Green Party candidate for governor campaigns in Bergen
Story by Sloane Martin, WBTA:
Howie Hawkins is running for governor for the second consecutive election on the Green Party tab.
A recent poll showed that a progressive candidate could cut significantly into the incumbent Democrat’s lead, giving that fresh option a chance.
Hawkins says he can be that candidate.
“We stand for progressive policies that benefit working people,” he said. “I think that’s what that poll says people are looking for. Those are the people who understand Cuomo’s been very conservative economically. He’s underfunded schools, he’s giving tax breaks to the rich and they’re looking for an alternative.
“Our problem is not that they don’t agree with us. It’s that they never heard of us.”
In Bergen Thursday afternoon before meeting with party members from the tri-county area, Hawkins outlined a six-point proposal to turn things around for the Empire State called the Green New Deal. It draws parallels to the Roosevelt domestic programs, but updates them for modern times seeking to bring jobs. For example, Hawkins supports giving unemployed people public jobs, similar to the WPA.
Hawkins says Cuomo’s problem is doing nothing about income inequality.
“The idea is: we give money to the rich and it trickles down; we have decades of evidence to show it doesn’t work. If we restored the progressive tax structure we had in the '70s, we’d have $30 billion more,” he said. “That’s about 21 percent more than we take in now and that would fund the Green New Deal.”
The other points as part of the Green New Deal include raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour, ensuring New Yorkers can make a living wage with single-payer health insurance, working to limit segregation in schools, providing affordable housing and mass transit and cultivating renewable energy.
Hawkins also had strong words about hydrofracking. He said the job impact estimates for the controversial natural gas drilling process are greatly exaggerated.
“No one denies the environmental dangers of fracking,” he said. “What’s not being communicated well is the economic benefits of going to 100-percent clean energy by 2030 far outweighs any economic benefits we could get from fracking. The most outlandish estimates I’ve seen from pro-fracking flacks from the industry is 200,000 jobs. We’re talking about 4.5 million jobs over the next 15 years (with clean energy). A lot of those are manufacturing, a lot of those are construction; those are good paying jobs. You want an economic boom? Go with clean energy.”
C.M., were you involved on bringing Mr. Hawkins to Bergen?
Then kudos are in order. Even though I am not a likely Hawkins voter, I truly believe the more exposure third party candidates get, the better. Great job C. M. in bringing a gubernatorial candidate to Genesee County.
I really do admire the addition to our political dialogue that third-party candidates contribute. That said, I still rue the day I voted for Ralph Nader in 2000. I'll likely not vote third party again.
I'll echo Jeff's comment, CM. Good job bringing Mr. Hawkins here. It is a service to your Genesee County. Choices are good and we need to have more of them on our ballots.
Scott: “Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.”
-John Quincy Adams
Dave, you used my favorite quote. I always had it posted at my job site as a conversation starter.
Is this guy for real? what a joke . Uptsate Ny does not need another "progressive" Governor. the only chance NY has of getting a new Governor is to vote for Rob Astorino.
Higher taxes? really? the HIghest taxed, least business friendly state in the US does not need higher taxes. Natural gas is the greenest most abundant fuel source out there and we are sitting on the mother load of it. 20,000 upstate jobs could come from fracking. but politics as killed it so far and into the foreseeable future, every other state allows Hydro fracking. This guys a joke, Cuomo"s a joke, wake up people vote for Astorino
However, Votes taken away from Cuomo are good votes! good luck
Exaggeration and mischaracterization...
The tax plan that Howie is advocating would actually constitute tax relief for the vast majority of New Yorkers.
The anti-fracking movement is largely grassroots and community-based. Only a handful of states have ruled against fracking; a few (like NY) have bans in contemplation of scientific and public opinion evidence. The formal bans have been initiated by communities, and there are at least 400 of them. To date I believe Vermont and Delaware have statewide bans, and Massachusetts is considering such.
Weighing (even) 20,000 jobs against the purity of our aquifers should be a simple choice.
“No one denies the environmental dangers of fracking,” he said.
Wrong, Mr. Hawkins. Ask the landowners, workers, and taxpayers in Pennsylvania and other states that benefit from this SAFE use of our natural resources.
