why they want to get rid of it?? It’s taking money away from the schools and puts it into the hands of govt bureaucrats…and in no way has improved education in America…Test score were much higher BEFORE it was created…Wouldn’t that money be better spent on the schools and it’s students?? Instead a bunch of feel good govt workers whose track record has been dismal…

        • poundsand

          Carter’s useless and money sucking DOE needs to be dismantled. Since the Feds overreaching involvement in public education we have seen a massive decline in student achievement; this despite huge infusions of money into the failing system. The average 8th grader several decades ago knew far more than today’s high school graduate. The dumbing down has been intentional and effective. The uneducated are more easily led. If liberals truly cared about education we would see school vouchers and real alternatives for students’ to escape the cesspools we call schools, particularly in the inner cities. But, nooooo the monopoly stranglehold is being held onto with an iron fist.

        • RicCrouch

          You DO realize that the Dept of Education didn’t even exist until 1979, right? Public education existed long before that. The federal government has no reason to be involved in education. Leave that at the state and local levels where individuals with a stake in the process have more impact.

        • Sandy Ratigan

          given your grammatical and spelling errors you are a good example of the fine result of the current education system – I don’t think you listen to what you hear, your other posts demonstrate that – CORE is not the answer to teaching – TEACHING IS – somewhere along the line the teachers got so caught up in teaching kids in school to be able to take the standardized tests that they forgot their mission which is to impart information and teach – no fundamentals are taught anymore, at least in the public schools, there is no accountability other than how many of a teachers students pass the government required tests – well memorizing material to pass a test is not teaching – in fact, studies show the worst kind of learning is memorization, it is the quickest thing to go…………………………………. tools, skills, communication what happened to these???

          and teachers who preach their ideology used to get fired – even tenured ones – tenure used to protect teachers who had to teach sensitive subject areas and who were good teachers but not popular – now you get tenure based solely on number of years – if you are going to have tenure – um I know I am going to propose a word the liberals/progressives/democrats don’t seem to understand – ACCOMPLISHMENTS and RESULTS are necessary and core test, one child left behind measure nothing but whether the teacher had the kids memorize the material on the test, there is no “learning” in that

          • Cory Beckley

            Everything you said may be true….but your TOTAL lack of proper punctuation negates it all. Especially, since you started out by knocking the other guy for improper spelling and grammar! My head about exploded! We used to use capital letters to start a sentence, and end with a period. Commas are useful as well. O.o But, that may just be too old school?

        • John Samuel Wilson

          The Constitution does not authorize the Federal Government to be involved in education… that power is reserved the States and the Family. The more local control retained, the better educators are able to tailor the curriculum to the needs of the student. Therefore, the Department of Education must go.

    • mastedon2

      if that is what you get from this, there is no hope for you at all. Intellect cannot be instilled. Obvious? to you and only you sweetheart.

    • Shemp

      “Public education” as currently constituted is failing miserably, by any metric – and throwing ever increasing funding at it simply isn’t the answer – “No child left behind” wasn’t the answer and neither is “Common Core”…Public education needs to be rebuilt and streamlined, start with eliminating teacher tenure and keeping only teachers based on performance goals.

      • Pachy Serrano

        U see . . . I do support your views not only because you make sense but because I am a youth leader in my community and I see how screw up our education is. However, trashing our education system is not the way . . . U make changes and improvements to put core standards at first, then, you give funds to communities, so they can experiment with curriculum and objectives that fit that community and those students. Good point, brother!!

        • Shemp

          We can accomplish a lot more when we don’t bash each other based on media rhetoric & stereotypes…we might have a lot more in common than you think…if we can agree more than 50% of the time, we will find a way to compromise and get along…

    • John Samuel Wilson

      Conservatism REQUIRES an educated public. By educated, I mean that they are able to think rationally, ethically/morally, creatively, and positively solve problems for themselves.
      Our Constitutional Republic cannot function without such citizens… which is precisely why “Progressives” have spent the last several decades destroying this capability through mandatory, centrally-controlled public education.
      I concur with the notion of Vouchers… when you empower the PARENTS to decide the very best school for their child is — and force the Public Schools to compete for those dollars, then you will see only the most effective, efficient schools with lean support staff, and the very best teachers (earning the wages they deserve) producing good, productive citizens.
      Who cares more about the future of a student than a loving parent? But according to the Teachers’ Unions which protect mediocrity tooth-and-nail, these ideas amount to ‘dismantling public education.’

      • Allen Santee Summers

        Is that why most scientists are Liberal Democrats?

        • http://campaigngeneration.com iconicles

          Indoctrination in schools began a long time ago, so it’s no wonder that those who stayed in longest feel the effects greatest.

          • Allen Santee Summers

            Maybe they know something you don’t? I’d love to see a ticket with Neil Degrasse Tyson and Bill Nye. I’d vote for them.

          • http://campaigngeneration.com iconicles

            Unfortunately, I’ve been in a long time too. Along the way I’ve found myself victimized by militant leftists and their ideology enough to understand that those people only really help themselves even though they claim to have everyone’s best interests at heart.

        • John Samuel Wilson

          Do you have statistical proof to support this claim, or did you just make that up…like other liberal Democrats do.

        • John Samuel Wilson

          You will also note that I qualified my definition of educated…. unfortunately, the majority of Scientists who continue to blindly defend irrational theories (using intimidation, peer pressure, and politics) as though they we proven, scientific law (e.g. Evolution and Global Warming) inspite of mounting evidence proving otherwise leads me to believe they may not fit that particular definition.

    • John Samuel Wilson

      “The aim of the school must be to give the student, beginning with the first sign of intelligence, a grasp of the notion of the State.”
      — Adolf Hitler on the Importance of Public Education

    • John Samuel Wilson

      “Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.”
      V.I. Lenin on the importance of Public Education.

    • Allen Santee Summers

      No, the conservative movement wants to dismantle the United States government and replace it with a corporation, and that’s why they’re upset about real world problems being put into math questions as opposed to having consumerism shoved down our throats.

      • ladykrystyna

        Where do you come up with this crap? You really are a nut. Right up there with Alex Jones.

        • Allen Santee Summers

          I pay attention to current events. Not just the ones that Fox news chooses to put on display.

          • ladykrystyna

            I don’t watch Fox news. The fact that you assume we do just shows you are incapable of making any kind of substantive argument.

  • poundsand

    Liberalism is a mental disorder – Michael Savage was correct.

    • Pachy Serrano

      Savage is nuts! He sounds like a grumpy old man. If we were to follow his views we will be back in 1930’s . . . . Hello!! its 2014!!

      • Bob P

        Savage is nuts..But he is right on this one… Liberalism is a Mental Disorder.

        • Pachy Serrano

          My father used to say . . . “Don’t trust Republicans, they are wolves in sheep clothing they use fear to suppress democracy and they talk about freedom, but only when benefits them” Maybe am bias. If Savage really hates liberals why he does not move out of San Francisco and go to a well-known conservative town? I guess there is something there he likes he can’t get anywhere . . . If he married? He sounds in need for good loving. Because SF weather is kind of crazy, but the city is nice and the way of living refreshing, though.

      • D. Kiiskila

        Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you. Unfortunately Savage is actually right.

      • Conservatarian

        you mean the 1930s that was totally run by liberal democrats?

        • WARIII

          As a matter of fact , yes it was.

          • Conservatarian

            yes i know

        • Allen Santee Summers

          From 1921 to 1933, Republicans were in charge. In fact, a Republican presided during the stock market crash of 1929. It was a Liberal Democrat that led the fastest economic recovery in modern times through expansive social programs, then went on to lead the country through most of World War 2 right up until his death. Yes, he served 4 terms. He was the only US president to do so, although he didn’t live through his final term.

          • ladykrystyna

            Hoover was a Progressive Republican. Same as a Progressive Democrat, just with a different party. Teddy was also a Progressive Republican. Progressivism – statism.

            When Harding and Coolidge were in charge we had the Roaring 20s. Coolidge should have ran again. Would have avoided the mess.

            FDR continued to screw everything up and the wasn’t officially out of the Depression until after the war.

          • Allen Santee Summers

            Actually the great depression ended at the start of the war. The GDP spiked up sharply then made a u turn after the war. Same thing for the “roaring 20’s”, which were just after WWI, if you know your history. The U turn after the war coincided with the end of wartime production and the expiration of the social programs set up by FDR. Looking at the GDP graph, the economic boom actually started back during Harry Truman’s term (a Liberal Democrat), and then sloped down briefly when Eisenhower (a Republican) took office, and started going back up, although not nearly as sharply, until Kennedy (Democrat) took office, at which point it skyrockets. The graph only goes to the end of Kennedy’s term, so I don’t have comparison data for the later years, but those are the official statistics. If you want to look for yourself, I encourage you to do so. Don’t take my word for it, all this stuff is easy to find if you look. As I’ve said repeatedly, I do my own research. I don’t spout propaganda. Everything I’ve said has been checked and double checked with multiple sources.

          • ladykrystyna

            Not really. We weren’t fully out until way after the war and most of that was due to the fact that Europe and much of the rest of the world was in shambles and rubble.

          • Allen Santee Summers

            *facepalm* Can I get some sources for your rebuttal? All of mine are unbiased statistics via comparative graphs.

          • ladykrystyna

            Where are the links, sport?

            And I’ve read both sides of the issue several times. Your side is wrong about what caused the Crash, the Depression and what kept us in it. Even FDR’s own czar of getting us out of the Depression said, after 8 years, that the spending they were doing was not working.

          • Allen Santee Summers

            Try Google statistics, Wikipedia, the bureau of statistics, and a good old fashioned look up exactly what president served what year.

          • ladykrystyna

            No, you made the contention, you provide the evidence. That’s the way this works, sport.

          • in_awe

            You are ignoring the fact that there was a depression in 1920-1921. The Roaring Twenties did not magically appear – the new administration had top rein in government spending and drop tax rates to stimulate a recovery from the depression.

          • in_awe

            “a Liberal Democrat that led the fastest economic recovery in modern times” Sheesh.

            Only if you believe that “modern times” started in the 1930’s. I suggest you look up the depression of 1920-1921. The new post-Wilson Republican Harding administration downsized federal spending by nearly 50% and reduced tax rates which returned the economy to health in less than 2 years which then led to the Roaring Twenties.

            So let’s see,
            – a 2 year recovery because of sharp reductions in government spending versus
            – 10 years of ineffectual massively expansive government programs which needed a world war to bail us out of the depression.

            Even members of FDR’s cabinet later admitted that FDR was clueless in his policies.

          • Conservatarian

            Thanks for the history lesson. It common knowledge that the war got us out of the depression. It had nothing to do with social programs.
            So it seems to me that youre arguing that the 1930’s was a prosperous time and good for the country. Then we should want to go back to the 30’s then right?

      • Chris Braden

        What is your point with the whole “Hello its 2014″ narrative you got going on here? What does that even mean? Are we just supposed to believe that since its 2014 that we need to succumb socialist, liberal crap? There’s a reason why the majority of Americans still believe in the Constitution. It works! Regardless of the century that we live in. You may want the government to control your life, tell you where you need to be and what to say/think but WE don’t.

        • Krimsen King

          no, but we should start to let go of the delusions of more barbaric societies… u know, like the notion that poor people just don’t care to work… like slaves have to be ‘motivated’ thusly… like privatizing and profiteering off of just anything is a brilliant ‘free market solution’… like the notion that a government is somehow an alien, outside entity bent on oppression rather than a group of people elected freely and fairly to REPRESENT WE THE PEOPLE… yes, because we live in the 21st century, some of the old, even accepted barbarisms must be let go… at least, I think that was his point…. ;)

        • in_awe

          +1000

    • Allen Santee Summers

      Conservatism is a state of blissful ignorance. The old adage is still applicable.

      • in_awe

        Thank you for the ad hominem attack – once again demonstrating the typical liberal mode of discussing a topic

    • Krimsen King

      THEY ARE NOT EXACT OPPOSITE KINDS OF PEOPLE, YOU MONKEY… THEY ARE YOUR FELLOW HUMAN BEINGS WITH A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT IDEA OF THE BEST WAYS OF GOVERNANCE.

      • mealive4ever

        No need to yell. We can still disagree over your shouting.

        • Krimsen King

          this is writing, not speaking… so capitalization is EMPHASIS, not ‘shouting’… ;)

  • quizibo

    literally no examples given by him now and on his website. Listen, im not for common-core, but making up ridiculous statements and hyperbole like this guy is is not helping. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

  • mlow76

    Consumerism is also a political ideology of a sort. Granted, it’s one that is less political and is universal among 1st world societies regardless of government, but that I bet is how they justify insertion of those particular memes into it. I’ve actually seen workbooks (teacher-written) that extoll the virtues of George Soros and ask the student to discuss him in an opinion paper.

  • http://heliumdream.blogspot.com heliumdream

    you would prefer math situations the promote capitalism to those that promote critical thinking and awareness of the global environment?

    where is the news story? and why is it presented in reverse?

  • Pachy Serrano

    By the way . . . I don’t know why conservatives hate “social justice” so much. I believe Jesus is a good example of social justice on this Earth. Gandhi and MLK were also “social justice” icons . . . So, are we talking about the same??

    • Chet Field

      In a word, no. “Social justice” as pushed today is absolutely nothing like what Jesus, Gandhi and MLK advocated and practiced.

      • poundsand

        Correct – today’s concept of “social justice” means forcing people to conform to someone else’s opinions and ideas, with no dissenting opinion allowed.

    • Mr Neil Allen Jepson

      All three promoted the idea that INDIVIDUALS need to VOLUNTARILY help the sick, the needy, and the poor; free will and personal responsibility remain intact. “Social justice” dictates that a ruling body FORCES one GROUP of people to do something for another group; there is no freedom or personal responsibility. Understand the difference? The problem with things like social justice is that it sounds good at first- like we are doing something to help the oppressed. What it really does is further concentrate power in a smaller group of elites that oppress all of us. Is that really an idea you want to champion?

    • http://www.facebook.com/rich.kardell Rich Kardell

      Which spiritual principle involves the concept of forced compliance?

    • ladykrystyna

      No. It’s not the same thing. What the left is pushing is more like “Liberation Theology” and “group salvation” which not what Jesus taught. He taught individual salvation. Liberation Theology and leftist social justice are just communism wrapped up in religion.

      Do some research.

  • kim

    so the think that kids really think about the words in the math problems and that they are based on something that actually happened? when I was in school I didn’t read the problem and think wow his really happened. just did the work and went on

  • theorangeguy

    Pretty sure some guy from Germany did this a long time ago…

    • in_awe

      The Soviets did too. I recall reading about “Soviet Science” and “Soviet Math”. Any instructor who refused to integrate ideology and fictional history into the lessons soon found themselves calculating the days until the temperature rose above 0 in their re-education camp.

  • dginga

    Here’s an example of “social justice math” presented to me by a young leftie Ivy League journalist I know. She had no clue how the whole housing bubble collapsed, so I was trying to explain it to her. Now keep in mind, she is a JOURNALIST, trained at an IVY LEAGUE university. I am merely an Economics major with an MBA and 35 years of experience working for some of the largest banks and mortgage banks in the country.

    So, to make this long story short, when talking about how you could get “upside down” on your mortgage, I used the example that you buy a house for $500,000 in 2006, financing it with a 90% mortgage of $450,000. Two years later the bottom falls out of the real estate market and that $500,000 house that you still owe $440,000 on, suddenly only has a market value of $350,000. You’re “upside down” because you still owe $90,000 more than the house is currently worth.

    Her response was, “So then you go back to the person who sold you the house and demand they give you $150,000 back because they sold the house to you for more than it was worth.” I said, “No. When they sold it to you it was worth $500,000 to you because that’s what you agreed to pay for it.” She said, “No, CLEARLY they knew the house was NOT worth $500,000 which is why they cheated me out of that money so they should have to pay it back. That’s just social justice!”

    In an effort to try to get her to understand the concept, I tried the converse. “OK, so let’s say you bought a house for $500,000 and two years later sold it for $650,000. Would you then have to give the $150,000 in profit back to the person you bought the house from?” She said, “No, that would belong to me.” I replied, “So, heads you win, tails you win?” She said, “Yes, that’s social justice.”

    It shouldn’t surprise you to learn that she thinks when someone is upside down on a mortgage they should just be able to have the loan rewritten to reflect the current value of the house. I asked her, “Why should the bank have to take the loss? When you got the original loan you borrowed a specific amount of money and agreed to repay ALL of that money with interest over a specified period of time.” Her response was that if the house wasn’t worth that much, or if the market might collapse, the bank should have known that so it’s the bank’s fault and they should take the loss. Besides, the bank has lots of money so it’s not like it’s a big deal to them.

    And we wonder why the things we hear from the media are so stupid.

    • Patriot fan

      I’m a secretary with a Bachelor’s in Education. The house scenario you just mentioned isnt rocket science. I get it . Not to mention I saw it coming. I did not attend an ivy league college.

      • dginga

        Glad to know you get it. I was truly stunned that she REALLY did not get it. She was quite insistent that social justice requires that “the little guy” NEVER lose. Trying to explain free markets to her almost made my head explode. I finally gave up and bought her copies of Thomas Sowell’s books, “Basic Economics” and “Applied Economics,” which I am certain she did not bother to read.

        • Larry N Staci Lopez

          The journalist is correct about part of it. If you can get a principal reduction based on a government sponsored program then ultimately you get the same result. Never the less, the point is we rely too much on the government to bail people out of situations that we get ourselves in, including corporations. We teach people to be irresponsible. Run up your credit, don’t worry you can file bankruptcy. Plus you can do it again in another 8 years. We are going to have a generation of doe doe brains running the country. Be afraid, be very afraid.

        • Justin

          Your narrative totally ignores the role of predatory lending. New and old establishments were set up to issue mortgages to people they knew couldn’t pay at ever lower standards. These establishments did so because they knew they could bundle those mortgages into securities (MBS) that would then be AAA rated because the rating agencies got a cut per security and thus wanted to encourage the volume of securities by rating them so they would qualify for certain low risk funds, thus more money for them. These perverse incentives plus the ability of banks to outsource risk my securitizing mortgages and still collecting initial fees is a fundamental part of the housing crisis that you’ve totally overlooked. Yes, consumers were greedy and ignorant, but most people are, and if you bought a house knowing you could only finance it in a market where housing prices are rising, you’re greedy and an idiot. But to say banks didn’t play a fundamental role and were not blatantly immoral is just dishonest. When you delve deeper into the synthetic market for MBS through the use of credit default swaps by investment firms like Goldman Sachs, it only becomes slimier, and that is responsible for the breadth of the crisis. Essentially betting on whether a mortgage, and by extension, a security would fail, and then betting on that bet, allowed the market to grow to many times the size of the real assets underpinning it and is the reason for the failure/bankruptcy/insolvency of several large firms including AIG and Lehman Brothers. Your version is comparably ignorant and dismissive of real concerns to your Ivy League Strawman.

          • ladykrystyna

            All of that happened because of the CRA – it forced banks to make sure loans went to people that normally wouldn’t get them because the leftists claim “disparate impact”.

            And yes, then they did what they could to benefit themselves – surprise surprise. They tried to spread out the risk.

            What they should have done was tell the gov’t to go scratch.

          • dginga

            This is absolutely correct. Jesse Jackson convinced Bill Clinton to use the CRA as a club to force banks to make loans to minority applicants who did not qualify under existing FANNIE MAE underwriting guidelines. Jesse kind of got the ball rolling by suing several large banks for racial discrimination in lending, even though the banks could prove (and HAD TO prove on a quarterly basis in their HMDA reporting) that the minority applicants in question couldn’t afford the mortgage, or didn’t have a job or, most often, had bad credit. Jesse Jackson responded that paying your bills on time is not a value in the black community, so the banks were discriminating by expecting black people to pay their bills on time. Because these nonsense suits were getting so much negative publicity, the initial banks settled by setting up special loan funds specifically for minority loans, which we then placed in our high risk loan categories. Again, it is a much longer story than that, but you can trace all of this back to around 1993 once Clinton was sworn in.

          • ladykrystyna

            Bingo.

    • Delphinus13

      She sounds like an absolute f@$(tard. Of course Paul Krugman, who supposedly earned a Nobel Prize in Economics, routinely espouses this sort of idea, and constantly calls for INCREASED government spending. It’s clowns like him that probably taught this girl and thousands of other Ivy League students these illogical and flawed economic concepts.

      • dginga

        Well, actually, since she was a JOURNALISM major she was not required to take ANY Economics classes, or History classes or Math classes or Accounting classes. She took a boatload of English classes and then minored in Feminist Philosophy, ’cause we all know how important it is to understand Feminist Philosophy (ie, men = bad; white men = even worse). But since she went to an IVY LEAGUE university, she is the first person to remind you that this makes her your intellectual better. Sometimes she even prefaces her comments to me with, “I know you only went to college in the Midwest…” I keep trying to get my son to dump this girl, but they are hipsters and he pretty much agrees with her. Of course, he went to Stanford.

        When I hear the journalists on TV debating politics and economics, etc., I have to remind myself that pretty much all of them have a similar background.

        • critdifrnc

          Please tell me you didn’t give your son money to attend Stanford! If so, what did you expect?

