NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(Reddy @ Jan 15, 2008 -> 12:49 PM) by his own admission he was an atheist growing up and in college. he became a christian much later than kindergarten. look, i don't give a s*** what religion he is. muslim or hindu or christian i dont care. my problem with it is when it's used for political gain. Political gain? I actually read one of Obama's books a couple months back, so I could learn a little more about the man. He was not really an atheist, first of all. He was more like what a lot of Americans are - people who take their beliefs from multiple religions and influences. He got further involved in the Christian church later in his life, but BEFORE his political career started.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Jan 15, 2008 -> 12:48 PM) That's actually not correct. They absolutely have standing if they can show that the fact that Indiana is dumping things into Lake Michigan which eventually show up on the shores of Illinois or Michigan, or pollute the waters of Lake Michigan which affects the shoreline or the air in or above Illinois or Michigan. Some arguments have even been made that if you pollute the water which effects the marine industry that is part of your commerce, that you have standing. Well, now that I think about it, since a lot of environmental regulation and law is attached to the 5th Amendment takings clause, that does have some connection with property. But again, Illinois doesn't own Lake Michigan. The US government does, in effect - correct? So by nature, doesn't it have to be a federal matter, as opposed to Illinois going to court to protect property?

QUOTE(Reddy @ Jan 15, 2008 -> 11:30 AM) lol so one article enough fair coverage makes? please. the stats don't lie. as for his character, obviously y'all will take everything i say with a grain of salt and rightly so, but i can tell you that john edwards is THE most genuine person in this campaign. Obama and Hillary keep stealing HIS platforms and calling them his own. They use lines from HIS speaches. Clinton cried to get votes. Obama became a Christian because he wanted to be a senator/president. And i know there's no way i can prove this one, but Edwards does legitimately CARE and feel PASSIONATELY about this fight and helping those who have no voice. If you ever met him you'd be able to tell. i know that's not a convincing argument. lol John Edwards may in fact be a caring, passionate person who wants to help fight for the disadvantaged. I don't know him. But your argument seems to go offroad a bit when you start taking about Obama and Clinton supposedly stealing all his ideas (none of which are original to any of the three), and the whole B.S. Obama is secretly a Muslim thing. And that last part, about meeting him, I do actually think that is a convincing argument. Fact is, none of us other than you have met the man. I might like him if I did. The evidence I have access to says otherwise, but, I am not 100% opposed to the idea that I could be dead wrong about him.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Jan 15, 2008 -> 12:44 PM) Supreme to whom? Look I'm not going to argue with you either. Let's just agree to disagree? That was kind of my point earlier, when you seemed to be painting it as a right/wrong, on/off argument. It is necessarily subjective. Yes, we have different perspectives as to the extent of US power in the region in the 19th Century.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Jan 15, 2008 -> 12:43 PM) YASNY, He's referring to a completely different argument than the current one. Yes, that. Sorry, this thread has split off at least three different discussion topics, and I hijacked one of them.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 15, 2008 -> 12:41 PM) But isn't his argument such that whether it was supreme at that point, it shouldn't have been due to states rights? To get back to the discussion of states rights, yes, Bureau is arguing from that perspective, I think. I don't know though - I am currently a bit confused as to his points. Its also of course not an objective argument. I mean, what does "supreme" mean? There is no right or wrong there. My perspective is different than his.