. “What’s not being communicated well is the economic benefits of going to 100-percent clean energy by 2030 far outweighs any economic benefits we could get from fracking. The most outlandish estimates I’ve seen from pro-fracking flacks from the industry is 200,000 jobs. We’re talking about 4.5 million jobs over the next 15 years (with clean energy). A lot of those are manufacturing, a lot of those are construction; those are good paying jobs. You want an economic boom? Go with clean energy.”
Wrong again Mr. Hawkins. Your so-called green energy is not feasible in the time frame you use, and we cannot AFFORD it! If green energy were financially viable tons of people in the private sector would be more actively pursuing it. The only ones chasing these pipe dreams are those receiving massive taxpayer subsidies, and big oil - who can afford to make token efforts strictly for PR reasons. And how is it that your green energy will produce more manufacturing, construction and other good paying jobs? The higher taxes needed to underwrite it will destroy more jobs than it will create.
Jeff, I appreciate your sentiments and agree that we need to get away from the ineffective and damaging two party system, but certainly bigger government, higher tax advocates cannot be the answer. Term limits must be.
Term limits have failed to improve anything everywhere they've been tried.
Where have they been tried on the state or federal level? I'd like to do some digging into it and find out why.
"Term limits have failed to improve anything everywhere they've been tried."
Besides, we've always had term limits. They're called elections.
At the federal level, the president.
How's that working out for ya?
At the state level, I'm most familiar with California, which instituted term limits 24 years ago. Sacramento rivals Albany for the most screwed up legislature in America.
Term limits won't end the two-party hegemony. When I say it's a failure everywhere, that's what I really mean. There are 15 states with legislative term limits. I'm not aware of one that still isn't dominated by the Republicrats.
California experimenting with some changes to election law that give a fighting chance to third party and moderate candidates (forget the details).
The first reform we need is an end to gerrymandering. Getting a elected shouldn't be a near lock just because you have a D or an R after your name.
In New York, end cross endorsements. Third parties should run their own candidates.
I've always favored doing away with party affiliation on voter registration cards. Why is it the business of the state what party I belong to or don't; it's a violation of privacy; and, political parties are private, not government, entities, so why should the government do their registration for them?
CM lists an activist web site based in Washing DC as his 1st source, i stopped right there, the 1st thing i saw was a download button to get your activist tool kit right here! the anti fracking movement is anything but grass roots and everything to do with Andrew coumo cowering to the enviro wacko crowd on the far left. It is a shame we continue to buy costly oil from the mid east for heat and fuel when we have the greenest and cleanest natural resource right beneath us.
this clean energy they speak of will cost 2-3 times what energy from natural gas will cost, which is why Obama said there is a necissary need for an increas in energy costs.
Not to mention that the folks in PA have gotten their roads fixed up and repaird for free by the fracking companies, in NY the have cut the funding for roads this year and our roads are in need of repair, just 1 small example of a bennifit
The first reform we need is an end to gerrymandering. Getting a elected shouldn't be a near lock just because you have a D or an R after your name
Or an astounding amount of cash such as 30 million $$ in a campaign fund like Andrew Cuomo has to Astorino's 1 mill. And legislation on the table for PUBLIC FINANCING of campaigns. Tax payer dollers for politions to get relected = WELFARE for politions, is that why we need tax increases?
while were talking politics, Howard, did you hear about the bill introduce in the Assemblly by a NYC democrat which would allow Illegal aliens to vote state wide in NY? thats a great one. wont pass this time around but shows the true intentions of the Left. and If the Dems take control of the legislature sit back and watch all of their lberal progressive fantasy''s come to fruition.
"The first reform we need is an end to gerrymandering."
For the win.
I can't even believe that there is a debate about fracking going on here. It is truly vile that any person would support it. Any being that would purposely damage this environment for profit is a total lunatic. Does anyone even realize that this planet is the only one that we have? Water, oxygen, food, shelter, it will all be gone. And so will we. Where is the profit then? How is green energy not affordable? I can go online and buy a windmill for 845 dollars that is capable of running the average household. Most items that we use run off of significantly lower amounts of energy then they have in the past. I can go to Dollar Tree and buy an outdoor light that runs fully off of Solar Power. If we have the ability to create such an item for less than $1 then why can't we invest that technology in other items? Oh wait because windmills are visually offensive and nobody will profit from it. Go ahead and tell me that the windmills are visually offensive after fracking has polluted the environment and caused your eyeballs to fall out. Head out of butt people. The best part is that all of this is blamed on politicians. Politicians are nothing if it weren't for the people. That is still true to this day. The consumer has the power. If only there were a way to tell the companies what you want and they will make it happen so that they are getting that money. There was a time where politics were necessary. Now a politician is a spokesperson for a company. Oh and Gun Control.... Because I don't trust rednecks with guns.