        • Tonya

          Too bad her ivy league school didn’t offer a course in common sense. You have to go to Midwest schools for that.

          • Allen Santee Summers

            They don’t teach that there. I lived in the midwest for ten years. Two straight years of heavy snow, then the county sells the snow plows because they don’t think there’s a possibility of another heavy snow, then, guess what? The entire state gets crippled because everybody sold their snow plows. For 3 years straight. Then they got wise and the state bought snow plows for every county. Oh and the power was out for up to two weeks in some counties, and there were idiots who died horribly in fires and actually blew up gas mains for parts of the state because they decided to build fires in their living rooms. Not to mention the up close and personal cellphone videos of tornadoes permeating Youtube. Not to mention the earthquakes caused by constant fracking (yes, it HAS been proven). You think they’d go “Well if we stopped fracking in one spot and moved on to an unused location and let the sediment settle, the earthquakes might happen less, or they might stop altogether!” Nope. “KEEP GOING!” they say. Know what state I’m talking about? If you guessed Oklahoma, you would be correct. Got some friends in Texas who say stuff like that happens a lot there too.
            Common sense. Pfft.

    • heynorm48

      I am literally smh at this. Jeez. It just shows you how effectively successful the lib professors are in using brainwashing techniques on our young people.
      The young ones do not have enough life experience to debate otherwise. Indeed, youth is wasted on the young. If I only knew then what I know now.

    • Shawn Cameron

      Great example. The worst kind of idiot is an educated one.

      There is no justice in “social justice” because justice is about balance. But a liberals definition of justice is I get what I want or it’s not fair. We literally have millions of Eric Cartmans running around.

      • Allen Santee Summers

        No, a liberal’s definition of justice is everybody gets the same opportunity. Equal rights in marriage, equal rights regardless of skin color, equal rights regardless of gender, equal rights regardless of religion. If two men want to try their hand at failing at marriage like half of all heterosexual couples, let em go for it. If a black guy wants to sit at the front of the bus, let him sit. If a woman works as hard as a man to achieve a management position, give her the same pay as the man (don’t kid yourself, there IS a pay gap, and there’s extremely different behavioral expectations). If I want to worship the sock of Bob down the block, damn it, I will. It’s my constitutional right. If you don’t think everybody deserves the same rights and opportunities, you can kiss my half white ass.

        • ladykrystyna

          “No, a liberal’s definition of justice is everybody gets the same opportunity. ”

          You are correct, if my liberal you mean classical liberalism as in what our Founding Fathers and Framers gave us.

          What the LEFT wants (that’s you – Left or Statist, take your pick) is equality of RESULT.

          Everyone already has equality of opportunity. But that’s not good enough for you because you don’t like the fact that not everyone is equal in ambition and ability.

          Want equality of everything, move to North Korea. Let me know how that goes.

          • Justin

            Everyone in America does not have equal opportunities. If you are born poor, you will most likely die poor. If you’re a rich baby, you’ll most likely be a rich old man.

            http://www.equality-of-opportunity.org/files/Geography%20Executive%20Summary%20and%20Memo%20January%202014.pdf

            Pretty simple, intuitive infographic at the bottom.

            The average income of a Harvard student’s parents is $400,000. Unless wealthy people have genetically superior children (they don’t, intelligence isn’t not that simple, it’s based on genetic and environmental factors; where the genetic ones are not particularly straight forward), then equality of opportunity does not exist.

            Money buys access to opportunity.

          • Scott Lanier Sprayberry

            Justin, you are an idiot. I was born to parents that made less than $10,000 per yr in 1971. I grew up wearing hand me downs, eating what we grew and or hunted. When I graduated high school in 1990 my parents still only made about$15000 per yr. I joined the Navy to learn a trade and earn money for college. Since leaving the Navy in 1994, I have worked my way to the point of making $100k + a year, NOBODY gave me anything, I worked my way through school, busted my ass working 50+hrs a week. I received no help from the government, I earned everything I have, and personally I find your attitude and opinion that the only way to make it in this country is to be born into a rich family highly demeaning and offensive, there are millions of hard working people that started with nothing like me that have done even better than I have. If you have the will, desire, perseverance, and intelligence you can succeed regardless of where you start. Just because you are either too lazy or too stupid to be successful doesn’t mean everyone else is.

          • Sam Hughes

            Scott, Kudos to you. You are a shining example of the American Dream and what happens when an individual takes advantage of the opportunities we are afforded as Americans. Unfortunately, there are too many living in America today ‘freeloading’ on people like you who have worked hard and have something to show for it. They want a piece of the pie, trouble is, they want a piece of your pie, and they don’t want to have to work for it. The Land of the Free is quickly becoming the land of the freeloaders.

          • Inthenameofliberty

            WELL SAID, sir.

          • Robert Walker

            Justin didn’t say you would remain poor. He said, “most likely”. The statistics demonstrate what he say as being fact. Check out the Bureau of Labor and Statistics and also the U.S. Census Bureau information, cross reference that information. Your parents gave you a good work ethic. You were determined to be something more. That’s good for you. You joined the military, I’m sure you received some sort of G.I. Bill (as did I) upon joining the military and completing your enlistment. You earned it, but you also did receive help from the government. The difference is, opportunity. You saw an opportunity to learn a trade, and you took that opportunity and used it to launch your life. Many (not all) don’t take advantage of those opportunities.

          • jmw_123

            The GI Bill is not really government help. It’s part of a contract. You agree to give up x amount of years of your life and possibly your life and we will pay you this much and allow educational benefits as part of your pay package. Please stop perpetuating the myth the GI Bill is akin to “government help.”

          • OldSundance

            That’s sort of true. But it is government help none the less. We spend nearly $2 trillion taxpayer dollars a year on current military costs and costs associated with the VA and GI bill, not to mention the interest on loans for past wars.

            We didn’t need him to go learn a trade so he could get ahead but you and I paid for it for him.

            The military in its largest part is a jobs program funded by tax payers. It’s a step above welfare I suppose since more people come out of it independent than do those on welfare. Though come to think about homelessness of our veterans, maybe not.

          • Guest

            Im sorry, but its not “government help”. Its part of a compensation package. No different than employer healthcare, stock options, 401K, vacation days or a tuition reimbursement benefit. Its part of a total compensation package when you sign the contract.

          • Chloe Rowles

            @OldSundance…..ONE BIG difference: Every one who joins the Military is willing to put his or her life on the line for us, and many of them have! Others have come home as ‘wounded warriors’ and their life is forever changed….but they keep us safe! I think every military member should be offended to have their ‘job’ compared to a ‘jobs program’ or ‘one step above welfare’! How insensitive of you to make that comparison.

          • Common Sense

            Don’t forget that the person who works in a high risk factory making the goods you buy or the coal miner also puts thier lives on the line for you to have what you do. It’s not just soldiers. Many people in all sorts of dangerous jobs lives put their lives on the line for you and by contributing in our economy as part of thier compensation package taxpayers agree to provide social security and unemployment in thier contract to provide our economic system with work. Soldier aren’t the only ones who keep your lives safe and secure. The American worker provides you with all the things you love and enjoy. God bless them.

          • OldSundance

            It’s a choice to put your life on the line so it must be something they want to do.

            Welfare is a subsidy, it is government spending that stimulates the economy. The military industrial complex is nothing more than corporate welfare, government spending that stimulates the economy.

            Democrats and liberals spend tax money on social programs but all that spending goes into the economy and creates jobs. Republicans and conservatives spend tax money on the military industrial complex for the same reasons, to stimulate and manipulate the economy.

            The government has done a pretty good job with the propaganda about the military and the romantic notion of protecting liberty and all. I’m not surprised that you can’t see that, you must first be willing and open to be objective on the subject. But the irrational romantic emotion of protecting freedom and liberty clouds our objective rational judgement.

            The attack of 9/11 did not threaten our freedom and liberty that made it necessary to send off and get so many of our boys killed and wounded. It was a terrorist attack and there isn’t one scenario that could play out that would have threatened our freedom and liberty. Except for the tyranny we imposed on ourselves as a result of that attack of course.

          • jeffreyhamadey

            Well said, I don’t agree with you entirely but all the same well said. The Tierney we allowed to be placed on ourselves after the 9/11 attack was out of fear and hysteria and the fact that we don’t pay attention to what we allow our politicians to do. They took the opportunity to swell the government employee roles. Very few think through to the end results. A large percentage of our economy relies on big government projects and organizations, homeland security, FEMA and our legal system. legalizing drugs would put thousands out of jail. At $50,000 ahead to keep drug-related criminal in jail that lost would put guards and staff on the unemployment rolls. Not to mention plans for new prisons, privatizing prisons and on and on resulting losses to the economy. Let’s face it we just can’t afford to legalize drugs. Think of the lawyers, judges stenographers, Sheriff’s and clerical workers further swelling the unemployment. Alas, the protecting of our freedom and liberty by the military is a stretch and a tad romantic but I do pity the country or entity that would try to take it away from. OldSundance, God loves you and so why, yours Jeffrey

          • Gordo

            Would you PERSONALLY tell the family members of the thousands of people who died in the 9/11 attacks that their family member’s freedoms and liberties are still intact? The terrorists were trained in camps in Afghanistan that were still operating, still training new recruits, and actively planning for the next way to kill Americans. Life is a prerequisite to freedom and liberty,

          • OldSundance

            Unfortunately many of their freedoms and liberties were lost with the Patriot Act. None of which have been returned as a result of boys dying in Afghanistan.

            The terrorists did not take their freedom, we responded to terrorism by forfeiting our freedom.

          • Craig Hemphill

            Sundance, you ideals are the furthest from objective, youre the one fooling yourself. Government spending drags the economy down simply because it must take it out of the private economy ( by force) which spends money at an alarmingly more efficient manner and crates wealth rather than just burning up money, you clearly have no concept of macro economics or even micro economics for that matter. It’s true that there is a military Industrial complex as well as other industrial machines who influence politicians to spend money needlessly. And if you think the 911 attacks didnt threaten our freedom, youre not paying attention to Islam and it’s crazy doctrines. I suppose you think pearl Harbor wasnt a threat to our freedom either right? Wake up

          • OldSundance

            Craig, let’s make something clear. I am, for lack of a better word a libertarian. I believe in an unfettered market 100% free of any regulation or government influence. I also believe that man ought have the freedom and liberty to pursue happiness as he sees it so long as he causes no harm to another’s person or property in the process. I view 9/11 as a terrorist act committed by misguided thugs who have an insane view of the world that was molded by religion. I also believe that christians, jews and pretty much all religions have either been there or will one day be in the same place. That they were islamic is coincidental in my opinion and doesn’t matter.

            The terrorist act of 9/11 did not threaten that this country could be consumed by islamic radicalism in my lifetime and therefor threaten my freedom in any way. My mistake was not understanding the reaction of my fellow citizens in unnecessarily forfeiting their own freedoms out of fear and for safety. The terrorist didn’t take my freedom, you did.

            I don’t rationalize some radical islamic “doctrine” as a threat to my freedom, nor, as horrific as it may appear a single event as a decline in the human desire to be free. It never one occurred to me that 320 million American’s would roll over an play dead. Maybe you see these events more fatalistic, I see them as an inconvenient nuisance as a result of the very freedoms we enjoy.

            On the economy. Let’s suppose that pretty much 50% of the working population supplies the government with their revenue. Let’s also suppose that 10% of that population supplies more than 50% of that revenue. I can dig out the exact numbers but that’s pretty close for this argument. That revenue amounts to over 2.5 trillion dollars and at the same time the government borrows the deficit amount of about a trillion.

            Somewhere in the neighborhood of 3.5 trillion a year the government SPENDS on goods and services in our economy. That is a FACT. It is subjective to assume that the free market with ZERO government spending would equal or surpass that kind of spending in the economy each year in addition to the trillions already floating around in it.

            Although, because of my belief in freedom and liberty and in an unfettered free market void of government spending, I realize that our economy MAY NOT be as large without government spending. It very well may be but it is very subjective to assume that. And quite frankly, I don’t care one way or the other if the economy grows or shrinks since my main goal is liberty and not economic power.

            Objectivity is using FACTS to form a conclusion. From what we think human behaviors are concerning the economy to what implications a doctrine might mean have little to do with facts that produce an objective conclusion, they instead produce a subjective opinion.

            The attack on Pearl Harbor was about an economic injustice the Japanese felt, they had no intention on invading and occupying America. No, Pearl Harbor did not threaten my freedom.

            As you might tell, I’m not a romantic but a realist.

          • http://mikemitchellonline.blogspot.com Mike Mitchell

            The GI Bill is part of a compensation package, i.e. deferred compensation. Calling it government help it’s just flat-out wrong. It is not factual, so stop implying it. As for zip many being homeless… This is a manifestation of the failures of the VA system.

          • OldSundance

            Rationalize it any way that makes you feel better about it. I didn’t say it wasn’t part of the compensation, your missing the entire point.

            Guy says he lived in poverty, it was joining the Navy that helped him learn a trade and pulled him out of poverty. It was the opportunity that the government makes available that helped him rise above that poverty.

            I know there is a lot of focus on the VA, but that institution is as fine as any and just like any other has its problems. This notion that veterans deserve more or better than any other citizen who makes a contribution needs to be smashed.

            What makes us a rich and powerful nation has more to do with our captains of industry than captains in the army. That is not to say we shouldn’t show our gratitude to our veterans, let’s just not get carried away with it.

          • Jjs

            Old sundance—–
            You sir or madam are an idiot!!!!!
            Obviously you don’t have a clue about the military and the drive most individuals have that join. We volunteer our lives for idiots like you to have the freedom to have open conversations on social media or in public. Not to get out and have a free ride like alot of welfare bums do. They have no respect for veterans or taxpayers that pay their way their whole lives.
            One of the main reasons alot of Veterans are homeless is because of the pride they have personally for the service they did for their country. Only to come home and have a moron like you to call them a welfare bum. They feel crushed inside and are too proud to ask for help.
            Since we’re on the subject, the main pupose of our federal government is supposed to be our national defense, not welfare. The first is being squelched so they can perpetuate the second. Mainly because welfare bums love dems. for their handouts.

          • OldSundance

            I believe that you believe you put your life on the line for “idiots” like me to have freedom. But unless you fought in the revolutionary war or the war of 1812 that isn’t but a romantic notion. All wars since then have been either in empire building or political in some fashion or another. None of which was protecting our freedom but instead protecting the political and economic interests of the wealthy powerful elite.

            A purpose of the central government is national defence, not the main purpose.
            “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

            It may be true that pride is the reason some or many veterans are homeless, that’s not a particularly sound reason for living that way. Despite their service they are just humans just like anyone else and are just as likely to lack ambition and ability to rise above poverty. There isn’t anything particularly unique about a veteran than any other citizen of this nation. When you start thinking that you are more special than anyone else you have lost the humility that the institution of the military was supposed to teach you about.

            But you display this lack of humility by calling me an idiot for my opinion on the matter. But I understand that, from your perspective, from your own reality I probably appear as much an idiot as you appear brainwashed to me. Our experiences most often shape our beliefs and our perceptions. Having spent some time in the military with the carefully orchestrated romantic propaganda that would be necessary to motivate a man to both put his life on the line and to kill another man your perceptions aren’t lost on me. Shame you can’t see someone elses point of view without using derogatory comments, says something about you.

          • Jjs

            So our present day wars aren’t about freedom?
            Now who’s the one that’s brainwashed?
            You must love CNN and MSNBC!!!
            Do you know what a caliphate is? It’s where they, the Islamic terrorists will rule the world from. Kind of like Hitler’s vision for Berlin after he conquered us in WWII, if that’s not about our freedom I don’t know what is.
            As for labeling you as an idiot, I don’t do that lightly.
            I am simply going by the physical evidence I see that you are writing. You have a right to be an idiot just as much as anyone else does. Just as I have a right to call you out as one.
            As for veterans being more special in the way you stated, most military people are more selfless and humble than anyone I’ve ever meet.
            You are obviously living in our free country totally unwilling to give credit to our military for your luxury of no fear of being beheaded for your beliefs.
            If you haven’t been willing to sacrifice for you’re own freedoms, I’m fine with that.
            A very small percent of the population is willing to do so. Which is fine.
            But if you aren’t willing to get to know some of our greatest generation members personally, you have no right to judge them.
            Do yourself a favour and go to your local VFW and talk with them, you may appreciate them a little more.
            But I doubt you will do so, you will stay in your small euphoric world where no one wants to kill us simply because we exist.
            You have been challenged!!!

          • jeffreyhamadey

            I think we were on Hitler’s shortlist once he cleaned up Europe and the Japanese were sorry that when they finished Pearl Harbor didn’t go on through to San Francisco. Pearl Harbor wasn’t wasn’t a state at the time of the Japanese attack we could still consider it US territory. Not to get into who we stole it from at this time. Yours, Jeffrey

          • Valerie

            We, the taxpayers, pay our military to serve and protect us. The same way we pay our police force, fire fighters, teachers, all those that serve the public. Our government is funded by us to give us service. So, “government help” by way of a GI Bill is part of a signed contract between “we the people” and those that serve in our military.
            It seems that though you state it’s a “program funded by tax payers”, and you get the concept, you still equate it to welfare as if the military and the welfare recipient are equal. What is required of the welfare recipient to earn the money we give them?

          • Jim Rivelli Jr.

            OldSundance-have you ever been in the military?

          • sbut01

            That is an INSANE analogy! Military people serve the Country for 4 years in exchange for these things. Some fight or even die for our Country. The welfare folks just sit on their azz and make babies. I would gladly hand over my tax money to educate a veteran.

          • Craig Hemphill

            Sundance, where do you get your facts? as of 2011 the base annual budget of the military was aprox. 650 billion. the total costs for both wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is 3.7 trillion over 9 years as of 2011. Your idea of Military being a taxpayer jobs program is a fantasy, the military is a necessity. It also molds people into structured disciplined people with a work ethic that in many cases wasnt there prior to them joining. There are evil people in the world and if we didnt have a military we’d be in chaos

          • OldSundance

            Yes, chaos just might be the product of freedom and liberty. Doesn’t sound to me like you are up for the responsibility.

            Yes, somewhere in the 650 to 700 billion range on strictly military spending. Homeland security, CIA, FBI and all the other ABC’s associated with “security” bring it to about a trillion. Then let’s add the cost of the interest on past wars, remember, we, just in the last decade paid off WWII, there are all the rest that need paid off, with interest. But why haggle over the amount when it’s the purpose that is in question.

            Tell me, with all conviction, it is your belief that not one penny goes into the pockets of some defense contractor to just keep his doors open producing war materials we don’t need? Isn’t that a jobs program by any definition.

            So what do we do with those tanks and planes produced we don’t need. We service them with “service” men who join our military services.

            Is it proper to refer to the military as a whole as a jobs program? No, it isn’t, that’s just rhetoric to magnify the absurdity of the system.

            Evil people? I don’t believe in evil but instead sociopaths and outright psychopaths are all around us. Most often it isn’t that though, it is a conviction of personal, ethnic or nationalistic interests that drive groups of people to act as they do. That it often collides with our own beliefs doesn’t make it evil but different. A threat to our different way none the less. And yes, those REAL threats must be met with appropriate counters to sustain our own way of life. So far in the modern era no such threat that would warrant the kind of cash we spend has revealed itself. But to the very imaginative, or might I say opportunist such threats exist all around us. Boo!

          • Richard Yaright

            Oooooo. So its everybody else’s fault that some chose not to better them selves. Dang I had it all wrong all this time. I guess its OK for people to have someon else put a gun to my head and take my money.

          • David Neidhamer

            They most likely remain poor because they have lived a life of being poor. They follow in the footsteps of their parents and make the same mistakes that put them at a disadvantage. The way to achieve a better lifestyle is to become educated, be it college or some sort of skill.

          • DJ

            There is the rub… Scott and everyonr else who is physically sound has the same opportunity. Scott however picked up and ran with it. Sitting in front of a TV waiting for your next infusion of cash or a free ticket to Harvard is different.

            Well done Scott.. that could have been me 55 years ago but because of a similar choice my family and I are much better off. And for those who care: The GI bill benefits ARE part of the compensation package and not a free will charitable contribution from the government to the military member.

          • Michael Rice

            Exactly, they do not chose to take the opportunity given to them.

            With the amount and types if financial aid these days, there is no reason for anyone to not be able to go to college.

            My God, Indiana has a program that will pay your tuition to a state school.

            More or less, you agree early on to graduate and nto get arrested, etc and it’s yours.

          • Gary Chambers

            Robert, allow me to translate for you to Scott: “You didn’t build that.”
            Curious; I know this is a popular sentiment of the left; let’s say I accept it. Now I’d like to say to Elizabeth Warren and The One: “You didn’t win that election. Guess we all won it for you and with you; time for us to share in your perks.”

          • JayelK

            Not taking advantage of an opportunity, does not mean that the opportunity does not exist. Not taking the opportunity is a choice.

            Life’s direction in America is greatly based on your choices.
            If you choose to give up on bettering your life because your parents were poor, that’s your choice. But don’t blame me for making a better choice than you.

          • Craig Hemphill

            Robert, language is important, it’s more important to the left because they keep changing it to fit their narrative. In Justins case the phrase “most likely” means “fact” and btw, if someone has an opportunity, but chooses not to take it, thats their fault , Not everyone in a free society is going to be successful, so what?