QUOTE(BureauEmployee171 @ Jan 15, 2008 -> 12:34 PM) It is a state's right to do as they choose though. #1 your argument is completely invalid - because "dumping" is not allowed - not because it is unhealthy, but because it violates property law. Property law is the highest law. Dumping is simply against the law - not against a regulation. It is the same as why I cant walk over to my neighbors house and dump my trash on his property - it is against the law and I'd get a fine for littering. That is why THAT problem would not occur. I suggest you read up on property law to further understand this (dumping into Lake Michigan from Indiana, still affects Illinois' property - and property law is the highest law ). I think there is a problem with your property law argument here, because... who owns Lake Michigan? In the general sense, no one does, except perhaps the federal government. In some functions, the states own their shorelines and some distance out (I don't know what distance off hand). So if Indiana dumps in Lake Michigan, its either into Indiana waters or US waters - not Illinois or Michigan or Wisconsin waters. So those other states, taken at a purely property-law level, have no standing.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Jan 15, 2008 -> 11:30 AM) One can compare the US to the position it would eventually reach, or to the position of some European powers at the time, and be correct in stating the US was still "developing" into what it would become- a global Superpower. But that isn't the argument. The argument was that the US was the overwhelming power in the region in the mid-19th century, and I have still not seen an example given of another nation in the region flexing it's muscles, economically or militarily. Or some accurate assertion that US policy in the region didn't reign supreme during the mid-19th century. If the examples I gave don't tell you that US policy was not supreme at that point, then there is nothing else I can do. You've decided.

Interesting on Getz. That's much better than I've heard him talked about before.

QUOTE(Soxy @ Jan 15, 2008 -> 10:58 AM) Do you feel the same way about basic theology courses? Or other Ethics courses? Where would you draw the line for state funding? That's the problem - I don't think there is a very clear line. My inclination is that ethics and theology courses, when not specific to one religion, are fine. But then again, if a school offers Religious Studies as a major, it would be had to not have specific courses in specific religions, wouldn't it? Maybe the key is really about the purpose of the courses. Are they education, or training? I think the latter, if referring to a religion or a lifestyle or a sexual preference, are probably a bad idea.

QUOTE(Pants Rowland @ Jan 15, 2008 -> 10:47 AM) Sorry to have started a war of words. Here is a question for you. What were the primary reasons for the United States' status as a developing (if not established) power in the mid-19th century? Was it the agrarian system of the south or the industrialization of the north? QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 15, 2008 -> 10:49 AM) Or, the opening and availability of the vast natural resources of the west combined with the industrialization of the north. What Balta said, plus the balanced economic system the US was managing to build (to include that agrarian system you mentioned). Also, cheesy as it sounds, the American desire to push and expand into lands that other powers in the region had only a tenuous hold on - and that often, they didn't want badly enough to stake a lot in contesting.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Jan 15, 2008 -> 10:21 AM) I've listed for you a general description of the economic, political, and military plights of nearly all of Latin America, including specific examples. I've also listed for you the great expansion that took place during the period by the US, as part of its' philosophy of Manifest Destiny, basically in the face of Mexico and any other regional "power." I've explained to you that I am not arguing that the US was a "world" superpower by any means in the mid-19th century, but that indeed it was a regional power- the only regional power- and yet you've continued to allude to the US's power on a world level as opposed to what this argument was originally about, the New World region. If you're claiming that it's difficult to have a discussion with me, I think, likewise, it is difficult to have a discussion on this topic with you. You're countering my points with vagaries about "Spanish-backed nations" that could challenge the US both militarily and economically at the time, and point the the fact that the Spanish American War was a "bloody mess," that that somehow shows equality between the US and Mexico militarily or economically. I simply don't think there is ample (or any, for that matter) proof that such an assertion is accurate. And you continuing to repeat it, but offering little in the way of actual examples doesn't make it any more accurate. I have not seen you be any more specific than I have been about this. Less so, really, from my point of view. You refer to various land grabs like Oregon, Louisiana, etc., as example of American power in the region. I countered that they were more often than no exit strategies by the parties involved, usually because the nation holding the land didn't have the finances or desire to hold it. How are you being more detailed than I? But if you want to really get down to details I suppose I could do that. I am not 100% sure what you are looking for. Here are a few examples in the latter half of the 19th Century that, to me, show a nation that was still struggling to attain dominant power in the region... --The Oregon Territory you cited earlier was, for a period during the middle of the 19th Century, hotly disputed and even dually occupied by British and US forces. Neither felt they had the stuff to knock each other out, nor the desire to do so over such territory. The Brits were still, at this point, controlling more land than the US, and at the very least were still capable of holding their own against the US and France and Spain and even Russia all at once - just as the US was doing in the region. The Brits eventually slid back in those conflicts, but they were by no means token players. --The Civil War was, itself, very clearly a sign that the nation was not yet ready to be more than a regional player. I mean, they couldn't even come to common stance on some very major issues by themselves. How was this not a clear statement that the US was not yet ready to be the biggest, baddest kid on the North American block? --In the 1880's and 1890's, the US was still unable militarily or otherwise to finish off their job of subjugating the American Indians - numerous bands of Apache and other tribes were still raiding with impugnity in parts of the southwest until the 1890's. There were a lot of factors involved here of course, but it goes to show that the US still had only marginal control of its own territory and borders at the time. --In my view, the international event that truly gave the US regional superpower status was the Spanish American War - just before the turn of the century. That decisive victory over a declining Spanish armada was tantamount to a death nail for any European or Latin American powers bringing serious trouble to the doorstep of the US. Is that specific enough for you? By the way, have you read Hampton Sides' Blood and Thunder?