All good points Howard except I don't believe any of the term limits you mention go far enough. (Of course I was aware of 2 terms for POTUS).
One term for all elected officials with the length of that term limited to a MAX of 6 years.
We are in total agreement as far as gerrymandering.
As far as registration cards go, I'd like to see party affiliation go away too, but how would primaries work? Anybody could vote in any primary?
And one thing that needs to added immediately: Voter ID.
Roberta, I guess all the folks that are successfully (and safely) utilizing our NATURAL resources are vile?
I'd suggest you stop driving, turn off your computer, phone, TV, furnace, a/c, stove, sump pump, etc. and go buy that $895.00 windmill. If you're lucky, it will generate just enough energy to run the lights in your home. Forget all the other things.
I say this because by your own words your use of these things is destroying the planet. "Any being that would purposely damage this environment for profit is a total lunatic". Your profit is convenience.
If any of the "green" items were viable alternatives, why are they not being sold? I love the solar powered outdoor lanterns on our deck, but have to replace them just about every year.
Yours is a typical and expected liberal response - personal attacks against those that disagree with you and lay out some pie in the sky ideas that are not supported buy facts or science.
Your angry reply and liberals' thumbs down votes are expected.
Bob, why would this scheme of a term limit work any better than that scheme of the term limit when the issue isn't how long somebody serves but rather it's partisanship?
Why would six years work better than four or eight or even two?
As for primaries, why should taxpayers foot the bill for political parties -- which are private organizations, not public bodies -- to select their candidates for an election.
In my scheme, do away with primaries. If a political party wants to have a primary in which only their members can vote, the party organizes it, pays for it and decides when, where and how. Maybe the party would rather caucus than have a ballot. Maybe the party would rather select a candidate in a smoke filled room. I really don't care. A party is a private group, so unless I'm a member, it's none of my business how the party comes up with its candidates.
Some good points Howard, but I believe with a couple of flaws.
First, after doing a little more reflection I concede the point that limits may only be a **part** of the answer, but an integral part.
Second, with no primaries we could see hundreds of people on the ballot for any given office. I believe only those with name recognition would get exposure in the mass media, and therefore people would have to do their due diligence in researching all the candidates. I think that we can agree that most will not and simply vote for who they have heard of and they agree with a few of their sound bytes - much like today.
How would debates be organized if held at all? As it is now only the "big" names participate and I don't know how that could possibly change with your plan - too many candidates.
I certainly don't have all the answers - I don't think anybody does. I do know though that something has to change - and fast. Where do we go to from here?
I am very happy to see "The Debate" opened up to all ideas. Everyone should have input, we might even stumble upon a different solution.
Oh and Gun Control.... Because I don't trust rednecks with guns
like the ones who gave you this country that you take for granted?
Do you like heat in the winter? do you like electricity, because that is what the natural gas is for, not for proffit, we need it to live, its cheap, its clean and its plentiful. it is the future
buy your 845$ windmill and lets us know how that works out,
An $845 windmill that will provide enough electricity to run an average household? Can we say, "internet scam"? And where would said windmill be placed if one lives in the city?
And feel free to continue to buy things from the dollar store. Way to support China! And lead poisoning is only a dollar? What a bargain.
I love the negative votes I've received for simply asking Howard a question - and those placed on others' comments that oppose Roberta's rant.
Just coincidence, I'm sure. If it were Roberta she would have a polite and pointed retort, right?
Let me help you out anonymous negative voter - the 1st negative vote is on me.
“Yours is a typical and expected liberal response - personal attacks against those that disagree with you.”
Oh Mr. Harker, you must have missed post 15, in part:
“…..enviro wacko crowd on the far left.”
Is that what you mean?
This is my personal favorite:
“like the ones who gave you this country that you take for granted?”
Good grief….rednecks with guns “gave” us this country?! Could you cite your source or sources, please?
Who are you to melodramatically accuse anyone of “taking America for granted” because you don’t like what s/he has to say? I don’t like the way you’ve attempted to distort what was posted in the above article and deliberately mislead people who aren’t inclined to actually read it, but I won’t accuse you of anything other than that….and being melodramatic.