          • VDominick

            It’s great that you have worked hard and have been able to earn such a high income; however, I disagree with your assertion that you received no help from the government. Didn’t you receive money for college through the GI Bill?

          • Conservatarian

            yes but he earned that. It was part of the contract he signed when he joined the navy. How do you not see the difference?

          • DJ

            Does an employer GIVE you a parking space or is that how you are incented to work there? GI bill and your parking space are both things the employer pays as part of the cost of employing you.

          • Shailynn Renée Duval

            Precisely. it’s part of the cost of employing him, which is pay. Pay is the opposite of receiving government help, seeing as how it’s a transaction of services.
            I fail to see how this is so hard for everyone to understand…

          • Jhoana Buentello

            It is a compensation not free help, not just anyone can qualify for the GI bill, not even your relatives, you serve your country, abandon your family and put your life on the line to serve others and protect your country. A GI bill is part of a contract not government welfare, GI bill is not a grant, understand that…….. You are not granted a GI bill unless you have served your contract. Now the grants for school, as long as you are below a certain amount of income you get it. Therefore if you are poor you are most likely to receive a grant, opportunities are there people just don’t take them. So in essence he paid with time to get that kind of compensation.

          • http://mikemitchellonline.blogspot.com Mike Mitchell

            So, Leftists actually see the GI Bill as some form of entitlement spending? Wow. You and your cronies need to some education on this subject.

          • OldSundance

            “I received no help from the government”, except of course the opportunities of being taught a trade by the government and on the taxpayers dime.

          • Lauren Cates Fox

            How do you not understand the concept of COMPENSATION for his time, the work he did for the Navy while enlisted and the risk to his own personal safety? Are you intentionally being obtuse?

          • Gary Chambers

            Scott, you’re wasting your time/energy. You’ll never convince Justin, Allen or the journalist in the lead response…we’re an evil country, especially the way we treat our own, and thus have to be knocked down a peg or two…especially the independent ones…the producers.
            With these folks, the pie is only a certain size and it’s all a zero sum game. How they were brought up like that is beyond me…so much envy and bitterness.

          • James Warfield

            Gary you are right… and the knocking down the peg is coming. Sorry to say I feel one day soon, however I pray I am wrong…. however People like Old Sundance will be given a shock of their life…. the day is coming when those whom he trust on the Liberal side will turn against him…. It’s already started…. I pray I am wrong.. but I think we have tip to far and to many have drank the Kool-aid… one can tell just by what is going on in Washington…. 12 15 years ago.. american people wouldn’t put up with it… now they don’t care…..

          • sbut01

            Scott, your story sounds much like mine. I’m 52 and I still go out daily and work in the hot OK sun. I decided to quit waiting on someone else (government, employers etc) to give me something and became the source of my own income. Congratulations! And yes, WE DID BUILD THAT!!!!

          • shamu9

            Sux to be You??

          • Eleanor

            It’s true that money buys access to opportunity…but that is the ONLY true thing you said. There are scholarships for school. (You know, like the ones Obama DIScontinued.) In fact, there are myriad ways to access the money that gives you access to opportunity. Did you know that Dave, the owner of Wendy’s fast food chain was a high school drop out? AFTER he got old and AFTER he got rich he went back and got his GED. The problem right now is that, no matter how much a Harvard student’s parents are paying, they are being ripped off. A little propaganda goes a long way and you and Allen Santee Summers have been sucked in. I’m sorry for you.

          • Sam Hughes

            Even though money buys the opportunity, there are many who have spent the money and still failed. They lack determination and perseverance. The same problems most liberals live with every day. So they just want to take what someone else had the gumption to achieve and pass it around to everyone who failed. Then everyone gets to ‘feel good’. We should find out how many students drop out of Harvard. When they drop out, does Harvard give them their money back. Now that would be ‘social justice’.

          • Pam Dunn

            Don’t forget the “AFFIRMATIVE ACTION” that lets less qualified minorities into colleges at the expanse of others that both educationally and mentally more qualified.

          • David Neidhamer

            I would like to see Affirmative Action in the NBA where each team is required to have 1 player on the team 5’6 or shorter. The NBA discriminates against short people….

          • Shailynn Renée Duval

            The only trouble with opportunity is that when you’re middle class and white, nobody wants to give you a scholarship because your parents make too much money or because your essay isn’t as sad or emotional or inspirational as the next kid. Then you have to pay for education yourself and get buried with loans at 20% interest that you will never pay off. If you’re unlucky like me, the military isn’t an option even if you want to because you’re legally blind and have scoliosis and knee problems for no reason. Yay opportunity.

          • Dallas Townsend

            you are correct in the fact not everyone has equal opportunities, but just because you were born into a poor family doesn’t make you stay there. There are countless people that has proven that wrong. it is the drive of a person to better themselves that makes the difference. in a free country you have the freedom to be successful or the freedom to fail or somewhere in between. you are not entitled to either state of life, which the liberals believe at the expense of the successful ones.

          • Gregg Iverson

            A person who is educated but from a poor family does not have the network of the person who is educated and from a rich family. Money talks and many times a less intelligent rich individual will do better in life than an intelligent poor person.

          • Michael Rice

            Site examples. So, now it is about connections. Please, stop making excuses. WHy do rich people automatically have a network?

          • Thinker

            I could not have said it better Dallas.

          • Jon Galt

            And therefore, we have a strict class system here. NO BODY born poor can get rich, and nobody born rich can get poor, RIGHT?

            FUNNY, THE HARDER I WORK THE RICHER I GET. TOO BAD LIBS DON’T BELIEVE IN THAT. THEY’D RATHER TAKE THE MONEY I MAKE AND GIVE IT TO THE POOR, REMOVING ALL INCENTIVE FOR THE POOR TO WORK HARD. AND THAT IN A NUTSHELL IS THE FAILURE OF LIBERALISM AND AMERICA. ENJOY YOUR MISERY!

          • Sam Hughes

            Jon, the liberal way doesn’t leave much incentive for the hard worker to continue working either…

          • ANTHONY CLIFFORD

            You know what I say every time I look at how much get taken from me in taxes? I say, ” Who is John Galt?”.

          • Bruce and Alecia Ford

            And I wish that were true for everybody, but it’s not. The harder some people work, the harder they work. They don’t get richer if all they can get are minimum wage or temporary contract jobs without benefits. Read Nickel and Dimed. Expand your horizons a little before you feel so confident speaking for everyone as if your story is the only story. Research proves the social mobility of previous generations no longer exists.

          • Shane

            The goal of conservatives is to have equal opportunity, but that does not happen. Most American kids have the opportunity to go to good public schools and good colleges if they work hard and are intelligent. We should not be taxing people at 70% so that the lazy and stupid live as well as the productive people.

          • OldSundance

            Shane, ever driven by a housing project? I don’t particularly know where you are from but there is nothing about people in poverty living as well as productive people.

            I get your point but you are way off.

          • Conservatarian

            are you saying that people in poverty are lazy and stupid?

          • Sara Ellen Seematter

            So the woman who died recently sleeping in her car between two of her four jobs……explain how she was lazy and unproductive

          • Fred Speckmann

            Re: Justin,
            As I stated in another post here, it’s not that all people have the same opportunity, you are confusing opportunity with outcome. Outcome depends on many factors, ambition and work ethic being the most important.

            One of the many truths of nature are also often ignored, the simple truth is that everyone is not born with the same intelligence. I don’t believe that I have the intelligence to be a doctor or an engineer, at least not a very good one.

            My intelligence is geared towards other disciplines. we all need to find our niche and in some cases that means being an excellent plumber. That reminds me of a great story.

            A doctor called a plumber to fix a leak at his house. The plumber came and worked 30 minutes and presented his bill for $500 to the doctor. The doctor exclaimed, that’s $1,000 an hour, I’m a doctor and I don’t make that much. The plumber smiled and responded, neither did I when I was a doctor!

            Fred Speckmann
            commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com

          • heynorm48

            This is not India. There is no caste system in the United States. Just because a child’s parents are poor, doesn’t automatically doom that child to being poor, too. Remember Liz Murray?

            http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1315879/Homeless-Harvard-How-daughter-drug-addicts-defied-odds-Ivy-League-graduate.html

            Us rugged individuals like to call that “personal responsibility.” You and you alone are the master of your fate.

          • OldSundance

            Which implies that government can neither be a bother to you or a help to you.

            If you take personal responsibility and let nothing stand in your way then no kind of government regulation or no kind of legislation should inhibit your ability to achieve success.

            It is my belief that despite any conditions created by anyone I am responsible for me alone.

          • Sam Hughes

            Justin, statistically speaking, most ‘rich’ kids, if left to deal with money on their own, lose their inheritance within a few years. When money is not ‘earned’ it is easily lost. Sadly, many born with a silver spoon never learn respect for what their parents worked hard for. Look up Napoleon Hill and listen to some of what he has to say and you just might learn something. There are a few exceptions to this typical outcome.

          • shooter2009

            Idiot.

          • ThirtyNineWinks

            Justin, you are an idiot. We grew up very poor. I’m well off, two of my brothers are fine, and two of them can’t pay their bills. We went to mostly the same schools through high school. What we did with our opportunities made the difference.

          • ANTHONY CLIFFORD

            Funny how the richest man in history was a poor immigrant when he came to the US. Andrew Carnegie worked his way up from laying track for railroads to building American Steel from the ground up. You need to work hard and have a little brains. Carnegie died being worth $400 Billion in today’s dollars. This was before the government started “helping” people.

          • OldSundance

            Funny too how he took most of that fortune and built libraries and schools that brought access to education to the working class. Where in his lifetime access to education was limited to the wealthy ruling elite.

            He saw the social injustice and made it his mission to eliminate it.

          • Michael Rice

            Right and if he did it the way libs claim all rich people do, except rich libs, he would have hoarded it.

          • Gregg Iverson

            He also happened to be in the right place at the right time. Thousands around him were not so rewarded for their efforts.

          • Michael Rice

            More excuses.

          • Pam Dunn

            More ignorance unsupported by research which shows that many MOVE UP from the bottom and MANY FALL from the top.

          • Gregg Iverson

            That is called regression toward the mean. Check out a book called “Outliers” for a challenge to your way of thinking, everybody!

          • Michael Rice

            More excuses.

          • joecrouse

            yes everybody has the exact same opportunity. You get a free k-12 education as a base load, You get Free access to almost any library to supplement your education.

          • Richard Yaright

            Yes, being born in to a family with money can help get you opportunities. But that isn’t the end of it. Because like you said and I paraphrase “people with money aren’t geniticly supierier so they can ethier use those opportunities to excell or squander it all away. And on the other hand a person born to poor parents can ethier waste their life crying about how unfair it all is or realize that that somewhere in the family tree of that ” rich” person someone started poor just like him and worked hard and smart to make that money.and by the way, a lot of people have thought and do think that the existence of the welfare state has/is creating the poor.

          • dan

            That’s why my grand parents and my parents worked hard, so I wouldn’t have to know poor. That’s why I work hard to ensure my children and grand children dont know poor. If we make it so NO ONE will have to know poor, no on will work hard. Its called logic, subscribe to it.

          • Cary Davis

            So if generations of your family worked hard, invested wisely, saved their money, and was able to pass that down, then they are at fault for that? You are a complete idiot and part of the problem!

          • Sandra Manzi

            There has been plenty of POOR PEOPLE THAT HAVE WORKED AND GOT AHEAD, EVEN SOME OF THEM ARE EXTEREMLY WEALTHY… BUT, HEY… THAT’S CALLED HARD WORK… Something that a lot of people don’t know anything about….

          • David Foran

            Justin, The two greatest obstacles you must overcome in climbing the ladder of success is your own belief system. Believe that failure is certain and it will be. The only one holding you back from living a life of prosperity is you. Instead of focusing your mind on envy and blaming others or “the system” recognize that economic mobility is greater in America than almost anywhere in the history of the world. Then focus your mind on a strategic plan for using the talents God gave you to create value for others and recognize your own right to share in the value you create. Then instead of immediately consuming what you produce, save, invest, and let your money work for you compound. Finally teach your children to study hard and send them to Harvard.

          • Chase Facer

            Sorry to tell you this, but Rule #1 of life is; it isn’t fair. And no matter how hard you try to make it so, it won’t be. Also, you yourself said that intelligence isn’t simple (With a double negative too); and yet you make the completely simplistic assumption that “higher” education= more intellegence. If you are stupid, the only thing you gain from Harvard is being a well-read moron. I am seriously thinking of skipping college entirely just so I don’t owe my soul to a student loan, and I want a hands-on job with hands-on training anyways!

          • Guest

            Money doesn’t buy access to opportunity. Initiative does.

          • Thomas S

            Bull, my father had to leave school after the 8th grade to support his disabled parents. He went in the CCC and built stone bridges. At 14 years old! He got a better job as a butchers assistant and then a better one building airplanes at Grumman. Then he served in the USN as a gunner on Liberty Ships on the North Atlantic. After the war he was a chauffeur because it came with an apartment for my mother and he when housing was tough to find. then he went to school to learn to become a steamfitter which he did for 30 years.
            you bought a home you sent two kids to private high school and then college and supported he and my mother all because he worked hard even though he started with absolutely nothing. I had the advantage of starting with a good education but I inherited not one dime from my parents when they passed everything I have is because I work ed hard in school and then at my career.

          • Jennifer Chapman

            Scott, u are lucky to have the inspiration and drive to climb out of the torment of poverty. However, some of us do not have your luck. Obviously, someone in ur life taught you these wonderful virtues. Some of us have lives surrounded by people not willing to teach these traits, or have them themselves. Or, horrible and traumatic things happen to us. Or, we are burdened with doubts or thoughts that plague us and drown us to the point we can’t surface or don’t even know which way is up or down. Not all of us are free, or can find a way to free ourselves, or have the energy it takes to free ourselves. I have fibromyalgia, Tourettes, ADHD, depression & anxiety. I have a husband & 3 boys, whom I love dearly. We can barely pay the bills & are blessed to have a landlord who hasn’t kicked us out with all the back rent we owe. My husband was out of work for the last year. Medicaid wouldn’t let him make more than $275 or he got kicked off Medicaid & food stamps. Now that my youngest is 6, they want me to go to work or they’ll cut me off. I’m already cut off foodstamps now, and am trying really hard not to get cut off medical too. Disability is hard to get, and I can’t work part-time. I can barely make it through the day taking care of my kids, my husband, and myself, let alone get a part time job.. The job would kill me.I have no energy. I have to take a nap in the middle of the day just to make it through.I can’t stand for a long time to do any chores around the house especially dishes, and in the morning when I wake up I have to have my husband pull me up out of the bed.it is a miserable way to live. I wouldn’t wish it upon my worst enemy. But our country makes it hard to get the medical that I need in order to get my prescriptions so I can get out of bed and do the things that I need to do during the day. Without my medication I would be in bed constantly. In Canada, everybody gets medical for free and dental. I don’t understand why our country can’t take care of us the way other countries take care of their people.maybe if I had more support from my country, it would be easier for me to get through my days, and maybe even get to a point where I could go back to school & find someway to maybe help my family get ahead. the only problem, is that once you get ahead a little bit, the government stops giving you a distance. And with outside assistance, comes much bigger bills & you’re back to struggling just to make it. even the people with good jobs have lots of bills to pay and end up not being able to live the same lifestyle as those who are rich.we are constantly fighting to have the freedoms that the rich people have. They have time to do what they want.to relax and enjoy life.just thinking of all the actor it takes makes me tired.if it wasn’t for my husband and my kids, I don’t know if I would have the energy to even try. It would be much easier to just give up.especially, when the depression kicks in.a person’s mentality makes all the difference. And some of us aren’t as lucky to have your optimism.

          • sbut01

            Ross Perot was a salesman who is now a billionaire. Here’s 15 people who were born poor who are now billionaires also. The key is they just didn’t sit on their azz waiting for the government to give them something.

            http://www.nairaland.com/1581129/15-billionaires-born-poor

          • Craig Hemphill

            Hey Moron,
            wealthy people who didnt go to college:
            Paul Allen-Microsoft
            Larry Ellison- Oracle
            Lilliane Bettencourt- L,Oreal
            Michael Dell- Dell Computers
            Oh yeah, I forgot, Bill Gates, Have you heard of him?
            I could come up with a list of wealthy people who went to low end colleges as well so YOU SIR are a complete idiot cry baby who just wants to blame everyone else for your failures

          • BlueMN

            The same Founding Fathers and Framers who decided black people were 3/5ths of a human for census taking purposes and many of whom were slave owners?

          • ladykrystyna

            Wow, ignorance knows no bounds.

            They did that to try and keep the influence of the South down, because if they counted everyone fully, the South would have far more power than those places with no slaves or few slaves and how fair would that be – the slave owners would get more representation to the detriment of the slaves who had no voice.

            They really don’t teach American history properly anymore, do they?

          • BlueMN

            Slaves who can vote wouldn’t remain slaves was the point. That’s one way they keep a people down.

          • ladykrystyna

            No, it wasn’t the point, moron.

          • BlueMN

            Yes it was, dimbulb. What a fun game!

          • ladykrystyna

            No, it was not. I explained the 3/5 clause to you, but you’d rather still spout Howard Zinn lies. You can’t fix stupid – you have just proven that.

          • grevious channing

            He wasn’t trying to fix you, ladykrystyna, only educate you. Obviously, he failed….as did any earlier attempts to achieve the same result. Unfortunate.

          • Fred Speckmann

            Re: ladykrystyna,

            Thank you for the history lesson you gave to BlueMN. It’s amazing how the despicable education system we have today fails to mention that fact. I’m sad to say that even at my age of 66 I don’t remember that being taught during my days in school either. i like most of us had to learn that fact through my own reading. That should remind all parents to make sure that their children read books, real books that you can hold in your hand and savor every word.

            Fred Speckmann
            commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com

          • ladykrystyna

            Thank you. I do remember learning something of it when I was in school, and I’m in my early 40s. But I think far too many were either not taught properly or have forgotten and are easily swayed by leftist groupthink.

            And reading is fundamental.

          • Gregg Iverson

            How about because then the Southern land owners would have had more power than the Northern Industrialists who were trying to keep all the cheap southern resources for themselves so they could make more money. They didn’t have slaves, but they sure ran sweatshops filled with women and children working in unsafe conditions.

          • Beverly Ann White

            Fundamental misread of why. Check the history leading up to the amendment. The people who were slave owners thought black people were 0/5ths of a human. What you have been taught is not the whole story and it makes you angry. Think about why someone would teach you part of the truth and make you feel hurt and anger and then decide if you trust everything you were told. Ask yourself what agenda would want you to be ignorant and feel hopeless. Who are your friends?

          • BlueMN

            How does that make it better in your eyes? Let me spell it out for you, slavery is bad, mmmkay? I’m not feeling angry, i’m definitely not ignorant and don’t feel even slightly hopeless, but try using facts instead of myths as history some time.

          • ladykrystyna

            It makes it better in the sense that there was a good reason for it that you are just ignoring because you are ignorant.

            Stop reading Howard Zinn. You’ll automatically gain a few IQ points.

          • Richard Yaright

            Do you really think the federal government would have been created if the slave stats were told that they could no longer have slaves? Could this be why wording was used that would help in stopping slavery?hmmmm?

          • Richard Yaright

            And if they didn’t, the democrats in the south would have just bought more slaves and had more influence in the government and we might be a slave state now.dangit….. We still are, its just not based on race an more.

          • firebug

            There will be equal opportunity and equal outcome as soon as there is equal effort and equal intelligence.

          • OldSundance

            The guy just told you what he meant. Why would you think he meant something he didn’t say?

            This seems to be a problem. Someone tells you what they mean but you aren’t listening because you are too busy believing something entirely different.

            RESULTS are a measure by which you can determine if there is or isn’t inequality. A straight couple goes to get a marriage license, goes off and get’s married and collects the benefit and privilege of that partnership, that’s a result. A gay couple goes to get a marriage license and is denied and so cannot collect on the benefit and privilege of their partnership, that is a result. The results then display an inequality in the social system that needs corrected. The social system needs those who oppose the liberty of people different from them, gays in this case to stop using government to interfere in their liberty.

            It is the fact that you want to oppress the liberty of others through government interference that actually is limiting their opportunity, not their own ability or ambition. I would say that their ambition and ability are threatening to abolish the very obstacles that you have placed in front of them.

            I am a practitioner of classical liberalism or what might now be termed libertarianism. Liberty is the foundation, individual liberty in particular and it is quite obvious to me by their actions that both liberals and conservatives even more seem to oppose social liberty and both use government to impose tyranny on the individual.

          • tony O

            Well done!

          • http://mikemitchellonline.blogspot.com Mike Mitchell

            That is very well put. And I agree… The original Liberalism of the Founders is something I could embrace. LEFTIST ideology is something that must be fought on a daily basis.

          • Gary Chambers

            Lady, youre correct and what youre writing rarely sees the light of day.

        • Shawn Cameron

          Well on the subject of gay marriage we agree. I don’t care if two men (or women) want to get married it’s no skin off my back and no money out of my pocket. Same goes with whatever you want to worship (and you acting as if someone were stopping you is a bit much.) Also black guys have been sitting at the front of the bus since the 60’s it’s time to let that go. Don’t think so take a look at the President’s half black ass.