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 15, 2008 -> 09:58 AM) I know the South Shore is about 50% government funded. They would have to run at about 150% capacity just to break even. Most transit systems are heavily government funded, at least for capital improvement. Some (like Metra) make enough in fares to cover operating costs. Which to me, is the fair bargain. Why, you might ask? Compare that to the bargain that roads get. There are very few toll roads in this country. I'd bet 95% of the cost of roads is supported by government funding, with the other 5% being private funding or tolls/fees. This always sort of bothered me about the discussion of funding for mass transit - people get in a fit about funding transit at 50%, but they don't say a word about funding 95% of the roads, and at a much higher gross cost level. If we are to be serious about cutting energy use and pollution, not to mention just better dealing with an increasing population and reducing traffic deaths and traffic in general... then mass transit needs a better deal. More funding for it, not just in improvements but in upkeep, and meanwhile, more use-base taxes and fees on the roads. Gas taxes are sort of like a use tax, and that is good - but I don't think they cover more than a fraction of the total work on roads that goes on.

QUOTE(Soxy @ Jan 15, 2008 -> 09:14 AM) I'll be honest. I think that it's a misleading title--I understand why the instructor picked it, though. It would make students notice it and probably taking it--thus ensuring the class runs and the instructor makes money. That being said, I don't think the class is really here is how to be a gay man. As the course description says I think it is examining the rules and regulations of one particular, shall we say, subculture. To me, it sounds no different than the course I took on utopian communities--looking at their ways of life, traditions, initiation rites, etc (although my class was offered by American studies--not the English department). On the whole, I doubt this course is very much different from a Christian ethics class I took that looked at different societal issues, Christian traditions and their roots in the gospel, and different rites within the church. While this course wasn't called how to be a Christian--that was, essentially, what it was. And I am willing to bet that Michigan offers a similar Christian ethics class that covers everything from initiation (baptism, confirmation) to staying involved in the lifestyle (communion, tithing, etc). Well, that is certainly interesting. The course is probably more a study than a how-to, as you point out. But I am not sure where the line is there, for a state school. I am not even sure that a Christian Ethics class is appropriate. Maybe it is. I don't find any of these courses offensive or anything - I just question whether or not government dollars should be spent on them. That is the appropriateness test I am getting at.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Jan 15, 2008 -> 09:02 AM) Fair enough, if you want to keep arguing a conclusion that is in no way buttressed by the facts at the time, or what we now know occurred for obvious reasons, than so be it. I can't convince you otherwise. Back to the topic, the point is that Paul's "what I would have done to avoid the Civil War" is a bunch of nonsense. Dude, that's hilarious. You are basically saying because you don't agree, that my conclusions are unfounded and obviously not what "we now know occurred". Its kind of difficult to have a discussion with you if that's how you will approach it. I find your conclusions inaccurate to my understanding of what was going on back then. My education and knowledge tell me differently than what yours apparently does. Those are the kinds of phrases that work well when trying to have an intelligent discussion. But I do agree, Paul's idea of avoidance of the Civil War is mostly (but not entirely) nonsense.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 15, 2008 -> 08:36 AM) I hadn't thought about a hangover, but with the discontent over this last Presidency, I don't think that would have been a big problem. After all would anyone have voted against Al Gore, because he lost in 2000? I'd be willing to bet he would still be the leader of this race if he jumped into the race today. To me, it is more about the person than anything else. Then again I could be completely wrong Its about the person, but, Gore's loss in 2000 is not seen in the same light as Kerry/Edwards in 2004 - at least not by Democrats. As far as many people are concerned, Gore basically won in 2000. Plus that was pre-9/11 and before we knew how bad Bush would be. 2004 was the chance to end the worst Presidency in decades, but they couldn't do it - and I think people see that as a failure of those two people.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 15, 2008 -> 08:25 AM) He's definately restricted by that, but I believe if he had run as the same candidate from 04, he would have raised a lot more money, and not have had to elect to take public funds. Probably. I also think he's got some other things that caused problems as well. For one, the hangover effect of 2004 - he was part of a losing ticket, in an election that frustrated most Democrats and many independents. Why have him involved again? I also think that as people see more of him, they get the impression he's a lot more plastic than steel. That's been my impression. I don't know the man personally of course, but he doesn't seem genuine to me.