          Liberals have proven time and time again it’s not equal opportunity they want, it’s special treatment.

          • ladykrystyna

            “Liberals have proven time and time again it’s not equal opportunity they want, it’s special treatment.”

            Amen.

          • Allen Santee Summers

            Gee, I’m sorry that I think that companies should not only pay a living wage, they should stop giving their CEO’s 300 million dollar bonuses for finding ways for the company to dodge taxes (if corporations are people too, they should have to pay their fair share), reduce the pay and hours of their employees, and, in some cases, get rid of the employees altogether and ship the operations to where the labor is cheaper.

          • Rob

            Wow… You know, I have a copy of the same talking points you do. The difference is, I actually read them and apply them to the real world. You precious “liberal left” is as much to blame if not more for the 300 million dollar CEO salary. Nice job saying bonus, though… that made it sound worse, I guess.

            I won’t argue with you, though. You don’t like to present an argument, just a critique… in the form of one.

          • Cherrie Redd

            Allen, If you don’t like higher ups making so much, go start your own business or get an education that lands you a position that pays that much. You kinda make the point that liberals want equal RESULT versus just equal opportunity.

          • Allen Santee Summers

            If you haven’t noticed, education doesn’t mean nearly as much as it used to, except getting into debt. Even if you manage an entry level position in a big company with your degree, it doesn’t mean you’ll get higher, and it doesn’t mean you’ll be able to pay for your student loan in a timely manner. As for starting a business, it’s something I’ve considered, but I also looked at the statistics for survivability, and only 20% of small businesses succeed without government assistance, and despite the fact that I’m a dirty liberal, I’m proud of the fact that I’m not on so much as food stamps, and I’d like to keep it that way.

          • Eleanor

            Your cowardice just increased the percentage of businesses that fail. Thanks a lot. And once again, you have demonstrated that liberals want a guaranteed outcome. If you don’t do as good a job as I, why should you earn as much as I?

          • Allen Santee Summers

            Maybe I do a better job than you and my direct supervisors are taking the credit for it, but putting the blame for their failures on me? Also, how can my business fail if I haven’t started it? Have to start one to fail at it. Your reasoning and realistic thinking on both counts is extremely flawed.

          • Memphomaniac

            Maybe you’re simply afraid to look in the mirror and find the one person who is to blame for all your problems! Only if , and when, you take ownership and responsibility for your lot in life, can you change it

          • Allen Santee Summers

            That sounds a lot like something a liberal teacher of mine used to say. She also talked about holding businesses and CEO’s accountable and everybody having a responsibility to pitch in to help others out when we can.
            Going to bed now, because, unlike the accusations I’ve seen made on here multiple times, I work for a living and pay for everything myself.

          • Taylor St. Pierre

            Yes, we all should have a responsibility to pitch in and help when we can, and yes many do not. That does not, however, mean that forcing a corporation, business, or individual to help is okay. In any other form of law but taxes, that is considered stealing and coercion. And I have read all the comments against yours and not one accused you of not working and paying for stuff yourself, they said that you could not be successful as a business owner because of your attitude. Not the same thing.

          • grevious channing

            Allen, EXACTLY where is it written that “EVERYBODY has a responsibility to pitch in and help others out when we can?” Personally, I agree that we all SHOULD pitch in and help out, but where in the Constitution is it written that we be mandated to do so at the point of a government sword?

          • Fred Speckmann

            Re: Allen Santee Summers,

            Allen, as I continue reading your comments I am beginning to agree that you are indeed a fool. As I stated above, by not trying to actually start a business, you have indeed already failed. Your logic is about as ass backwards as any I’ve ever seen.

            You should actually read some of the advice given and take it to heart. One of the saddest sentences i read from you was, “Maybe I do a better job than you and my direct supervisors are taking the credit for it, but putting the blame for their failures on me?” Read that sentence often and then think about it honestly. Honesty does not seem to be your forte’ at least when it comes to recognizing your own faults. you comments have been one excuse for failure after another. My suggestion to you is to find any successful person and ask them how they got to be that way. Of course the trick is for you to actually listen. That’s where your problem is, listening and learning.

            Fred Speckmann
            commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com

          • Richard Yaright

            If that’s happen to you where you work then do something about it.find a new job and on your way out have a conversation with their boss about why your leaving.

          • James

            You’re taking a victim stance and blame shifting your own failures onto your “direct supervisors.”
            Hint: the way to get ahead in business is to not be locked down into one business or one job. You, my friend, should be looking for a different job in a better business.

          • Jon Galt

            Yes, we get it Allen. YOU ARE A WIMP WHO WON’T TAKE THE RISK, BUT WILL COMPLAIN WHEN OTHERS TAKE THE RISK AND SUCCEED. Go ahead, destroy the job creators. What you don’t get is that libs cannot survive without Conservatives, but we Conservatives will THRIVE WITHOUT YOU LIBTARDS.

          • Allen Santee Summers

            If you want a complete conservative state where the liberals are the oppressed minority, move to Iran.

          • grevious channing

            If all of us Conservatives left the country, this nation would cease to exist within a generation or two. Who would support all of your Socialist programs? And who would defend you from the hoards that would enslave you spineless wimps because one of the first things you’d do is enact “common sense” and “reasonable” gun confiscation so that there would NEVER EVER be any crime.

          • Dallas Townsend

            if everyone that has started a small business that thought like you, there would be no small businesses and there would a great reduction in large cooperation. as most of those started as a small business. you don’t have the spine to start one and definitely don’t want to put forth the work and effort to be successful. you have more excuses then a forest has branches. get off your lazy ass and take some initiative!

          • Mark Leuellen

            I started my business by moving to a city where I knew no one. I went door to door in neighborhoods and introduced myself to whoever would open the door and talk to me. Ten hours a day. I did business face to face. I dressed up in a suit even when it was 105 out. I worked hard. My parents made nothing so I knew it was me or else. I was the first in my family to grad college and to make more than 150k a year. No one gave me anything, I earned it. Allen, only you know if your worth it or not to built the life of your dreams. Hard work, determination, are what it takes. I could have sat around all day and cried about being poor, how I did not have opportunity, how someone else was born in a different sir mustache, but instead I worked hard. I worked so hard, I now have a successful business. A successful income, and a successful life. If you can do the work,you can build a great business… You can do it, Try.

          • Rick

            I grew up in the ghetto, poor as Hell, didn’t have any food in the fridge for the last two weeks of every month, until my mom’s welfare check came on the first. At 8 I figured out I could make money to help buy a loaf of day old bread and some bologna, by going door to door, mowing lawns, cleaning yards, snow shoveling, anything! Paper route at 12, then a summer city job and I’ve been working hard since then! Have never had a paid vacation, ever! Never asked! Made me a great career by 21 earning $80,000 and driving a Porsche! Now I own my own small company, that I started with $0 by going door to.door, hustling up a customer based, then borrowing some equipment until I collected my first payments. Bought and paid cash for all my company trucks, equipment, uniforms, office equipment, etc, etc, etc…. Only in America, do we ALL have this kind of EQUAL opportunity for everyone! Only a handful of my friends made it out of that hood, the ones that didn’t get recruited by gangs, or weren’t murdered. I kept away from all that, while being called a sell out, a brown noser, and being picked on in all kinds of ways, simy because I was doing things right! I’ve been conservative since 8 yrs old, I resented my mom being on welfare because we had previously been well off, when she worked, just after the divorce. Then she got caught up with people gaming the system. Anyone can succeed out of the hood, but only the strong do. Liberalism is a disease! Liberals need to be eradicated! Welfare should be a very temporary deal.

          • Memphomaniac

            Your “ATTITUDE determines your ALTITUDE” You, as self professed, are at the bottom, and until you stop making excuses for your failure, you will remain there. Yes. Most small businesses fail! That’s GOOD! Failure teaches that business owner that his/her idea or service or product was not commercially viable. I have meet millionaires, (and one BILLIONAIRE, who have, at one time, lost it all when they first started. The key to success for them, was to identify WHY they failed, and to START AGAIN. Course Correction…and Determination! Hopefully you’ll mature in your approach to life> You may even have that business…you’ve “considered.” When you are hit with the HUGE Tax penalty for business owners, you may even decide you are not, after all, a dirty liberal. You might take a serious look at Conservative values.

          • Mark

            Wow!! If Bill Gates, Henry Ford, Steve Jobs, Dave Thomas and the list goes on had your attitude about getting ahead where the hell would we be?

          • Allen Santee Summers

            Two of those four didn’t finish college. Do you know which ones?

          • ladykrystyna

            I know for sure that Gates and Jobs did not. Not sure Ford even went, and I think that Dave Thomas was a HS dropout.

            Your point?

          • Mark

            Bill Gates and Dave Thomas. Dave did not get his high school diploma until late in life. In his 70’s if memory serves me right..

          • Fred Speckmann

            Re: Allen Santee Summers,

            It is you that called yourself a “dirty liberal,” no one else.By your statement it is also clear that at least at this point you are not an entrepreneur. To be an entrepreneur and start a business requires guts and hard work and to be willing to take a risk. It’s not the 80% who fail that matter, it’s the fact that 20% succeed. Learn from the successful and the jump in with your eyes wide open. if you fail, try try again. Remember, if you don’t try, you have indeed failed 100% of the time.

            Fred Speckmann
            commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com

          • grevious channing

            Allen, I worked for Marriott Corporation for almost 20 years before I bought my first hotel. I spent every last dime of my savings, liquidated almost all of my stocks and bonds, borrowed from a bank and worked 70-80 hour weeks for 3 years before I could consider my hotel a thriving success. No government entity gave me squat and every dime I borrowed has or is being repaid. Yet, with osamacare, my costs are set to increase by 30%…..just so deadbeats can have their “fair share” of my earnings.

          • JustME502

            Perhaps you should have taken a different course of study? Study for the degree for which there is a demand.. Too many go for the easier courses/degrees thinking a piece of paper with any type of degree will get them instant success.

          • Laura Leigh

            Debt is the result of choosing to borrow more than you can afford to pay back with in a reasonable time frame. Perhaps you will have to take a bit longer to graduate. What ever you have to do to make it work. Many graduate debt free or choose to sacrifice for a few years in order to pay off their debt. By your own justification you say that the reason you haven’t tried to be more successful is because you are afraid of failing. That’s nobody else’s problem but your own. It’s all about the choices that YOU CHOOSE to make yet all I hear are excuses. And lets say you did start a business. Lets say you are wildly successful and your company grows exponentially. I assume you will divide your profits equally with every single one of your employees and you will live frugally the same as the new guy that was just hired. Why did you start your own company again?

          • Betty Anderson Woodard

            “Dodge” is not the correct term. They take advantage of all the loopholes that are perfectly legal. How much they pay their workers or their CEO is not our concern. Businesses are in business to make money. If you don’t like it, go somewhere else to make your purchases.

          • Bubba66

            Well skippy, doesn’t that mean that the people that don’t pay any income tax should also pay their fair share? Or do you think only certain people should pay their fair share and not all Americans?

          • barry1817

            that fair share argument is so tired and trite.

            Last year I paid more in Federal Income taxes than 30,000,000 other Americans combined, and somehow I didn’t pay my fair share, while these 30,000,000 who got benefits paid nothing.

          • Fred Speckmann

            Re: barry1817,

            I think you’re wrong Harry. You paid more than half the adult population if you paid one dollar. Half pay no taxes at all.

            fred Speckmann
            commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com

          • Jay Downing

            so up to 70% of your income going to the government to pay for people unwilling to work is their far share? People always bring up the working family paying to much in taxes while the rich find loopholes. That is complete BS. Any family say mom dad and kids making under 50k a year pays nothing in taxes and actually after all their loopholes will get a return larger then their payout of the year so they actually make money off of taxes. People were giving Romney a hard time because he paid a low percentage but his taxes paid before the election was 1.94 million dollars for his personal income taxes. That is more then every working poor American family combined.

          • dginga

            Jay, you might also point out to our leftie friend that a couple of his ideological heroes, Bill and Hill are among the 1% who have a net worth in excess of $100 MILLION, but do not pay “their fair share” of income taxes because they use the perfectly legal tax dodge of The Clinton Foundation, which enables them to shelter their vast wealth, use that money for anything they please, and they only pay income taxes on whatever small pittance they “officially” pay themselves and Chelsea as “officers” of the foundation. The people in Washington are extremely adept at creating tax havens for themselves while going on the media and wailing about “the rich don’t pay their fair share.” Well, they oughtta know…

          • Eleanor

            Hillsdale.edu has a free online course in Econ 101. Unless you just enjoy looking like a moron in the comments section.

          • Allen Santee Summers

            Great, send it to the conservatives in congress. Maybe they’ll do something useful.

          • Jon Galt

            No problem. START YOUR OWN COMPANY AND DO WHAT YOU SAY. But you won’t. YOU’D RATHER COMPLAIN ABOUT THE WEALTH THAT OTHERS HAVE CREATED, BECAUSE YOU ARE TOO LAZY TO DO SO YOURSELF.

            I look forward to the day that YOU LIBS destroy all the wealth creators, and all the jobs. I will enjoy watching your miserable asses starve in the streets. I will enjoy putting bullets in your heads as you break into my house looking for food. PLUS, THE GENE POOL WILL BE GREATLY IMPROVED!

          • Allen Santee Summers

            Talking in caps doesn’t make you seem any more intelligent.

          • Beverly Ann White

            You get your say. You always have a negative and defeatist tone. Whining about everything doesn’t make you seem any more intelligent either.

          • Christopher Richey

            It’s a principle called ‘return on investment.’ It cost a LOT of money to start a business or to get a quality education. This money typically comes from loans that have to be paid back from the initial profits of business. Many businesses may make a profit but that has to cover the startup costs as well as continued operating costs. The big ‘evil’ CEOs that you reference are paid out of millions of pennies and nickles left over from each dollar of revenue. So, you are offended that a very small few, after many years of investing, actually profit from their endeavors? Could it be repressed shame that you did NOT take the time to build your own successful business?

            The entire push to ‘tax the rich’ starts from rich Liberals who just want more of other peoples money. Have you ever cared to look at how rich the Liberal politicians that you follow are? Are they paying THEIR fair share? I think not. I make $40,000 a year. I bring home $29,000………

            27% taxes. Did you get that?

            Obama pays 18% taxes. Did you get that?

            If you don’t like rich people making a profit, stop driving, turn off your internet, sell your care, suffocate during the summer and freeze during the winter. Make your own clothes and grow your own food.

            Because the moment that you woke up today and were doing none of those things, you are making them rich.

            The moment they woke up today, they were receiving a return on their investment.

            Jealous? You should be.

          • Allen Santee Summers

            LOL. So you’re going from pissed off about the tax the rich thing right into being pissed off that the rich pay less taxes.

            As far as the CEO’s who “built” the companies and earned their way up to what they’re making, that’s only about 10% of them. The majority (I think I read 70% last, I’d have to look again to be sure), of CEOs have spent less than 5 years with the company, make 50 million or more right out of the gate, then move on to a different company. That’s not earning your way up the ladder, that’s playing hopscotch. They’re tossing a rock and hope they don’t land on the line.

          • Jonathon Howton

            How, exactly, do you think that those men or women got into a position to be able to do that? Did it just happen because they were lucky, or born into the correct lineage? Did work have nothing to do with it? Do you honestly think they started their professional careers as CEO’s? Hell, I’m jealous of them, and will work to be one of them, but truly, you simply seem envious, yet lacking the same drive. On some level, those individuals found opportunities that they followed, which eventually gave them the ability to do what they do. Some of them created their own opportunities, or saw opportunities where you or I might not. You might disagree, and that’s fine. But the difference between you and I is simple. I’m not afraid to try at something and fail. Over half of our country’s GDP comes from “small” businesses. Yes, the same small businesses that fall into that 20% success figure. Think about that for a moment. At the end of the day, though, you can either make the best of your opportunities, or you can ignore them. It’s not up to me or anyone else to show them to you, or to tell you how to make the most of them. That’s not the responsibility of anyone but yourself, and complaining about it instead of acting in your own best self-interest isn’t going to get you into a better position. Wealth doesn’t come from a printing press. Money is meaningless when it doesn’t represent anything of actual value.

            Which is exactly why I’ll trade my bullets for your time, or my time for your water and agricultural goods, and if money is the medium of exchange, I’d prefer to use the currency of highest value. Just a thought.

          • Christopher Richey

            “So you’re going from pissed off about the tax the rich thing right into being pissed off that the rich pay less taxes.”

            Who said I was pissed off about that? Liberals are the ones screaming tax the rich while they clearly support rich liberals that pay lower taxes. Get it? And as for your example of ‘not earning’ it…how did those people get into those positions to ‘hopscotch’ their way around at the top in the first place?

          • Fred Speckmann

            Re: Allen Santee Summers,

            Your implication is that corporations don’t pay their fair share in taxes and that to “dodge taxes” is unfair or even illegal. Using the tax laws to avoid paying any more than required is a fiduciary duty of any corporate treasurer.

            there seems to be a basic lack of knowledge of the purpose and structure of a corporation on your part.

            A corporation is formed to create a legal entity for investors to create a large business that usually requires more than a few people to invest their money.

            Keep in mind that the purpose of a business is not to provide jobs, that’s a side effect, but to make a profit. That requires the business to offer a pay scale that is acceptable to employees. That means it is a negotiation between the two parties. The employer offers a certain pay for a certain ability that includes skills, education, work ethic and experience. Those with the highest qualifications make the most money because the provide desirability to the employer.

            i find myself in some agreement with you regarding pay scales for executives nowadays. I would find stock options to be more desirable. However they have their own problems as in the past some executives made cuts that ultimately resulted in bankruptcy while they made more money on the short run.

            In the end, it’s the stockholders that must be vigilant to make sure that companies are well run and profitable.

            As to shipping jobs overseas, that is primarily caused by government interference through high taxes and regulations. remember, the further the distance between management and manufacturing the greater the problems. Business would much rather remain on shore if possible.

            Fred Speckmann
            commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com

          • grevious channing

            Allen, don’t blame the CEO’s OR the corporations…..they follow existing tax laws. Blame Congress, both sides of the aisle, that refuses to do anything to fix the laws for fear of pissing off their big dollar benefactors. With regard to their multimillion dollar salaries, blame the Board of Directors who vote to pay them those outrageous salaries and bonuses. If someone offered you $40 million dollars and a golden parachute to run a company, would you turn it down? I wouldn’t!

          • Richard Yaright

            And the great depression was created how?

          • rascallyrabbit

            The problem that I have with gay marriage is the assumption that 2 people of the same sex are just as good for children as a heterosexual couple. I disagree. Maybe the children survive it, but there is no question that each sex in the normal healthy relationship teaches something unique about being a man or woman. Do agree that there are not nearly enough “standard’ families, divorce has taken care of that, but I think the designer babies, created by gay couples, (and I would include single men and women in this) is perhaps selfish act. And no, I do not hate gay people.

          • Allen Santee Summers

            I’ve known a few people raised by gay couples. Turned out fine.

          • Taylor St. Pierre

            Yes, many do. However, statistically speaking the juvenile delinquency numbers rise continuously from the lowest in two parent heterosexual households, single fathers, single mothers, lesbian couple mothers to the highest which is being raise by two men. Also for the record I do not have much of an issue with gay marriage, just that these couples need to be educated on the FACTS and probabilities that they will have a more difficult time raising children and that it might not be so fair to them to do so, when you are setting them up for a higher probability of failure than the general population.

          • Yo Mamma

            God Creator thinks gays are an OBAMA-NATION

          • Shawn Cameron

            You’re point on designer babies is spot on, and no not just gay couples.

            There are so many children in foster care that need a forever home. I wish they would think to look there first.

          • Fred Speckmann

            Re: Shawn Cameron,
            Your points were succinctly and well made until you, to paraphrase you, showed your ass with the presidential comment.

            Few people disagree with the president more than I do, but it is because of his policies, not his half of anything.

            You destroyed your credibility totally by using such language. It’s about time to argue points with due courtesy, try it, you might like it.

            Fred Speckmann
            commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com

          • Shawn Cameron

            Please allow me to explain what I was doing with that comment. As I’m sure you read the comment I was replying to and took note of his request that I “kiss his half white ass”. I’m sure you also took note of his misguided notion that only white heterosexual males have any hope of succeeding in our capitalist society. So what I was simply doing was turning his own phrase to make the point that if that were true then Obama would not be President.

            I sincerely apologize if my original comment left you confused. I hope I have explained myself in a way that you can understand.

            There that polite enough for ya?

          • Richard Yaright

            Sry to disagree but they don’t want special treatment. They want to create a climate of hostility because a sociaty that is content and happy won’t give in to the socialist agenda.

        • Dale Putnam

          But for one itsy bitsy thing… THIS isn’t your father’s Constitution, not even the one that we were taught in school.. and certainly not the one that we all thought we have.

        • ks

          What Liberals want today is not only equal opportunity BUT equal outcome. No matter how much or how liitle effort (or no effort at all) you put into the system EVERYONE has the same, no one is to have MORE than anyone else.

        • Tracy

          OK, with that said explain to me why we can no longer fly our American flag or recite the pledge without controversy? Why can we not mention God, pray, or read our bible in school? Why do I have to work twice as hard for others to reap the benefits while they choose not to work? Why should anyone who chose not to get a secondary education get the same pay as someone who did? Why should someone who didn’t study for an exam get the same grade as someone whowho spent weeks studying? Why should someone’s skin color or ethnicity get a free secondary education? Do we not see the inequality in this???

          • Allen Santee Summers

            Because I don’t believe in your god and I don’t think you should try and shove him down my throat, because schools are state run and the first amendment defines separation of church and state, which was further solidified by the Treaty of Tripoli? Why don’t you ask the 75% of the welfare beneficiaries in red states, including the states themselves, who take tax money from the government to reduce their own tax rates so they don’t have to legally mandate a lower wage? Why should somebody who completed a secondary education have thousands of dollars of debt (like myself, mine’s paid off, though) when there’s currently only a 30% chance of finding a high paying position in their field? I actually agree on that one. Why shouldn’t the government honor the treaties with the native tribes whose land they stole and killed for (Look at my last name, I actually have two and theyre both on here)?

          • Robert Miller

            I love the stole argument. I thought you said you were educated. Maybe you missed a few history lessons. So when one tribe fought another tribe and enslaved their young and women and took the land they sat on….was it stolen?

          • Allen Santee Summers

            Yep. And then when the US knowingly gave the tribes smallpox infected blankets and murdered the survivors in the name of manifest destiny, that was stolen too.

          • ladykrystyna

            Lies.

          • Allen Santee Summers

            Research. You should try it. I learned about the siege of Fort Pitt in history class. 1763. Technically prior to the formation of the US, but still relevant to the topic.

          • ladykrystyna

            1763 – US was not around. We were still a British Colony.

            So right there you have shown yourself to be ignorant.

          • Allen Santee Summers

            Was done by the colonists who eventually formed the United States. Still relevant. If you’re going to accuse me of being a liar, at least be intelligent about it.

          • ladykrystyna

            No, it’s not relevant and those stories have been determined to be just that – stories.

          • Allen Santee Summers

            http://academic.udayton.edu/health/syllabi/bioterrorism/00intro02.htm
            You want proof? That site has scans of the original letter with the plan, and Jeffery Amherst’s letter back approving the plan, along with further documentation from the time.
            Do your homework before you accuse me of lying, twice.

          • Memphomaniac

            Listen to him spout his intelligence! but…he’s broke!

          • Allen Santee Summers

            Tends to happen after you pay your rent and bills. Have enough to feed myself, though.

          • shamu9

            Yeah, Tribal Nations work well! Look at the Middle East! They’re still fighting tribal Wars. Kinda like the Chippewas, and the Ogalala Souix!

          • Allen Santee Summers

            *Sioux. At least get the spelling right. The topic at hand isn’t the current events in the middle east, it’s the actions of our fore bearers against the native tribal nations by the US government and the 13 colonies beforehand.

          • Dallas Townsend

            you are still wrong! that wasn’t the topic at all, you just decided to put that in there! the past has happen and that was the way things were back in the day. you don’t deserve and special treatment or entitlements based on the past. like i said before get your ass out there and do something with your life! we do not owe you anything.

          • Allen Santee Summers

            Actually, I posted something about honoring the treaties with the tribes regarding monetary compensation, some of which provides money for schooling, then Robert Miller responded to it with a question, and it sort of inflated from there.
            Also, grammar and punctuation are very important. They can mean the difference between helping your uncle jack off a horse, and helping your uncle Jack off a horse.

          • James

            You, like many malinformed history “students” before you, are putting the events out of order and out of context. The United States was using manifest destiny, just as you state, to move westward towards the Pacific Ocean. That’s where your being correct ends.
            The issue was, the US and the Continental Congress before it, were trying to work with the tribes to find who owned the land and who would grant rights to the land. The issue was that the tribes were not acting as independent nations and refused to recognize property rights in general.
            Due to these facts, over time the tribes and indian nations became increasingly belligerent to all “whites” and went on killing sprees throughout the west.
            The resulting near-genocide was a direct result of the indian nations and tribes refusing to work peacefully with the settlers. There were sickening atrocities on both sides; to highlight one side’s faults while ignoring the others is no only ignorant, it’s helping to spread propaganda.
            You, and those like you, who ignore the facts of history to advance your own agenda are exacerbating the problem. Please learn history and stop spreading your hate.

          • Shawn Cameron

            My ancestry is Scottish, so tell me can I cry about what the English put my people through during the middle ages?

            I’m just wondering what exactly the statute of limitations is on whining 100 years? 200?

          • Andrea Cunningham

            Why should someone have debt after completing a secondary degree? !Seriously?! If you borrow money for school you have to pay it back. Just because you may not find the job you want doesn’t mean you are off the hook for the cost. You need to go back to the college you went to and ask for a refund. That’s the liberal way right? You clearly did not get a good education.You are not that bright so you should ask for a.refund.

          • Allen Santee Summers

            Grammar, punctuation, sentence structure, all very important. If you want to accuse somebody of having a poor education, at least use proper sentence structure.

          • Andrea Cunningham

            That’s the best you have? I skipped a few commas because I am typing on my phone and it’s a pain? I was smart enough to study engineering, not medieval history. That’s your problem. You’re pissed at the world because you wasted money on a useless degree.

          • Shawn Cameron

            Hey I like Medieval History. lol

          • Andrea Cunningham

            I know! You studied Marxist Literature right?

          • Allen Santee Summers

            Information technology, but close!

          • dginga

            Allen, why did you major in something that held such limited job prospects? That doesn’t sound like a smart thing to do. I always encourage the young people I know to to search the job prospects BEFORE they waste their time and money majoring in useless stuff like Midieval History.

          • Allen Santee Summers

            Maybe I went right out of high school, and high schooler’s aren’t well known for good long term planning? Maybe the field I chose was inundated with people in that field, creating a highly volatile environment, in which labor was in abundance and, therefore, expendable?

          • dginga

            Allen, I completely understand how easy it is when you’re all of 18 years old and have spent your life being told that college is your ticket to the good life and do what you love and all of the other pro-college BS that kids are fed these days, to sign up and major in something you find interesting without really thinking about what happens later. I know a bunch of people with PhDs who are baristas instead of being college professors because they let their professors convince them that with a PhD in The Classics or Midieval History or Feminist Philosophy they could land a nice, cushy tenured professor job. Except colleges and universities aren’t hiring people for those jobs much, and hardly anyone gets tenure anymore. But when you’re 18 you tend to believe the adults around you.

            When I was an undergrad, back in the Paleozoic era, my major advisor called all of her minions together to give us the lowdown on job prospects in our intended field. The outlook was not pretty. She recommended that if there was something else that appealed to you that had better employment prospects, maybe you’d best make a change, which I did, majoring in Economics, then going on for an MBA. I know that kind of thing doesn’t happen often in academia, because they have a financial interest in keeping you in school for as long as they can suck money out of you.

          • Shawn Cameron

            Limited job prospects?? Not in IT. Support specialist jobs are projected to grow 23% in the next 10 years. Network specialists and computer programmers even more. Even with just an A+ certification you can get an entry level job. Add a Net+ and I promise someone will hire you.

            Of course they won’t give you a company car, corner office, six figure salary and let you play World of Warcraft all day long.

            You have to start at the bottom and work judging from Allen’s comments, pretty obvious THAT is where his problem lies.

          • Jonathon Howton

            How about you just go ahead and quote the section of the Constitution that says anything about a “separation of Church and State,” and make sure you give us the proper Article and Section.

            You won’t be able to, since it’s not in there.

            That “separation” you want everyone to embrace is simple: There can be no State religion. The State cannot interfere with your religious practices, nor mine, by any form of legislation. In other words, the “separation” was meant to keep the State out of the religious and spiritual practices of the People, not to keep those practices out of anything “Public”.

            That is the separation. The quote is from a letter, explaining this, to the Danbury Baptists from Thomas Jefferson. You should read it sometime.

            You don’t have to believe in anyone’s god/gods/goddesses/etc. Nobody is forcing you to. However, you don’t get to tell them when and where to discuss what they believe, just as they don’t get to tell you when, where, or what to believe. That’s called equality in a free society. The fact that you’ve been convinced otherwise is a testament to the power of propaganda. For the record, I’m no Christian. I simply believe that we’re barely capable of seeing the universe through a cocktail straw, and that there are more possibilities to that universe than we generally allow ourselves to accept as possible, because our field of observation and understanding is so narrow.

        • marilyn

          Re gay marriage you have a faulty argument. Gays have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as anyone else. They CHOOSE not to.

          • Allen Santee Summers

            You’re assuming that it’s a matter of choice and not genetics. Attraction is a culmination of genetics, upbringing, neurological pathway formation, and chemical balance. Genetics is partially responsible for all of those except upbringing. If you’re a girl who’s only attracted to girls, why would you marry a guy? More importantly, why would you care if a girl wants to marry a girl? You’re not the one marrying girl, are you? If you’re offended by gay marriage, don’t do it. Don’t try and push your personal beliefs on somebody else. Let them have the right to make their own decisions, for better or worse.

          • JenB

            Allen, every action we take is a choice. You can be attracted only to the same sex, but it is a choice to act on that attraction.

        • dginga

          Actually Allen, conservatives also believe the definition of justice is equal OPPORTUNITY as well. Glad we agree.

        • Lee Jordan

          If that were true schools would not accept aspiring doctors into med school based on skin color… just saying

          • Allen Santee Summers

            That “quota” has been around off and on since the 70’s. Have to have a certain amount of diversity in the school and all that. School’s also do it to improve their demographics so they look good in advertising. It’s sad that skin color still matters to people.

        • shamu9

          No “Liberal Justice” is-Equality of Life Outcome. Regardless of Talent, Ability and Hard Work. The Bums, Slugs and Leeches get the same Pay and Benefits as the Hard Working Capable folks get!

        • Eleanor

          Watch out! Here comes reality. It’s about to smack you in the face. If you get going any faster in the direction you’ve chosen it’s really going to hurt.

          • Allen Santee Summers

            What? I’m gonna get banned for telling the truth and backing up everything I say? Oh no… I’ll get banned… Somebody save me!
            o.O
            I’m actually surprised I haven’t yet.

        • Dallas Townsend

          that is not what liberals think at all! I see a completely different outlook everyday, in which the liberals believe that everyone is entitled to these things without putting the work into it. If someone has the experience and knowledge and has earned the position then the same pay is warranted, but only then! this business of you are entitled to this just because is complete BS.

        • adrefs

          Half of all marriages failing is yet another lefty socialist myth, along with saying that 10% of the population is gay. Most marriages survive quite nicely and less than 2% of the population is gay.

        • David Durrant

          http://lefunny.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Equality-doesnt-mean-justice.jpg

          Justice and Equality are not the same.

          Justice is being given recompense (consequences/rewards) based on your behavior and on a moral principle (laws, promises, commandments, etc.). There is nothing about balance, or equality implied by the word Justice except in that the moral principle should be applied equally for all based on their effort level to comply with that moral principle. Justice does not afford the individual the right to be equal to all others regardless of their effort or even their natural circumstances. It does imply recompense for how you handle your natural circumstances, and the effort level you put forth to improve them, but the differences in the natural circumstances for each individual will already imply that the just recompense received is different for each individual. The very fact that there are so many conflicting and varying moral principles indicate that there is no equality in the recompense of these moral principles anyway.

          Equality is having everything completely balanced/uniform in nature. Even if equality was perfect at one point in the timeline, it would quickly become imbalanced based on the just recompense for each individual’s effort level since that baseline. To even arrive at the initial point that all are to be equal, we would need an environment where all natural circumstances are equal. Forcing this on everyone is communism. If all people in the world pooled their resources willingly and happily, we might make a go of it, but that is quite the stretch of the imagination.

          Expectation of equality is a dream. One from which most people will never wake. Justice can be a reality, assuming first that there is no corruption within the people who hand out the rewards/consequences and second that everyone could agree on the same set of moral principles that should be followed.

          Additionally, believing that everyone “deserves the same rights and opportunities” is ludicrous. Example: “Everyone deserves to go to an ivy league school” (opportunity). Absolutely not!! Only those who have worked for this and have the grades and extra-curricular activities required to be admitted deserve to attend an ivy league school. Example 2: Everyone has the right to sit in the front of the bus. HA! If the bus only can fit 40 people and there are 35, there will be some at the back of the bus who do not have the right to kick someone out of the front. Opportunities and rights are often first-come first-served, and if there are enough people to claim something all together, based on your qualifications. You can’t expect to get the same privileges and opportunities as someone who has worked harder for them and is more prepared than you to receive them.

          So, what you are saying is that you wish there was no corruption in the people who make bad decisions because of their different moral principles (i.e. racism sexism etc). For that to happen, the changes need to stop being “everyone around me needs to change to conform to my ideas” and needs to follow the “I’m starting with the man in the mirror” concept. And everyone needs to adopt that attitude. And now all you’ve done is create another religion/government/club with it’s own new standard of moral principles that everyone needs to adhere to, and fight to get acceptance from all others. That just leads us to this:

          http://xkcd.com/927/

        • Gigi

          Bahahahaha! Thanks for the laugh. We all have the same opportunities, my friend. Some just fail to take full advantage. Opportunity is NOT the same as results. You (in general, not YOU specifically) have to do your part. Go to school, get good grades, work hard, EARN what you get, go into politics, whatever. If anyone wants to take what I have because I have more than they do, they can kiss MY all-white ass.

        • Shane

          No, liberals preach equality of result not equality of opportunity, at least all the liberals in politics today do.

        • Fred Speckmann

          Re: Allen Santee Summers,

          You are incorrect, a liberals definition of justice is not equal opportunity, but equal outcome. No matter that one person works harder than another or received a better education primarily because he or she paid attention in school.

          While I understand your sarcasm, please allow me to correct one other thing.

          Half the marriages fail, but not original marriages. The 50% arrives because of multiple serial marriages. The likelihood of a second marriage failing is greater than an original first marriage and that tends to skew the percentages.

          In fact only about 30% of first marriages fail.

          Fred Speckmann
          commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com

        • m4time

          Of course you can hide behind your typical equal rights statements but you also want people to have the same wealth, the same healthcare, etc…..at the expense of the taxpayers. That is the full liberal view that will destroy this country.

        • heynorm48

          A liberal’s definition of justice is everybody deserves the same outcome, no matter what effort they put forth.

        • ANTHONY CLIFFORD

          You’re absolutely right. Libertarians, which are the only true Liberals, want you to have equal opportunity. Now 99 times out of 100 when someone calls themselves a Liberal, they mean Statist or Democrat. They don’t want equality of opportunity, they want equality of outcome.

          By the way you’re an idiot if you believe in the gender gap. If I can hire a woman to do the exact job a man can do, but for 25% less than if I hired a man, I would only hire women. If you look at the difference between men and women who are in the same jobs, you will find that the gap is 5-2% depending on the field. This gap is of little statistical significance.

        • Duane L Petersen

          Liberals don’t want equal opportunity they want equal outcomes no mater if one sits on their buts and does nothing but they should get the same thing in the end as the guy that works 18 hours a day 7 days a week and then deride the worker that he has the audacity to not want to give the lazy ass, half of what he has earned.

        • guy963

          This is very true except for working portion of the comment. I am sorry to say, as a male nurse, women have a tendency to introduce “drama” and create “cliques” among the staff. Not all women behave like this only some….As for male nurses, i have seen a general tendency to have more of a team oriented care, and are less likely to complain and more likely to have a proactive/task oriented attitude… (this is not true for all women, but a mere generalization that i have seen as a minority nurse) in addition, man or women have each their own standards of “i did my best”. Two people can have a similar assignment with similar tasks and work at a completely different pace or different level of care. This im sure is the same for any profession.

        • Richard Yaright

          And how does that apply to the op? And while were at it. How can anybody believe that the same ppl that tried to keep slavery alive in the democratic south before the civil war? And after the war keeped making laws to segregat schools, puplic utilities and life in general? Really give a crap about justice at all

        • David Neidhamer

          A black guy has a right to sit in the front of the bus if there is an empty seat. He has no more right to a front seat than anyone else.As for the everybody gets the same opportunity and equal rights, there are so many specialized jobs out there that most people can’t perform due to lack of mental capability. They have no “right” to those jobs, but the opportunity to obtain one if they meet the qualifications. We are not all equal mentally. if you have 2 people doing the same job and one person produces more than another, they should be rewarded for their output and achievement monetarily.

        • tonybigs

          Does everyone get an equal opportunity to kiss it?

        • Liberty Meyer

          And I just *LOVE* how Allen took dginga’s post about economics and turned it into an argument about social rights. As if being money-savvy automatically makes you a homophobic racist or something.

          How about we let both: banks with their loaning decisions AND individuals wanting freedom to marry who they want, do what they want? Libertarian for a reason.

        • Robert

          Nice rant. What does it have to do with common core?

        • tony O

          Liberalism is a disease. To bad the only cure for the disease, you most likely reject.

        • http://mikemitchellonline.blogspot.com Mike Mitchell

          You did not address any of the issues raised in the story. Please do so.

      • David Foran

        Higher education without common-sense is just a higher level of stupidity.

      • Stacy German Gutner

        I’m a liberal and in no way do I think like that! You sir are a moron, okay? How do you like that? Schmuck!

        • Shawn Cameron

          So rather than make a counter point or refute what I said in a logical manner, you resort to childish name calling.

          Go ahead and tell me more about how you’re not a typical liberal.

          Priceless!

    • Marbran

      Wow. Sadly, this is the caliber of American being churned out by our education system today. Perpetual victims who view their dependence as an entitlement. No risks, but all the reward. An iPad in every hand.

    • OldSundance

      Usually when a narrative begins by highlighting a profession and a group of schools with capitalization it means the author doesn’t really respect them and intends to use the narrative to discredit them in some way. Further, keeping the person unnamed and stereotypical implies that no such conversation took place, it’s just meant to provide a back story on the point the author is attempting to make.

      Interesting too that you start talking about trying to explain the housing bubble bursting but spent the entire narrative around a symptom to the collapse of the financial system.

      Market values on housing didn’t just drop, an event caused the demand for housing to diminish which caused the market to fall out. All that you are describing is that symptom from the event. The event is the bust. Perhaps you can go back and have a conversation with your made up journalist and report back on how they also don’t know about the event.

      • Gino Emilio Marroquin

        Wow that’s what you took away from the narrative? The fact that the narrator chose to maintain the anonymity of the girl he was speaking too was probably dnen out of a desire not to embarass her. But you automatically jumped to the conclusion that it had to be made up. Now who’s being stereotypical? Liberals always need someone to bash with out looking at the facts at hand, but then again you probably agree with Ms “Non-existent” girl anyway.

      • Justin

        What event exactly caused a drop in demand of leading to a decrease of 13% in housing prices across the US economy over one month?

        The market didn’t drop because of a lack of demand. The entire rise of the housing market beyond historical norms was based on nothing but a locally inflationary combination of housing policy, low borrowing rates, low lending standards, and speculation tied to new asset vehicles.

        • dginga

          Actually there were a number of things coming together at the same time, that included a whole lot of adjustable rate mortgages that had extremely low teaser rates, were coming to a huge adjustment at around the same time. We were also seeing mortgage delinquencies creeping up because of the subprime loans we were forced to do. Combine that with accounting standards that changed as a result of (I think) Dodd Frank, and a whole lot of banks were going to take a huge hit on their balance sheets threatening their solvency according to the new government requirements. Again, I am oversimplifying, but there was not one thing that happened that caused the bubble to burst, it was a whole bunch of things that were coming and kind of hit at the same time. And you’re right, the housing market was way overheated, in part, because the Fed kept interest rates artificially low for so long. That, in itself, is hugely inflationary.

          I remember listening to our CFO yelling for a YEAR that we had to stop the subprime train or it would run us over, and it did.

      • dginga

        Oh for heaven’s sake! I was writing a comment, not a treatese on the flipping housing bubble. The entire conversation took HOURS!!! And yes, I DO use caps to indicate my disdain for the profession of journalism, as well as for Ivy League schools primarily because these are both groups of people who hold themselves in pretty high regard. Obviously you took that very personally.

        • OldSundance

          Taking it personal implies you think you might have some power and control over me, you don’t. Do you often believe yourself to possess such power over others? I believe this is a psychological condition associated with lack of self esteem. You reveal this lack of self esteem in your belief that some group holds themselves in high regard, assuming that group holds you in low regard. That belief is both irrational and borders on delusion.

          No, it’s just been my observation of people who lack objectivity, either willfully or out of simple ignorance. Which of those best describes you remains to be seen, but the lack of objectivity is most evident in your post.

          You now reveal you had a conversation that took hours and your take-away from that seems to be a misguided understanding of the concept of social justice that is only commonly voiced by opponents of social justice. In other words your post sets up a scenario with what appears to be a fictional character who happens to belong to a profession you admit you have no respect for and educated at a school you also admit you have no respect for. You go on then, instead of just saying what you believe liberal Ivy League educated journalist understand about social justice and the housing bubble but use this character to validate your own belief, real or imagined.

          Supposing the character is real it would seem to me that both of you fail to understand or use rational and objective thinking concerning the cause of the housing bust as well as the meaning of social justice.