Boy, the Clinton machine really does keep finding African Americans to attack Obama. Now its Rangel's turn, calling his remarks "stupid". If you read the article, it appears Chuck is taking Obama's quote about King being a prime mover of Civil Rights legislation a bit literally. I really do wonder what this does in a state like South Carolina, with a large minority population. I think over the long haul, if this keeps up, it hurts Clinton more than Obama. But in the shorter terms, since its not Clinton herself but her attack dogs, people might not immediately associate the comments with her, and wonder about Obama.

QUOTE(mreye @ Jan 15, 2008 -> 06:51 AM) Soxy said, "Who cares?" My point is if it was "How to be a Christian", many people would care, but "How to be gay" and we shouldn't bat an eye. It's a tax payer supported institution. IMO, it should not offer either course. I tend to agree. I think there is a difference between courses like "Comparitive Religions" and "Human Sexuality", versus "How to be a Good Christian" and "Homosexual Initiation". The former are OK and probably good for a state school to offer, the latter are questionable. Maybe not unconstitutional, nothing that bad, but I don't think state schools should be offerring those courses.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 15, 2008 -> 08:04 AM) He isn't raising support because his message has changed 180 degrees since he was the Vice Presidential candidate for the Democrats. Back then he was a middle of the road guy who stood for the average guy. Now he is the angry candidate who is out to attack and tax pretty much everyone who has more than a high school education. I lost all respect for the guy the more I heard him speak, and I am sure I am not alone. And trust me, it had nothing to do with Hillary or Obama, Edwards sunk his own ship in my eyes. Plus he's restricted by the fact that he elected to take public funds... which he had to do to survive, because he wasn't able to raise enough cash independently.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 10:02 PM) First of all, there is absolutely no way one could argue that Mexico and "some of the other Spanish-backed countries" gave the US a run for their money in anything. Mexico and nearly all of the economies of other nations in Latin and Central America were in absolute shambles because of the enormous amounts of gold, silver, and copper taken from them by the Spaniards over a period of three centuries. Bankrupt with no credit, these countries were often forced to sell their most valuable industries for next to nothing to US/English/German interests in exchange for cash to pay the operating expenses of their governments. There were some extremely short-lived success stories, such as Chile (rebuilt its economy through the exportation of copper- one of the few sources of wealth NOT stolen from the region yet), Peru (exporting "guapo"- bird s*** high in nitrogen), but for the vast majority of the 19th and 20th centuries Mexico and other Latin American nations have been in a depressing cycle of absolute poverty, followed by brief periods of what I suppose one could call "wealth" through the monetization of their natural resources, followed quickly by corruption, then political upheaval, revolution, and on and on and on. Secondly, never did I claim that all land expansion was the result of American might (the Louisiana Purchase was offered because Napolean found himself in a real spot, financially), but the fact that the US was able to expand so quickly is absolutely a testament to its influence in the region. The Mexican-American war is just one example of another of the region's "major" players attempting to resist the will of the US at the time and getting absolutely slaughtered for it. I think you are trying to argue that because the US was not the world power it was to become at the turn of the 20th Century that it somehow was not the "only" real power in the region in the mid-19th Century. I don't believe there is any possible way in which to accurately advocate such a position. The evidence is stacked and stacked against the notion that Mexico or some "other," yet undetermined, power could seriously challenge the US militarily or economically at the time. I can and do advocate it because its what I've learned. I've studied these subjects, in college and after, just as it appears you have. The US was the scrappy young kid on the block in the early 19th Century, and just started to really become a major player in the region (and was starting to flex its muscles in a big way in the 1840's and 50's) when the Civil War came along and wrecked much of its economy. The nation recovered nicely of course, but not instantly. Terms like 'superpower' or 'monster', even regionally, really did not apply to the U.S. until the end of the 19th Century, in my view.