          You have a point of view that is made up entirely of your own perception of reality, as does your friend the journalist, as do I for that matter. We understand things from absorbing information but most often our beliefs drive how we process the information. We come to conclusions on a variety of topics based more on our beliefs and irrational emotions than from an objective processing of facts. You and your journalist both appear to have allowed irrational emotions guide you to conclusions that aren’t real.

          I want to point out that many of our founders were educated in many of those still existing Ivy League schools you talk about and helped many others get started. Others got started with grants provided by the wealthy ruling class, such as the Vanderbilt’s and Carnegie’s. All these Ivy League schools, especially in the beginning were meant for the people of privilege, with wealth and power. There were few if any Colleges or Universities meant to educate the working class. This arrangement is how a free market works and there is no social justice in a free market economy. Opportunity, though available is more often unreachable but by the few and that’s the normal way things should work. Those who seek social justice believe that the government has a responsibility to “level the playing field” as it were, provide the same ease of access to opportunity that the wealthy ruling class already have. That is social engineering that perverts the natural social order.

          I happen to be a libertarian and am not concerned about social justice as a concept. I’m more concerned about individuals having the liberty to seek happiness as they see happiness. I understand there are types like you and your journalist friend who see things differently than I do, that both of you seek to limit liberty of one group to provide opportunity for the groups you most align with. But both of you have isolated yourselves to your own ideologies and battle out for power and control of others. I don’t seek power over other, I seek liberty only for myself and both of you are the enemy of liberty and as such an enemy of mine.

    • mdinaz

      I gave my kids a very simple explanation of taxes. I instructed them to go to their piggy banks and bring me a quarter. When they did so I stuck it in my pocket and walked away. Of course they were all “hey! I want my quarter back!”. I said “it’s only a quarter, you won’t miss it”. “Well what are you gong to do with it?” “Whatever I want. End of the tax lesson”.

    • ladykrystyna

      You just can’t fix stupid.

    • Cassandra Sabrina Powell

      OH MY GOD. You are joking right? ?????

      • dginga

        I wish.

    • fatheromallley

      Actually your long explanation did not address to the reason Why we had the bubble to begin with. The answer lies in the Democratic Black Caucus, the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act, Barney Frank, Chis Dodd and suits brought be Clinton and Janet Reno against banks who were not granting loans to those least able to pay. From there it mushroomed into derivatives. Social Justice laws and regulations historically never work. Now we are doing the exact same through Obama’s administration. We are now creating yet another bubble.

      • dginga

        You are absolutely correct, but I just set out to tell one illustrative story about the topic of the article, which was social justice math, and not to write my dissertation on the history of the housing bubble and the great economic collapse of 2007-2008. Some commentors are blowing this whole thing w-a-a-y out of proportion.

    • John

      That story is utterly amazing but you are right, this is why the country is so screwed up

    • ThirtyNineWinks

      I like how (in the upside-down mortgage example) both the seller and the bank obviously know the future, it’s only the buyer who is a clueless dope.

    • Pam Dunn

      “Journalism Majors”, as with “Education Majors” are NOT noted for the great degree of intelligence; NONE is required in their Majors and they are Generally in the BOTTOM THIRD of any college graduating class. Look at those with PhD’s in those majors; Nothing but total ignorance and stupidity.

      • dginga

        Several years ago I read Thomas Sowell’s book “Inside American Education” where he documented that the vast majority of Schools of Education at American universities have the students with the lowest SAT and ACT scores among incoming freshmen. I’m not saying that there aren’t some smart, dedicated teachers out there – some of them are friends of mine – but there sure are some dumb ones too. I don’t know about the composite scores in Journalism schools, but I do know from reading the news, the internet and watching journalists on TV, a lot of them don’t even understand what they are reading off the teleprompter, and far too many cannot write a coherent sentence. The young woman I was talking about was smart enough to get into an Ivy League university, but then, so was Ted Kennedy. I guess I’d describe my young acquaintance as highly intelligent, but she doesn’t have the sense to come in out of the rain.

    • Mike Collver

      That would have to be called “OBAMAnomics”! Just like now they are letting those who have college debt, go free! Just like my kids used to always ask for a “do over”

    • John Taylor

      Real life example of this exact same story. My old next door neighbor had bought his house at a market low, around $240k. He sold it 12 years later for around $700k and moved from L.A. area to Phoenix area. He had been in Phoenix a few years and I contacted him and he told me that he thought the bank had ripped him off. He took the cash he had out of the deal, around $500k and invested it in to TWO houses, one for him and his wife, the other for his kid’s family. He paid around $700k for these two houses and when their combined value fell to around $400k he honestly felt that the bank owed him for the losses.

      • Jim

        I bought a bargain “fix er-up-er”. I paid $750 for a story and a half corner lot.Yes, that’s 7 hundred 50 dollars. We borrowed against the value and rebuilt the upstairs. Over the years we added student loans and credit card debt to the mortgage…repeatedly. I signed for every increase in my debt. My name! My reputation! My debt! I would be ashamed to ask anyone else to pay for my mistakes.

    • Michael Sullivan

      I’m sure her mommy and daddy still pay her bills too, so how do you expect her to understand money.

    • BlueViolets

      Your story made me want to cry. For you, for me, for her and for our country. With a mind set like hers we are truly doomed.

    • tonybigs

      The mathematics isn’t even that difficult (from the journalist’s point of view): 2-1=2 and 2+1=3. Why? Because subtracting “1” isn’t fair.

      I bet in their poison “ivy league” school grading was done on some weird curve where those who scored 50% received 75% and those who scored 100% received 75%.

    • Ellen Nichtern

      This was so scary that this girl really believes this

    • Karen Zappavigna Hoogland

      Wow, this Ivy League journalist really does not have a clue about how the real world works. I’m guessing she is also in the group that thinks student loan debt should be forgiven.

    • Cisco0003

      well there is also the Biblical answer…forgive debts every 7 years for everyone and start over!!! now that is real social justice…..

    • Landree

      Where, exactly, in the Common Core math standard ( http://www.corestandards.org/Math/ ) does it teach asking a seller to reconsider a deal? Of course, the math standard does not teach this idea. Being an MBA, you should have explained the concept of risk. You should have informed this girl that buyers and sellers knowingly enter into binding contracts for deals that have inherent financial risks. The Common Core math standard is not teaching this kind of thinking and I challenge anyone to specifically point where in the math standard they think it does.

      • dginga

        Oh for heaven’s sake, Landry, I never said my example was in Common Core and you’re a bozo for assuming that. I was illustrating how a young, hipster uber-leftie sees the world. And I DID explain how markets work and how risk works, etc. My conversation with this young journalist took HOURS, but I didn’t see the need to write a dissertation about it in the comment section of a blog. I foolishly assumed people reading it would get the point, but then, clearly you – a leftist – do not. Guess my point is made again. Thank you.

        • Landree

          The guest interviewed in this article is an anti-Common Core author that describes claims the standard inspires “Social Justice Math”. I assumed your example of this girl was along those lines. Anyway, this girl sounds like just another person that is ignorant and naive about the real world.

          My point is that the Common Core math standard does not teach anything about social imperatives. I have not heard a single specific negative example in the math standard. This “push-back” against higher standards is a push-back against our country’s competitiveness. I don’t understand why you consider my view leftist.

  • Guest

    If you have one Socialist sitting in the Oval Office office, and one nitwit as the Vice President of United States. How long before they destroy America? Answer: two persidential terms.

    • Allen Santee Summers

      You’re right, Conservatives do it better. Bush didn’t even need a whole term, and Reagan did it in 6 months.

      • motherall

        You’re a misinformed hater koolaid drink, now aren’t you?

        • Allen Santee Summers

          Go back to your Fox news, silly conservative. They’ve got some great creative writing skills that they try to pass off as news, you might learn a new conspiracy theory!

          • Chris Braden

            Go back to MSNBC silly liberal sheep.

          • Allen Santee Summers

            I don’t watch TV. I do my own research when I hear something, as opposed to believing every little fearmongering lie passed on by Fox and the rest of the corporate puppet conservative party.

          • Chris Braden

            Hahaha….Ohhh Mr. big shot “I do my own research” guy. How do you know that people here don’t do their OWN research? Way to prejudge people. I thought liberals were tolerant? Puppets? Hahahahaha!! This coming from the guy who sides with a party that wants government to control every aspect of their lives. SMART!

          • mealive4ever

            Where are you “researching”? Snopes? Politico? New York Times, ABC News? all such distinguished, unbiased sources. Not.

          • Allen Santee Summers

            As you can see in another reply of mine when I responded about the failure of a US company, I generally try to go straight to the source whenever possible, as well as consulting multiple sources. I never rely on news networks, online or otherwise, for all of my information. If the site I’m looking at has citations, I check them and I check the validity of the cited sources. But, you know, being an uninformed voter as Fox news likes to call it, I believe everything I read. Like the Bain Capital owned voting machines that were hacked and made people vote for Obama… Oh wait, no, they changed the vote to Romney and they had to recall the machines and take written votes… My bad.

          • jan_poster

            “being an uninformed voter as Fox news likes to call it”

            How would you know this if you don’t watch TV?

          • Allen Santee Summers

            I’ve been accused of it a few times when I’ve corrected somebody who posted bad information that they got from Fox news with the real information along with sources. Such as the Bain Capital voting machines incidents. Fox News tried to say that the machines were forcing a vote for Obama, but a little investigation showed that the machines in Pennsylvania were, in fact, owned by Bain Capital, and they were switching votes to Romney, a fact later explained away by Bain Capital as being a “rogue patch”.

          • Jim

            And the video of people who claimed they voted multiple times weren’t valid.

          • Jim

            So when you read Glenn Beck’s books, you checked all the sources. I assume you’ve read the books since this is a Beck forum. He footnotes everything.

          • Jim

            My guess…the Onion.

          • allenisanidiot

            *He says as he jerks off to CNN*

          • Chris Braden

            Hahahaha!

          • ladykrystyna

            You are on a conservative website run by Glenn Beck. This ain’t MSNB-Hee Haw, pajama boy.

          • Allen Santee Summers

            I know, I’m speaking in logic and reason, and in some cases, citing direct statistical sources. People still don’t understand me. That’s how I can tell this is a conservative site.

          • ladykrystyna

            No, you are not. You are spewing talking points.

      • Invicta81

        It appears that you’re stupid enough to believe that either party is headed in the right direction.

  • ProudOKIE1909

    How can they even consider reformatting the SAT and ACT when entire states, such as my home state of OKLAHOMA have repealed common core? And many other states are in the process of repealing it. Please somebody enlighten me.

    • Allen Santee Summers

      I lived in Oklahoma for 10 years. If any state needs an education overhaul, it’s that state. About 25% of the state can’t even read, and that’s not an exaggeration.

  • Allen Santee Summers

    Oh no, they want to bring real world concepts into the school system. How horrible.

    • benhur

      Fairness Alert. These are Left-Agenda concepts. I doubt you would have the same sympathy for Right-Agenda concepts

      • Allen Santee Summers

        You’re right, I don’t, because they’re inherently flawed and mostly lack any semblance of logic or reasoning.

        • benhur

          OK, here’s one: A minority shop owner in a minority community finds that local youth are stealing about $250/week from his store. If he wants to catch the thieves, he will have to pay a Security Guard $15/hour to watch the store. The main hours when the stealing occurs is between 3:00pm and 5:30pm during the school week. How much money will he save by hiring the Security Guard during those hours each week?

          • Allen Santee Summers

            62.50, but that doesn’t say if the 250 is pre-markup or post-markup. That could be at cost, markup value at standard rate would equal, at minimum, double the merchandise base cost.
            Anyway, the fact that it says minority is slightly annoying, but I don’t see people as minority. Human is human, and we’re all deserving of the same rights, no matter what skin color or sexual orientation.

          • benhur

            I believe you said that a right-slanted question would be inherently flawed and would lack any semblance of logic or reasoning. I just gave you one, and you answered it. So can you tell me where the flaws and lack of reasoning is in that question.

          • ladykrystyna

            He’s going to need some ice for that burn.

            Well done.

          • Allen Santee Summers

            Wow, you clearly can’t read. Glad to see your education paid off.

        • ladykrystyna

          Exactly the response I expected from a brain dead leftist.

    • Delphinus13

      No, they want to bring bogus, Socialist concepts in, and use math problems as another way to socialize the children. Socialism has proven a failure everywhere it’s been tried.

      • Allen Santee Summers

        And the trickle down theory and flat tax has proven a failure everywhere it’s been tried.

        • Delphinus13

          We had a “flat tax” in America until 1916. The rate was 0%. Our nation grew and prospered greatly during its first 127 years.
          Why don’t you provide some examples of where a flat tax has “proven a failure?” I cannot think of any.

          • Allen Santee Summers

            One word. France.
            Or do you not read or watch any news other than Fox news?

          • allenisanidiot

            hahah wow some people are ignorant

          • Allen Santee Summers

            Some people clearly don’t know how to pick up a newspaper.

          • ladykrystyna

            France tried to tax the crap out of all the millionaires. Millionaires left.

            Here in America we have the highest corporate income tax rate and guess what, companies are moving their HQs.

            The one who isn’t getting it is you, sport.

          • Delphinus13

            France? That’s what you have? Really!? I guess you haven’t noticed Greece in the last few years. I guess you haven’t watch the RECENT news of France and their government essentially dissolving. Oh, and I watched that report on both CNN International and BBC. Meanwhile, all Rachel Maddow wanted to talk about last night for the entirety of her show was some pipe dream about some ties with a Mitch McConnell campaign manager and an Iowa political corruption case. I suggest you turn off the clowns at MSNBC and watch some real news.

            So if we were to scrap our entire tax code and start over, you’d just reimplement the labyrinthine 72,000-page mess we have now? No. You’d start with a Flat tax, and that would be the most fair system. The purpose of taxes is to generate revenue to fund government activities. Not “social justice,” not social engineering, not mass behavioral modification. It’s sole purpose is to generate revenue. Period.

          • Delphinus13

            One word. America! 0% tax rate worked great here from 1789-1916, over 127 years. During that time we grew from the original 13 states to a great country that spanned the continent.

        • ladykrystyna

          You really are a kool aid drinking moron.

        • Jim

          Believe it or not, it actually does work…and use the correct terminology. It’s not “trickle down”, it’s supply side economics. Explain to me how the flat tax is a failure? Where was it tried that it failed? I seem to remember that when the USSR broke up, they tried it and it was a huge success. I also remember a story about Puerto Rico cutting taxes and reducing the size of government…success! Were these just flukes? The big problem in America isn’t our tax rate(it’s part of it, business uncertainty, etc), the big problem is government spending. Article 1 Section 8 spells out where the fed can legally spend money. Bailing out businesses and banks isn’t listed. No business is too big to fail! Forcing people to buy health care isn’t listed either. The 10th Amendment gives everything else to the states. If Massachusetts wants to provide cradle to grave care, Iowa shouldn’t be forced to pay for it. Read a little about Calvin Coolidge. He was President during the roaring 20’s. He reduced the size of government and the country flourished! Reagan did the same thing. Get the government out of the way and the people will prosper. I wish he had shut down the DOE when he had the opportunity. Will everyone succeed? Of course not. Freedom of opportunity doesn’t guarantee results. If you fail, learn from your mistakes and try again. Watch the Milton Friedman videos on youtube. The man was a free market genius!

    • ladykrystyna

      War casualties and liquor stores are “real world” for kids? Not going to the grocery store or balancing a checkbook?

      I don’t want to live where you live, buddy.

  • JLI53

    Here’s a question. If you don’t think enough people believe in your theory of global warming, how much tax can you place on fuel to make them suffer.

    • Krimsen King

      and how much profit can people make on a necessity for civilization like ‘fuel’… and how long can we deplete a limited resource before we try to find alternatives to this ‘fuel’…. good question haha ;)

      • ladykrystyna

        We have tons of oil and natural gas. Tons.

        http://www.steynonline.com/6540/settled-science-catches-up-with-steyn

        Apparently there is no global warming. We were right.

        • Krimsen King

          yes… all the non-scientist and political opponents of a scientific theory are correct, and the scientists who study it and explain it are somehow ‘wrong’… as they would explain if you would listen… a SLOWING or even HALTING of the trend in the climate (warming), in fact DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE TREND IS ENDED… just because the warming slows or even stops, this doesn’t mean that the overall warming trend is over, or that we are back to a pre-warming level of climate… and we may have ‘tons’ of oil and natural gas, but they are still EXTREMELY LIMITED, and the larger human society grows and develops, the more DEMAND on these EXTREMELY LIMITED RESOURCES, and the higher the profits will be for companies that manage to exploit these resources… yes… you’re right… the system’s just hummin along just fine…. good grief….

          • ladykrystyna

            The mistake you make is in thinking that there is a such thing as scientific consensus. There is not. That’s not science. That’s dogma.

            You apparently didn’t read the article very well – it’s an admission that there is a cycle of warming and cooling. There is no trend towards ONLY one or the other. That is “climate change”. It happens.

            I’m fine with alternative fuels, but that’s up to the market to decide not my tax dollars. And for all that alternative fuel crap – solar farms are frying birds, wind farms are filleting birds and environmentalists have protested against both (the wind farms specifically were protested against based on the fact that the cables running across the desert floor in CA were a danger to local wildlife).

            Heck, I remember when Natural Gas was the big thing and now fracking is going to kill us all.

            You guys have ZERO credibility. ZERO. And any person with a modicum of common sense knows this.

            There is no “trend”. There are cycles.

            “The cycle naturally produces periods of roughly 30 years in which heat is stored near the surface of the Atlantic Ocean, leading to warmer temperatures, followed by roughly 30 years in which it is stored in the depths, causing cooler surface temperatures, it suggests…

            “When the internal variability that is responsible for the current hiatus switches sign, as it inevitably will, another episode of accelerated global warming should ensue,” the study concludes.

            Prof Ka-Kit Tung of the University of Washington, one of the report’s authors, said: “Historically the cool period lasted 20 to 35 years. The current period already lasted 15 years, so roughly there [are] 10 more years to go.”

            Try reading next time.

          • Krimsen King

            THE ‘MARKET’ CAN NOT JUST ‘DECIDE’ THINGS… the ‘market’ is only the basic system we work within… some things CANNOT and SHOULD NOT be based solely on profit… one of these, clearly, is ENERGY… ‘market forces’ are not the hand of the Almighty… they are HUMAN trends that must be carefully overseen and yes, REGULATED, so that we don’t slide backwards into feudalism and OLIGARCHY, the natural end result of ‘unrestrained free market solutions’.

          • ladykrystyna

            “some things CANNOT and SHOULD NOT be based solely on profit… ”

            Like what?

            I have family that survived Nazis and Commies. Please try and impress me with how wonderful socialism is.

            “they are HUMAN trends that must be carefully overseen and yes, REGULATED, so that we don’t slide backwards into feudalism and OLIGARCHY”

            The over-regulation causes the oligarchy. It is not caused by the free market and limited government.

          • Krimsen King

            you realize that EVERY weak, ‘limited’ government ALL OVER THE WORLD has become an oligarchy… and I never said anything about ‘socialism’.. you don’t have to be a ‘socialist’ to believe that some things cannot be based solely on profit in a civilized society… CIVILIZATION should mean that anyone has basically equal opportunities (NOT RESULTS)… this CANNOT happen with profiteers plundering our education, healthcare and energy systems… take a look… what are the worst systems in our country? THE ONES THAT HAVE BEEN “PRIVATIZED” AND SHOULDN’T HAVE BEEN… try to understand that just because you believe you disagree with someone, this does not place them on some opposing ‘side’…

          • ladykrystyna

            “you realize that EVERY weak, ‘limited’ government ALL OVER THE WORLD has become an oligarchy… and I never said anything about ‘socialism’.”

            Name one.

            ” you don’t have to be a ‘socialist’ to believe that some things cannot be based solely on profit in a civilized society…”

            Like what?

            ” this CANNOT happen with profiteers plundering our education, healthcare and energy systems… take a look… what are the worst systems in our country? THE ONES THAT HAVE BEEN “PRIVATIZED” AND SHOULDN’T HAVE BEEN…”

            Which ones?

            You make a lot of statements and provide zero evidence.

          • Krimsen King

            very well… russia, china, brazil, thailand, mexico, etc. etc…. weak governments allow the very few, very wealthiest to control ALL ASPECTS of society… by definition, OLIGARCHY.. and now, we have followed these brutal, oppressive systems… can’t you tell? As for civilization… the basic necessities of survival in a society cannot be based SOLELY on profit.. the things like education, healthcare, infrastructure, energy, food, water… not that profit must somehow be completely excluded from these systems, just that they cannot and should not be SOLELY BASED on profit… if you notice, the systems that I’ve mentioned that have been largely privatized are the MOST profitable and LEAST effective.

          • ladykrystyna

            Russia? Communist and now fascist.

            China? Authoritarian/Monarchy and now Communist still

            Brazil? Socialist

            Mexico? Socialist

            “Weak” governments? Maybe they were weak before the commies/socialists came, but they did not resemble our country at all.

            Yes, they are all oligarchies in a way, but they are all run by leftists. You lose.

            “As for civilization… the basic necessities of survival in a society cannot be based SOLELY on profit.. the things like education, healthcare, infrastructure, energy, food, water… not that profit must somehow be completely excluded from these systems, just that they cannot and should not be SOLELY BASED on profit…”

            Which basically is a form of socialism. And directly against our Constitution. You lose.