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 08:53 PM) Yes. By the 1860's the United States was the overwhelming power in the region. The reason the US did not emerge as a World SuperPower until after WWI was because of a general policy of isolationism. However, in the region, Manifest Destiny was the prevailing philosophy and was used as justification for expansion throughout North America, including the Oregon Territory, the Texas Annexation, and the territory ceded from Mexico after the Mexican-American War in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. The fact that much of this land was simply "taken" is a reflection of US power in the mid-19th century. The US became a world power during and following the Industrial Revolution, and cemented that power after entering and ending WWI. In the mid-19th century, Mexico and nearly all of Latin America was in turmoil, still seeking to recover from centuries of European Imperialism, and to be more blunt, European looting. None of the other countries in the region had any business challenging US Policy at the time. I simply disagree with you here. Mexico in particular and some of the other Spanish-backed countries in North and Central America still gave the US a run for their money militarily and economically. At the time of the Louisiana Purchase, the European powers in the region were taken aback, and realized the US was going to be a player in the game, most certainly. But they weren't what I would call the superpower in the region until, give or take, just before the turn of the 20th Century. The expansion you mention did not occur because those powers were cowering before American superiority. Quite the contrary. In some cases (Oregon is a good example), it was simply a matter of "hey, its a pain in our asses - if you want it, take it". The Louisiana Purchase was more or less a way for a European power to get money for something they couldn't control. The various wars in Texas and the west with Mexico were bloody messes and in many cases, they US had plenty of struggles to get it done. Heck, even the last contiguous land deal, the Gadsden Purchase, was purely about a railroad and was a money deal to Mexico.

QUOTE(Reddy @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 09:06 PM) two reasons: 1) the prospect of the first woman or first black man to be president is the more exciting story in terms of news. it's different, so initially, that's what got the play. 2) Edwards is very vocal in being against the types of corporations that RUN the media. Why do you think Murdoch is with Clinton? Edwards is a threat to the mass media so they have NO interest in him getting elected. I agree on #1, but disagree on #2. All the candidates on the Dem side, or most anyway, have made similar arguments - particularly Obama. Instead, I think a second factor is the whole soundbyte culture thing (blame for which falls to both the media and the people who take it in). Its just easier to focus on one or two people than the whole field, when all you care to deliver are high impact 10-second clips.

QUOTE(Reddy @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 08:40 PM) lol don't get me started. Media blackout + being outspent 6 to 1 is why he hasn't raised support. And that's what's wrong with the system. Blacked out? Explain. I wouldn't worry about Kucinich much anyway. Edwards should be ecstatic he's running so well in NV. He needs to worry about his abysmal standing in SC, his home state.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 08:40 PM) Compared to Mexico and other Latin American nations? They absolutely were a monster. They were a monster in the region from the moment the Louisiana Purchase was made. No. In fact, look at the history of the period from said purchase through to about 1890-ish. They were growing quickly INTO a power during that period, but were not the overwhelming "monster" in the region until nearly the turn of the 20th century.