          • Krimsen King

            I DON’T CARE WHAT THE OLIGARCHS CALL THEMSELVES… ‘communist’, ‘monarch’, ‘dictator’, ‘president’… I JUST DON’T CARE, they are still oligarchs, still brutal oppressors and still INCREDIBLY WRONG AND EVIL… we all lose.

          • ladykrystyna

            So then you agree that any form of statism – communism, fascism, socialism – is bad. Because they all lead to some form of oligarchy.

            You basically proved my point. Thanks for playing.

          • Allen Santee Summers

            Australia: Liberal country. Profiting bigtime. Also, cold war’s over. FYI.

          • ladykrystyna

            Australia has gotten more conservative recently.

            Sweden took a bad downturn in the 1990s and had to go more free market.

            Cold War’s over? Tell that to Putin as he heads into Ukraine.

          • Allen Santee Summers

            Ukraine isn’t the US.

          • ladykrystyna

            That’s what we like to call a Non Sequitur.

            You really are a moron.

          • Allen Santee Summers

            Not really. The implication was that we’re still locked into the possibility of an all out nuclear war with Russia, and that there was also the threat of Russian military boots on US soil. That isn’t the case. Ukraine is the one under immediate threat. Not the United States.

          • ladykrystyna

            I never said otherwise, dumb ass. The point is the Cold War is not over. Really never was.

          • Allen Santee Summers

            You’re not doing duck and cover drills, are you? The Soviet Union still broke up in 89, right? There aren’t missiles pointed directly at the US from Russia, are there? Cold war with Russia is over. The real threats you should be looking at are the ones from ISIS, and the repeated successful government funded hacking of the US Government systems and the US corporations and banks by the Chinese. The threat is no longer nuclear, it’s technological, and this is only the start. I believe it’s only a matter of time before ISIS and China develop a partnership.

          • ladykrystyna

            You really have a very shallow understanding of the world.

            I do know about the threat from ISIS.

            Did you see this: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/386694/judicial-watch-feds-bulletin-describes-threat-imminent-terrorist-attack-southern

            Doesn’t mean that Putin is also not a problem. Or China.

            Or Iran.

            And this is what the world looks like when we have a President that retreats from the world and leads from behind.

          • Allen Santee Summers

            You only get your information from conservative news sites, huh?
            Not exactly a reliably unbiased source. Russia isn’t the threat. The big issue with Ukraine that’s driving Putin is that a percentage of the population wants to merge with Russia. It’s not a re-emerging of the USSR, it’s Putin taking advantage of the situation. North Korea, ISIS, China. If we’re in a cold war with anybody, it’s those three. Your problem seems to be that you only have your right eye open. Gotta look with the left one too in order to see the whole picture. North Korea’s not a huge threat, but it’s one to pay attention to. Mr Kim Fullofhimself was raised with an ego and he likes to posture a lot, so far at the expense of his own countrymen, but he seems to be developing delusions of godhood.

          • ladykrystyna

            No, jack ass. I happened to catch that while surfing the net.

            See also: http://www.drudgereport.com/

            And if you try googling it (I used the title of the piece to do so), no major news organization is covering it. Not Reuters nor AP is listed there.

            So guess what, sometimes I can’t get my news everywhere because everywhere doesn’t cover all of it. Which says a lot about most news organizations.

            They covered the British raising their threat level though.

          • Allen Santee Summers

            Maybe some of it’s made up like Fox does? They actually went to court to defend their right to lie on air. Transcripts are public domain, too lol. It’s not surprising that Britain raised their threat level. They’re practically next door, and last I checked, David Cameron was a paranoid conservative.

          • ladykrystyna

            Seriously? It’s made up? That’s what you got?

            At the same time telling me I should be worried about ISIS.

            You are obsessed with Fox. You should see someone about that.

            Basically, you are a one note guy.

          • Allen Santee Summers

            Yeah but I can keep going for hours.

          • ladykrystyna

            Yeah, because you are doing nothing but spewing hot air.

          • Allen Santee Summers

            Sure, if that’s what you like to tell yourself to feel better about being wrong, go for it.

          • ladykrystyna

            I’m not wrong, sport.

          • oopso42

            That was a 1936-1938 German argument? The events based on a lie in the Ukraine where not going his way so he had to
            invade. What you are not observing is this is about the reformation of the confederation of the 10 better known as the CIS.

          • Jim

            Our biggest threat is internal. We have a government that refuses to close our borders. We have no idea who is coming across or what they are bringing with them. Has the muslim brotherhood infiltrated? ISIS? Does anyone even know?

          • Jim

            Are you saying that safe, clean water should be free? It is a necessity for life, after all. If you take the profit motive away, why would anyone open or operate a water treatment facility? What would be my incentive to risk my money drilling for oil, or growing a crop of corn or wheat? If you think these things should be free, who will provide them?

          • Krimsen King

            WE DO… it’s called a government OF, BY, AND FOR THE PEOPLE… when it was still a freely and fairly elected democratic system and not the brutal and disgusting OLIGARCHY we have actually, technically become… NO, friend… actually PROFIT IS NOT THE BEST BASIS FOR WATER TREATMENT, OR INFRASTRUCTURE OR EDUCATION OR ENERGY OR ANY OF THE BASIC NEEDS OF CIVILIZATION… but OF COURSE, this does not mean that profit must somehow be EXCLUDED from the system… OBVIOUSLY it cannot and should not be… but we can base the overall systems for these things on a SERVICE-based, NON-PROFIT model like any other NECESSARY services… profiteering degrades the service, and ALL OF SOCIETY.

      • in_awe

        Limited resource? As liberals cried wolf each decade starting in the 1960’s, the worldwide reserves of energy have grown faster than consumption drew them down. With the advent of fracking and energy production on non-Federal lands the domestic reserves will give the US energy independence for at least a century.

        Next you’ll tell us that food production can’t possibly keep up with population growth. We have been hearing that since the 1960’s, too.

        Man, you guys never give up even when facts (not computer models) prove you wrong time after time after time.

        • Krimsen King

          by definition, fossil fuels are LIMITED… these are OBVIOUSLY not the best sources of energy as EVENTUALLY THEY WILL RUN OUT… this is, by definition again, NOT SUSTAINABLE.. as for food production… you seem blissfully unaware of famines, shortages and wars all around the world caused by their DWINDLING FOOD RESOURCES… you should not assume that someone you believe you disagree with belongs to some opposing ‘side’ or group.

          • in_awe

            Actual carbon fuel reserves are increasing daily faster than rates of consumption. I assume that work will continue on alternative energy sources so in the 200 years that it will take to “exhaust” carbon fuels we will be using alternative sources.

            Any amount of research will show that most famines are politically sourced. I am anything but “blissful”, I just rely on facts. Stop governments from absconding with foreign monetary and food aid and most famines would never occcur. Stop Islamic radicals from laying waste to agricultural areas and crops would be larger. Stop idiot environmentalists from pushing their genetic mutation crap and more people would be fed. Stop the American government from mandating ethanol to push up profits of crony capitalists and environmental zealots and more food stocks would be available at lower costs.

          • Krimsen King

            most famines don’t have just one source, ‘political’ or otherwise… and to alleviate problems like famines, we must understand ALL of these sources so we don’t try to solve them by ‘fixing’ just one small part of the problem… and for fluke’s sake, GET THE MONEY OUT OF OUR ELECTORAL SYSTEM… it corrupts ALL our politicians, REGARDLESS OF POLITICAL PARTY OR IDEOLOGY.

  • Darrin Santay

    God, that woman is stunningly beautiful.

    • Yo Mamma

      for a poor white

  • Fio

    Being a cashier I’m use to counting change back to my customers. Now one day lady in her late 40s (I’m in my late 20s) made a very small purchase with a $100 bill. When I finished counting the amount back to her, she looked at me with utter disgust, and promptly counted the amount she had received. She finished by snapping at me that she did things “the Common way”. Now, I understand. She never got to learn if she had 13 cents and a green pencil costs 3 cents she’d get a dime. I’m so excited we’re shooting to pull applying everyday math out of our school systems.

    • ladykrystyna

      My mom is 71. She learned how to count change back when she was like 15 working at Woolworth’s in England.

      If someone did it for me, I would know exactly what she was doing. Shame that there are Americans out there that do not.

      • Yo Mamma

        Good olde woolies

  • Leslie Merrill

    I just ordered my homeschool books….they’re Common Core aligned, unfortunately. But I will use this opportunity to point things out to my child that I see as wrong. So maybe we’ll have more lessons than expected, but he’ll come out the wiser for them. Bring it CC…I will tear you down.

  • Connor

    Flat tax system is the best system. We need to streamline our education system. Get the feds out of it. Let State and Local gov. deal with it. Corporations that are bailed out by gov. isn’t the problem it’s that the government has the power to do so at all. The biggest mistake ever made was teh government getting involved in the Great Depression.

    • Allen Santee Summers

      Cuz that worked so well for France. So well, in fact, that they’re currently in the process of dissolving their government because they can’t afford to operate.

      • Connor

        That isn’t because of the flat tax system.. use your head. It was the government adopting the system and continuing to spend more then they took in. Simple mathematics mate. Using France as an example is intellectually dishonest when you don’t give the full story.

  • Landree

    Where are the Common Core tests showing the social math questions? I took a Common Core math test didn’t notice any such questions. On the contrary, I found the math test to be excellent. If this country doesn’t stop whining about fictional federal control of education, which Common Core is not, we will continue falling behind the world in math, science and consequently innovation and a sound economy.

    • Krimsen King

      well said… we must stop these ridiculous FALSE debates about whether ‘government should be involved’ in education… WE ARE OUR GOVERNMENT… or at least we were before we became this hideous OLIGARCHY… of course, we should have national standards for education… but in the new political/religious cult, contrarians beg to differ… every man for himself.. no, every child for himself, too…. brilliant…

      • ladykrystyna

        No we should not have national standards. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the federal gov’t has the power over education. That’s the 10th Amendment – it belongs to the state. And ultimately it belongs to the local school board and parents.

        You and your buddy Landree really like bootlicking, don’t you?

        • Krimsen King

          wonderful perceptions…. sheesh… so we should not have national standards because it is not specifically spelled out in the Constitution… well, I suppose this benighted view is why we DON’T have national standards… but just because something is not spelled out specifically in the Constitution, this does not make it unconstitutional or wrong… so…. aside from this misinterpretation of founding documents… WHY should we not have national standards for our education system? Are we not all trying to educate from the same human knowledge base?? Does everyone not need to know the same basic knowledge?? Please, do go on…..

          • ladykrystyna

            “so we should not have national standards because it is not specifically spelled out in the Constitution… ”

            Do I stutter, sport?

            “but just because something is not spelled out specifically in the Constitution, this does not make it unconstitutional or wrong”

            Um, yes it does. So say the 9th and 10th Amendments.

            “WHY should we not have national standards for our education system? Are we not all trying to educate from the same human knowledge base?? Does everyone not need to know the same basic knowledge??”

            Why do you think that bureaucrats in D.C. can figure out what can be done in your small town or city or suburban neighborhood? Good standards will be followed similarly as they were before the feds got involved.

            Since they became involved, our scores have all plummeted, our high school drop out rate has skyrocketed and we are behind everyone in the industrialized world.

            A prominent mathematician at Berkeley said that Common Core Math was horrible and will only cause us to fall further behind.

          • Krimsen King

            bureaucrats are people, too… and why are people at the local level better equipped to develop educational standards than anyone else?? Why should educational standards be different for different states??? An opinion by one mathematician from wherever is not necessarily correct… u know, these are the substantive debates our politicians SHOULD be having, rather than the ridiculous nonsensical partisan bickering over whether we should have national standards at all… OBVIOUSLY, WE SHOULD… it is not the standards that ’cause us to fall further behind’.. it is POOR POLICY developed by PATHETIC, PROFITEERING POLITICIANS instead of freely and fairly elected representatives.

          • ladykrystyna

            Because people at the local level know the people they will be teaching. Different areas may have need of different things, different ways of learning. We are not a “one size fits all country”. We are a REPUBLIC.

            “An opinion by one mathematician from wherever is not necessarily correct.”

            She’s the top mathematician in the country, you dolt.

            No we do not need nor should we have national standards.

          • Krimsen King

            ok… so direct, personal knowledge of the students is necessary for formulating education standards… and anyone at the local level knows the students in that area, huh… interesting thesis… please, do explain further… you dolt hahaha ;)

          • ladykrystyna

            So basically you have no counter argument, just insults.

            Typical.

          • CongressWorksForUs

            Don’t feed the trolls…

          • Krimsen King

            hahaha no… STEREOTYPICAL… and just like a good little stereotype, you don’t explain when I ask simply and nicely… oh well ;)

          • $114759097

            High school drop out rates have gone down. And, for whatever reason, our children have never tested well on those international comparisons. This isn’t something new.

        • $114759097

          Aside from Constitutional issues, why should education standards be different in Mississippi and Massachusetts?

      • Jim

        No! National standards removes an element of competition between the states. I live in Iowa. If I see the Illinois school systems outperforming us, I have the option to move, or better yet, find out what they’re doing and get my local school to copy it. Yes, I said local! Not state. Competition breeds innovation. Some things are tried, tested, and proven. Do grade schools still use flash cards or multiplication tables? We had to memorize all those basics. We also had handwriting(including printing and cursive), spelling, grammar, etc. Compare 8th grade tests from the 1900’s to today. Good luck!

        • Krimsen King

          YES, what a wonderful nonsensical PLATITUDE.. ‘competition breeds innovation’… yes, it can sometimes… usually not… but it always SOUNDS nice, don’t it…. good grief STOP BASING YOUR PERSONAL PHILOSOPHIES AND IDEOLOGIES ON BUMPER STICKERS….

          • Jim

            So…instead of one school trying Common Core and discovering what a complete monstrosity it is, you’d rather it be imposed on everyone in the nation. Common Core is actually an innovative idea. Yes! Innovation! One school could try it and if it works, the neighboring school could adapt it. If it fails, the school board would be voted out and something else would be tried. Innovation! Competition! On the local level, it might have some merit, if only as an example of idiocy. If only that damn Constitution didn’t limit the power of the Fed. Just show me where Article 1 Section 8 gives the Fed any authority over education. Oh wait…they ignore it anyway. Instead, explain to me how education is better today than it was in the late 1800’s, early 1900’s! Are high school grads ready to enter the workforce?(Allowing them to get work experience before age 16 is another topic) Do they know why America is different from Mexico? Can they balance a checkbook? If they have the aptitude, are they ready for college?(No, not everyone needs college) Do they even know we have a Constitution or what it says? It’s only 4400 words. Have you read it? It’s written in English, not legalese. It’s not hard to read. Try it! You might discover something you’ve missed.

          • Krimsen King

            what was this a response to?
            pathetic arrogant nonsense, to boot… real nice….

          • Jim

            Yes. It was a response to pathetic arrogant nonsense.

          • Krimsen King

            brilliant…. thanks……… hahahahahaha ridiculous indeed

          • Jim

            Do you prefer cherry or grape in your cool-aid?

          • Krimsen King

            be more specific

          • Jim

            Do you seriously not know why the Founders limited the power of the Fed? You can’t be that clueless. Imagine if I were king and decided to impose my will on everyone. In my mind, it would be wonderful. You might not agree. That’s what the Constitution is designed to prevent. Read it!

          • Krimsen King

            EVERYONE HAS READ THE CONSTITUTION… obviously, different people have different interpretations as to its true meaning… hence, the Civil War, etc… cutting programs that people rely on is NOT the only way to limit the ‘power of the Fed’, nor is it REMOTELY the best way… not to mention, the ‘Fed’ doesn’t necessarily always NEED to be ‘limited’… obviously it does today, but also obviously, NOT BY CUTTING PROGRAMS FOR THE POOR… by cutting intrusive agencies… u know, like the HUNDREDS of REDUNDANT and barely legal ‘intelligence’ and ‘security’ agencies… or by limiting the reckless, aimless growth of the defense budget… it has been increasing EXPONENTIALLY for decades now, far beyond anyone’s requests or requirements within the military… try not to forget… the idea behind American democracy was that we NEED NOT FEAR THE POWER OF GOVERNMENT if WE THE PEOPLE ARE THE GOVERNMENT.. of course, in the oligarchy we’ve become, our voice is practically silenced.

    • ladykrystyna

      I’ve already seen some Common Core math. Haven’t seen the social justice stuff yet (that may be confined to only certain areas of the country or within each state), but I’ve seen the basics of it and it’s ridiculous and stupid. Math is math. Now it’s about drawing pictures, etc.

      • intheknow

        And it’s not just math. It involves changes in English classes as well. CC will/has taken Am Lit out of HS. AM Lit is very challenging reading and definitely prepares students for college. CC was put together with the belief that all children will learn the same and perform the same, kind of like there are no winners, there are no losers, (everyone gets a trophy), thus will be able to go to college. I really hate to think that a young adult who really won’t be able to do a simple math problem or be able to read and understand something for a chemistry class will be allowed to graduate and go off to college to become a Scientist.

        • ladykrystyna

          I know. I also learned that in “Language Arts”, there is no more spelling. Just vocabulary. As long as you get the meaning right, you don’t have to spell the word correctly.

          ~facepalm~

          Thank God my kids are good spellers.

      • Landree

        I totally disagree. The high school math test that I took was an excellent assessment of preparation for calculus and differential equations.

        • ladykrystyna

          How nice for you. The math I’ve seen in grade school already has been horrendous.

          • Landree

            How is this nice for me?

          • ladykrystyna

            That you had a good experience. I can’t really speak to it because I wasn’t there looking at your test.

            Many of the rest of us have seen things that tell us this is not a good thing.

          • Landree

            What in this math standard to do you think is problematic? http://www.corestandards.org/Math/Practice/

  • Erin Evans

    If you want a pro life version of this Lutherans for life has math curriculum

  • SeeMore7

    I haven’t seen this on any of my third grader’s CC math pages what grade
    is this happening with? There are a lot of other dumb aspects of her
    math but so far nothing about calculating deaths in war. Where is the actual proof
    this is happening?

    • $114759097

      There isn’t. Just click on some of the links. The lengths to which they go to tie things together is some insidious plot is amusing.

  • mdinaz

    Here’s a question. If you drive your Prius to the health food store to buy a can of dolphin-safe tuna, are you still white?

    • Yo Mamma

      As long as its white tuna

    • Jim

      If you drive a Prius, do you really need a BO bumper sticker?

      • mdinaz

        If you drive a Prius, you probably *have* B.O.

  • Michael Brian Bentley

    it looks like from the examples that “common core” isn’t necessarily related. Any updated math book according to any relevant math program criteria can qualify.

  • Teri oakes

    I’m confused on the equal work equal pay thing. I mean that law has already been passed like 25 years ago. Why are we still harping on that. Besides women get the same pay and don’t do the equal work. I mean men are always doing the physical work for her when she cant and she gers the same pay? The men should be complain about that. As a woman I love it. I do nothing and get a paycheck.

    • CongressWorksForUs

      Australia debunked the unequal pay myth.

      “Equal pay” advocates use statistics that (for example) show two lawyers with 20 years experience and the man making more money. They omit (deliberately) that the woman took off 8 years to have children. Yes they are both 20 year lawyers, but they do not both have 20 years experience practicing law.

      When all was said and done, and real data was used, women make 107 cents to the men’s dollar.

      And who is being paid unfairly?

  • MB

    You have a very narrow understanding of what mathematics is, if all you think it’s good for is shopping.

    • CongressWorksForUs

      99% of math is for shopping. Sure, not all of it is grocery story shopping; some of involves “shopping” with your paycheck — income less rent/mortgage/food/insurance/clothes = what I have left.

      I think the green pencil example will be far more helpful to people than the depth of trenches on the ocean floor.

      Remember, this is grade school math, not high school/AP/pre-college/college courses we are talking about…

    • brucesat

      Well, in a consumer oriented society that would be the only acceptable use of math. we’re not supposed to use math to enhance our understanding of the world. Look at what was said:

      “Ultimately, there is a push to insert a political and ideological bias into areas of the curriculum that should be straightforward and fact-based”

      But this is not true. What they are trying to do is change the political bias away from consumerism towards a more holistic use of information in all areas of understanding.

  • Baron Münchhausen

    There are 2 things that make civilization:

    1) standards
    2) the will to enforce those standards

    The Founding Fathers civilization of limited republic government Is dead. Until we can admit that, we will not win this fight. It can be restored But it won’t be because we voted our way out of it,

    • oopso42

      You forgot 3. culture it reinforce your two points or undermines them.

      • Baron Münchhausen

        I see your point. But in my mind, the Will is the culture.

        • oopso42

          The will is the legal controlling authority it is either the government or a united people that believe in the rule of law
          or cause?

      • brucesat

        I would say that culture is more important that either of the two mentioned. The culture wars ultimately boil down to which sets of stories that we tell to build the cultural framework.

        • oopso42

          Good point but history shows that happens only when a nation forgets its unity and purpose.

    • Richard Yaright

      You WILL NOT WIN at least not until you murder every one that believes in freedom and the right of the individual. But before you start trying to do that you better make damn sure you have all the guns…. Even the ones buried in drums of oil in our backyards.

  • Allison Wanamaker

    My son brought home a worksheet last yesterday. On it was a box, with a smaller box in the corner called a “tag”. Inside the tag was the number 18. The instructions said “Write ten more names for the number eighteen in the box.” And the example given was that “10+2″ is an alternative “name” for the number 12. It’s like these people don’t even speak english.

    • ladykrystyna

      Yeah, my daughter had something like that, too. It’s ridiculous.

    • BPowner

      Actually, that is a very useful activity. It forces students to understand the difference between the appearance of an arithmetic expression and the meaning of the expression. 12+6 looks very different from 9*2, but they mean the same thing.

  • JustRuss

    The closest I’ve seen so far from my childs school (5th grade) is geography math. They list the depths of 5 trenches on the ocean floor and ask the child to list them in order from deep to shallow using the names instead of the numbers.

    I’ll keep alert for anything that looks like it is agenda driven in either direction, but using geography examples is acceptible to me for “new math”. There may be a push as stated above, but as long as we keep on the lookout and question what we find, it should be fine….

    • Richard Yaright

      I have a question. Why can’t we go back to the old math? You remember it? It was where the teacher taught the math and used the book for homework. Now we have brainless teachers(and before you jump all over me I’m not talking about all teachers) that puppet what ever the book says and if the student uses a different but logical and correct way to find the answer they still get marked down because the “teacher” doesn’t know anything about math other then if it matches the picture in the book.

  • adrefs

    Social Justice math problem: Latisha is a cashier at McDonald’s and crack head Jimmy just ordered 2 Big Mac Meals, 3 Apple Pies, an extra order of fries and he wants it all Super-sized! He hands her a wad of cash from his recent transactions in the parking lot and then BAM! The power goes out. Please calculate the probability of Latisha being able to add up the order and then make change without use of her register. Multiple choice: A) 0% B) 0.00% C) 0000% D) It’s George Bush’s fault

    • intheknow

      Gotta laugh so I won’t cry because it’s too much of a reality!

  • intheknow

    Up until just recently, every state would receive X amount of $$$ for education. Now if a state refuses to implement CC, they are threatened by the Federal Government and told they will not receive any money. Talk about government takeover! Folks, this is OUR tax money! It’s things like this in how our government is taking over little by little and too many people in this country have their heads stuck in the ground. The ones that will be hurt the most—–our children!

  • Jim

    You know, what kills me about stories like this, is WHERE IS THE PROOF? They want to do this to your kids, they want to do that, there is a push for them to indoctrinate your children…etc…WHERE IS THE PROOF? Have you even bothered READING the STANDARDS? The Common Core Standards are BENIGN of anything political. Yes, the Curriculum drives progress to meet the standards, but who’s developing the curriculum? Obama? Hell no. The Federal Government? Hell No, then who? YOUR STATE AND LOCAL LEGISLATORS are developing the curriculum, or in some cases, allowing a third party company to do it for them. THAT’S WHERE YOUR ANGER SHOULD BE FOCUSED…that is IF there is any proof that that’s what “they’ are really doing. I don’t believe it. The Federal Government has only offered $$ to states who adopt common standards. There’s no gun being pointed at anyone’s head, and what kills me is states that already have $$ for education, are taking this Federal money. Tennessee, Georgia, Mississippi….all have “EDUCATION LOTTERIES”…that fund their school systems. You’ve seen the ungodly amounts of money those things generate, do you think they NEED money from the Federal Government to support their school systems? No, but they take it anyway. Common Core was adopted before Race to the Top was even mentioned, and again, ALL of it was VOLUNTARY. Please go get educated by someone who is not biased like Glenn Beck. ACT and SAT’s have been around forever….and all he’s doing is playing Chicken Little, and all you guys are falling for it.

    • Yo Mamma

      Whats your point?

    • ladykrystyna

      Benign? My youngest is in 5th grade and guess what? No spelling. Just vocabulary. You can spell the word wrong but still get points if you give the correct meaning.

      I had spelling at least through 8th grade. Vocab was high school, but even then, we got points off for not spelling a word correctly.

      As the mom sitting across from me in the meeting said (and she is black, by the way) – why can’t they do both?

      The math, same thing. Idiocy. The top mathematician in the country, who is at Berkeley, mind you, says that Common Core Math will destroy math education in this country. We will be even further behind the rest of the industrialized world.

    • Mike Barnes

      Gosh, I guess the proof is the actual pages of the actual material they are putting in front of the kids . But pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, right? Don’t believe what you see. Go back to your homes, government knows best.

    • Richard Yaright

      Lol at education lotteries…. I was in the California public school system when they started that… Zero changed… Yes those lotteries generated hundreds of millions of dollars by for every dollar that went in from the lotteries came right out to fund other stuff to drive up unemplyment and out jobs

  • http://truthofg.blogspot.com/ Connor Kenway

    And liberals wonder why we are against common core. Here is a hint it is called we do not want propaganda spoon feed to the next generation. If you idiots want a marxist utopia how about be honest about your views and win elections based on that instead of brainwashing elementary school students. Like a bunch of creeps.

  • Shane

    Here’s a math question – How many community organizers does it take to ruin a country? Answer is one, if that community organizer is President Obama.

  • http://www.hectormadrigal.com/ Hardcore (hXc) Hector Madrigal

    Is social justice bad?

    • ladykrystyna

      “social justice” is a leftist construct. So yes.

      • http://www.hectormadrigal.com/ Hardcore (hXc) Hector Madrigal

        Is that the only reason? Not everything the “leftists” do is bad. Same for the “rightists.” If it’s good for the people, then it’d good no matter who made it. No?

        • ladykrystyna

          It is not good for people. It is just a form of statism. Justice is justice. It doesn’t need any qualifiers.

          Educate yourself.

          • http://www.hectormadrigal.com/ Hardcore (hXc) Hector Madrigal

            Part of education is asking questions. Critical thinking and the such.

            Justice is justice, but social justice is not justice?

            http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/justice

          • ladykrystyna

            No, it’s statism.

            Like I said, educate yourself.

          • http://www.hectormadrigal.com/ Hardcore (hXc) Hector Madrigal

            I’m trying to understand now. Isn’t this a part of education? Asking questions and looking over some definitions and explanations of these words.

            Statism: A political system in which the state has substantial centralized control over social and economic affairs.

            Justice: the administration of law; especially : the establishment or determination of rights according to the rules of law or equity

            Social Justice: generally used to refer to a set of institutions which will enable people to lead a fulfilling life and be active contributors to their community. The relevant institutions can include education, health care, social security, labor rights, as well as a broader system of public services, progressive taxation and regulation of markets, to ensure fair distribution of wealth, equality of opportunity, and no gross inequality of outcome.

            Isn’t this all just making sure people are treated fairly and as human beings?

          • ladykrystyna

            “Social Justice: generally used to refer to a set of institutions which will enable people to lead a fulfilling life and be active contributors to their community. The relevant institutions can include education, health care, social security, labor rights, as well as a broader system of public services, progressive taxation and regulation of markets, to ensure fair distribution of wealth, equality of opportunity, and no gross inequality of outcome.”

            Read that one more time. Then check the party platform of the Democrat party (to start with; you can also check the party platforms of other leftist parties around the world).

            And you can dress all kinds of things up to look pretty. Results are what count.

            Abortion = reproductive rights

            Labor rights = unions controlling the labor markets in the public and private sector

            Progressive taxation = speaks for itself.

            “no gross inequality of outcome” = nice way to try and save that.

            “to ensure fair distribution of wealth” = now ain’t that the kicker. Don’t find those words in the Constitution, do ya?

            All of that is statist, and therefore all of that is bad for liberty.

            America was founded upon limited government and individual liberty and equal justice before the law. We had to do some tweaking along the way, but “social justice” has nothing to do with it. It’s just another way to pick a man’s pocket.

            See also The War on Poverty – poverty rate went slightly down immediately after The Great Society legislation was passed and now it’s back to the same level it was when it was passed. 50 years and nothing.

          • http://www.hectormadrigal.com/ Hardcore (hXc) Hector Madrigal

            I don’t follow parties. People who do end up supporting stuff they don’t normally support simply because their party supports it.

            A lot of words aren’t in the constitution, yet that doesn’t mean they’re bad. Hell, the founding fathers gave us the tools to change our laws and documents to coincide with the progressing world.

            America was founded on a lot of things that weren’t right, and we’ve gotten rid of some of those things.

            You seem to be focusing more on the money issue. I think what you’re trying to say is you’re a capitalist, and you’re not in support of these ideals because it goes against capitalism. You really don’t care about human justice.

            And if we’re talking poverty, so many things attribute to that. One being that giant economic crash the world had a short time ago.

          • ladykrystyna

            “Hell, the founding fathers gave us the tools to change our laws and documents to coincide with the progressing world.”

            However, the Constitution provided us with a specific KIND of government. It’s a contract between the gov’t and the People.

            If you had a contract whereby you would purchase Widget Type A from Mr. B and you had that contract for decades. And every month he would deliver Widget A.

            Then one day, he delivered Widget B instead. You would say: But I ordered Widget A. And he tells you: well, times have changed and Widget B is better, so you must accept Widget B.

            Basically Mr. B has breached your contract.

            To say that we can change the Constitution into something that doesn’t even resemble what we were given in the first place is to basically tear up the contract and throw it away. Yes, MODIFICATIONS can be made. In writing of course. But a wholesale changing of the terms of the contract is unacceptable. And a danger to liberty.

            “One being that giant economic crash the world had a short time ago.”

            Caused by statist policies that pushed “social justice” claiming everyone had a right to buy a home. No, you do not. You have negative rights, not positive rights.

            If we had the latter, then I should be able to force you to pay for the guns I want since I have a Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

            But it is not to be read that way – what I have is a negative right. I already have the natural right to keep and bear arms.. The government is prohibited from infringing on that right.

            Just like the gov’t cannot stop the manufacture or sale of birth control pills. Doesn’t mean someone else has to provide them to you.

            “You really don’t care about human justice.”

            Now, it’s “human justice”? Really? Capitalism is a form of justice because it provides freedom to contract, freedom to make your own decisions. It goes hand in hand with limited government.

            And part of that is also people making the right decisions and taking personal responsibility for themselves and individuals giving of themselves voluntarily to those who truly cannot help themselves.

          • http://www.hectormadrigal.com/ Hardcore (hXc) Hector Madrigal

            I’m not quite sure I agree with your example of the Constitution changes.

            There were no statist policies that crashes the economy. If anything, there were lack of policies. There were many illegal happenings that contributed to the crash. The tax cuts and wars didn’t exactly help the US, either.

            Human Justice, Social Justice. As you said, justice is justice. It’s what’s right is it not? I believe the word fairness was used in the definitions.

          • ladykrystyna

            “I’m not quite sure I agree with your example of the Constitution changes.”

            In what way? That it is like a contract?

            Yes there was a statist policy – it’s called the Community Reinvestment Act. It forced banks to give home loans to people that would never qualify for them otherwise. This was under the auspices of “social justice”. Then the banks bundled the mortgages to protect themselves. Surprise surprise.

            Banks should give loans to people based on their own criteria because that’s the right business decision to make.

            Tax cuts and wars – you really are a kool aid drinker, aren’t you?

            You claim you want to ask questions and learn, but you really don’t. You already have it figured out. So why bother?

            It’s not up to the gov’t to make life fair for you. Life sucks. Deal with it.

          • http://www.hectormadrigal.com/ Hardcore (hXc) Hector Madrigal

            That is not what the Community Reinvestment Act does.

            I am trying, and sort of am, learning. I’m learning from other people’s perspectives and learning these new words.

            Kool Aid drinker? Who’s Kool Aid am I drinking?

            Obviously life isn’t fair, but we try to make it. The government’s job is to control a number of things. We all know that. So if they can make those things they control fair, then that’s justice.

          • Clark Kent/Kal-El

            Yes it was a statist policy that crashed the economy. A housing bubble was created by 1. Government forcing banks, (using threats), to lower credit standards, down payments, and income requirements in the name of social justice. 2. This enabled people, ( who usually could not reasonably qualify), to write checks that their income and bad habits could not cash,therefore they defaulted. Bubble burst. Social justice is just a P.C. term for social engineering.

          • Richard Yaright

            Well, unless your using a computer at a public library your a hipocrite because your not being fair to those that don’t have a computer or a smart phone.

          • Richard Yaright

            Ummm… You might want to some more reading on that because the government has controlled the bank since the creation of the federal reserve.and while your at it you might want to read up on the great depression.

            The problem in this country isn’t capitalism its crony capitalism.

          • Richard Yaright

            Almost forgot…..so what your saying is, is everything in the constitution can be reworked to fit what ever fad is going on? So in the future to teach those white people how it feels to be slaves they can? And what fixes are you talking about anyway? Slavery was already illigel they just didn’t in force it. And how can you stop the government from deciding not to in force it down the rood if you take all our guns away?and really do we need an amendment to tell us we can drink alcohol? When it shouldn’t have been banned on the federal level in the first place. There’s always more but I’ll stop at that.

          • Richard Yaright

            Those diffenition look great and moral right. Let’s use a fictional example shall we. You have two people. The first one makes it big in the oil industry and is a billionaire because he worked hard and research where to drill. The second person as a teenager desides school isn’t for him and thinks that farming is where the money is so he goes to the nearest farmer and gets a job. As it turns out he isn’t very bright but puts in a good days work so the famer keeps him on but seeing that his new employee isn’t smart enough for a leadership role in the farm so he all way promots someone else……in this example there is a great income difference so would be deemed unfair. But how would you make it fair? Would you take half the oil guys money to give the farm hand? In the context of this example if you took money from the oil guy you would be teaching others that no matter how hard you work or how smart you are there will all way be someone less fortunate then you and your money will be taken away, and on the other hand no matter how mannt bad decisions you make or if you don’t work at all you can steal someone else’s money.

          • Charlie1503

            To me, social justice is simply the biased point of view of those currently in power. It doesn’t seek a level playing field (I.e., equal justice), but rather a skewed implementation of “fairness”. A good example is affirmative action. Some one or group must be discriminated against In order to favor other individuals or groups.

          • http://www.hectormadrigal.com/ Hardcore (hXc) Hector Madrigal

            I see what you’re saying. Affirmative action is a double edged sword. It’s not fair to those that are qualified. It’s try to be fair to race or something.

          • actionjksn

            Affirmative action will literally hire or promote a person who is less qualified, while rejecting another who is far more qualified. This is real and it happens even if human lives depend on hiring the best. If you want to get a rude awakening, Google “air traffic controllers Affirmative action”. If you fly as much as I do it will scare the sh** out of you. Here is something to get you started http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/story/25480099/controversy-surrounds-hiring-of-air-traffic-controllers

            http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304655304579551972980383170

            http://www.amren.com/news/2014/06/faa-changes-hiring-practices-for-air-traffic-controllers-ignoring-qualified-students-and-vets/

            http://viewfromthewing.boardingarea.com/2014/02/09/air-traffic-controller-may-longer-required-high-school-diploma/

        • Charlie1503

          Both sides of issues need to be considered. But what is being discussed here is the subtle indoctrination of students to a particular point of view, I.e., brainwashing. This is far different from active consideration of issues.

        • Richard Yaright

          That is correct. But that isn’t really the question. The question is it “good” for “the people” to be taught that it is OK to steal from others or that charity can be forced? Or is it better to teach “the people” that their in control of their own life and they can succeed if they work hard and smart about it. And frankly who is is more qualified to tell “the people” what they should do with my life then I?

        • Whitaker Chambers

          That is what the left wants you to believe without question.

    • oopso42

      Social justice is not based on the truth but the will, feelings and whims of the mob. If you want a Historical model Al Capone dispensed social justice so did Hitler and Stalin. It never ends well?

    • Richard Yaright

      No it isn’t. Its just that in the context that its being used isn’t justice, its revenge.

    • Whitaker Chambers

      Justice for one may discriminate against another. It is an Orwellian term with a vauge or meaningless definition.

    • Beau Diddly

      Hector, the first question you need to ask is why Lady Justice is blindfolded. That symbolism is the very reason of American Exceptionalism. Social justice is when one side, claiming historical inequality, attempts to suppress evidence and deny justice to one party while fanning the flames of a mob. It is a matter of record that facts were ignored by the media in an attempt to give social justice to Trayvon Martin and the Brown in Ferguson MO. Justice is blind and social justice is an attempt to correct for a past (or perceived) grievance.

      Neither is it’s the government’s responsibility to command an economy like you stated when referring to a recession coming as a result of tax cuts and too little gov’t regulation. Regulations and laws for capitalism should be few, just enough to ensure a fair and open market. Even true communism doesn’t ensure equal distribution. The harder you work, the smarter you work, the more you will reap. It is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY.

      Outcomes can NEVER be equal, nor should they be. Our laws and regulations should only serve to make a level playing field, the rest is up to you.

  • Nick

    kinda weird to think that this sorta thing is going to affect my career so heavily. im at college studying to be a math teacher, it just seems weird that they plan on having me teach things OTHER than math.
    in some aspects, it seems like a good idea to educate kids about the society theyre living in, especially where im from (hint hint meth capital of the world), but math class seems like a strange place to do it.

  • Richard Stephens

    “I
    had a complete set of answers to the most difficult problems now facing
    mankind. I had arrived in the cosmos while contemplating the navel of
    the ape…”

  • http://www.mrchrisg.com/ mrchrisg.com

    I went to the bank to change $100 bill, and using Common-Core math I asked for 4 $50 bills back…they didn’t like my math.

  • Xenophon

    My, how absurd. To hope that kids actually have a standardized education in mathematics. Its not like they will every use it.

  • Flash Kellam

    The lefties will try to put worms in your child’s brain any way that they can – if you let them.

  • Richard Yaright

    As a parent of four children ages 18,14,6 and 6 the education of my children is the responsibility of my wife and i and as such it is not only our job to make sure their teachers are doing theirs but to correct any misguided or missing information their given. Also as an american vet that believes in the founding princables of my nation to pass that on to them with the knowlage of why our country is great.

    • Richard Yaright

      O and my oldest graduated last year with a GPA 3.9 :)

  • Kathy Hester Johnson

    Save your old math books!

    • Richard Yaright

      I really hope were not at a point as parents that we just can’t teach our kids simple math without a book to tell us how.

  • IT 2 IT 678

    ‘Eeeek! –WALL! —-ITTY’ remains the supreme moral alibi
    of choice for the ‘GLOW BULL’ mafia.

    ‘SO SHELL’ —-‘DUH! —OUR!!!!—WIN!–ism’

    ———————–unto ‘SO SHELL’ —– – -‘JUST IS’.

    TAKE HEED!

  • Cary Davis

    Looks Like Justin is a complete dumb ass. The entire group here is not afraid to point it out either! How refreshing! Of course as a Liberal Justin will avoid the facts and keep singing his Koo-lade song!

  • Robert Donnay II

    sources?

  • cuy

    As a sixth grade math teacher, the article is being very dramatic in stating that our problems are focusing on war stats and liquor store distances. What common core does is get students to be more abstract thinkers and see different ways and approaches to solve problems. It is very different thinking them rote memorization. For a society that is always fighting for argumentation and asking “why” things are occurring, common core standards focus on students learning and understanding the “why” of math versus the standard algorithm. Not saying we are stepping away from the algorithm, believe me that those are still taught, but students are starting to learn why the algorithm works rather than just knowing how to compute with it. As an adult who only learned through memorization, it is difficult to change the thinking process, but with all the statistics and complaints about the US education system, change had to occur somewhere and I think common core is a start. It’s not perfect but definitely a starting point.

    • Whitaker Chambers

      Seems you are fully indoctrinated.

  • DirtyWhiteBoy8

    If Latoia has one apple and Jim has four apples , how racist is Jim ?

    • Bat Masterson

      Don’t you mean Kripy Kremes instead of apples?
      I just hope Jim signed up for OBAMAkare.

  • akatom3565

    Indoctrination !

  • Craig Crockett

    socialism/communism is indeed sneaking into our lives… anyone that believes that it is their duty to help the poor has accepted the first step. yea… i want my social security too… i paid for it… but i would drop it for the REALITY that the program would disappear… unfortunately the reality wont come… and i’ll collect little if any social security… i’ll be expected to pay for your health care… but it’ll be selfish for me to expect it… the government MUST hold control over its SUBJECTS… and they’ll acquire that control by any means necessary. you should EXPECT to see them take over EDUCATION,,,, as well as health care, communication, transportation, privacy, any and everything that the public holds dear must be controlled. Ask yourself one question,,, the question to which the answer has eluded me for years… WHAT DO YOU ADVISE YOUR CHILDREN TO DO?

  • Steph moon

    I am so relieved that my kids are out of school; they can think all by themselves – as opposed to being marionettes for ‘the cause’. Tolerance, my foot. These people wouldn’t know tolerance if it clocked them on their heads. They know it, too, which is why brainwashing is all they have ‘left’.

  • ddcannady

    Show a benefits recipient how much the bureacrat that dispenses their piddling check makes in salary and benefits, then ask them if that is socially just. After all, it comes from the same pool of funds taken from people who actually work for their money.

  • Bat Masterson

    Is Beck still krazying up the teaklanner kooks with Kommon Kore konundrums?