I’ll be waiting on that source.
And Mr. Harker….. picking on Roberta makes you look a bit hysterical. Don’t cry yourself to sleep over those nasty thumbs down votes.
Bob, broadly speaking, everything you list as a defect of my proposal, I see as a benefit.
um, Julie? All the quotes you have attributed to me are NOT mine.
I suggest you go back and read what has been posted by myself and others.
As far as Roberta, please point out to me how I have "picked " on her. I called her on misstated facts and her unwarranted attacks on those with different opinions.
Much as you have here.
When you vote thumbs down for this post, please include your opinion on these issues rather than trying to mistakenly demean people.
Though I'll never see see an apology from you, I hope your head does not hurt too much after re-reading the above posts and then slapping yourself in the head while saying "Oh Sh.."
How so Howard? I agree with your premise, but cannot see the practical applications.
Ooh! Ow! Ouch!
Those negative votes with no comments to justify why really hurt me......
Can't you tell?
Twenty candidates running in an election, all from different parties? A feature, not a bug. Elections should be a free market exercise.
20? I suspect there would be many more. You are suggesting that anyone could run for, say, Governor. Do you really think only 20 people would run? More likely 2000.
There's my concern.
why is that a concern? why can't anyone run for whatever office they aspire to? I would love to see more regular everyday people in government for a few years and then returning to civilian life and someone else stepping up. Non-partisan too, the stranglehold of the 2 big parties is so much of our problem, they control ballot access and force us all to pay for their primaries and we get to choose between the candidates they choose for us (which are basically the same). Why do you think only 50-60% of people vote? and that's in a "good" year.
The more the merrier. What's democratic and freedom loving about artificially restricting who can run?
That said, I wouldn't object to some sort of petition requirement to get on the ballot, as long as the number of signatures required applies to all candidates equally regardless of party affiliation.
Requiring 10,000 signatures, for example, to run for governor, wouldn't be unreasonable and would require some organization and ability to attract people to your candidacy to be able to get on the ballot.
Dave, having regular every people in government a few years then returning to civilian life is precisely how and when this nation became the envy of the world. Once politics became a "career" and the two party system became entrenched, government turned into an out of control entity that grew merely to support it's own weight and existence. Bring on the candidates, I'll sift through them.
Common knowledge Julie.... I know you wont read a bit of this because you know your right and everyone else is wrong. But the Continental Army that won our Freedom had nothing easy and was made up of regular people, which by todays definitions would be the redneck type of folk that were pioneering and settling the Colonies. So in fact Factual History is the source.... Here is an excerpt of one
Soldiers in the Continental Army were citizens who had volunteered to serve in the army (but were paid), and at various times during the war, standard enlistment periods lasted from one to three years. Early in the war, the enlistment periods were short, as the Continental Congress feared the possibility of the Continental Army evolving into a permanent army. The army never reached over 17,000 men. Turnover was a constant problem, particularly in the winter of 1776-77, and longer enlistments were approved. Broadly speaking, Continental forces consisted of several successive armies, or establishments:
The Continental Army of 1775, comprising the initial New England Army, organized by Washington into three divisions, six brigades, and 38 regiments. Major General Philip Schuyler's ten regiments in New York were sent to invade Canada.
The Continental Army of 1776, reorganized after the initial enlistment period of the soldiers in the 1775 army had expired. Washington had submitted recommendations to the Continental Congress almost immediately after he had accepted the position of Commander-in-Chief, but these took time to consider and implement. Despite attempts to broaden the recruiting base beyond New England, the 1776 army remained skewed toward the Northeast both in terms of its composition and geographical focus. This army consisted of 36 regiments, most standardized to a single battalion of 768 men strong formed into eight companies, with a rank and file strength of 640.
The Continental Army of 1777-80 was a result of several critical reforms and political decisions that came about when it was apparent that the British were sending massive forces to put an end to the American Revolution. The Continental Congress passed the "Eighty-eight Battalion Resolve", ordering each state to contribute one-battalion regiments in proportion to their population, and Washington was subsequently given authority to raise an additional 16 battalions. Also, enlistment terms were extended to three years or "the length of the war" to avoid the year-end crises that depleted forces (including the notable near collapse of the army at the end of 1776 which could have ended the war in a Continental, or American, loss by forfeit).
The Continental Army of 1781-82 saw the greatest crisis on the American side in the war. Congress was bankrupt, making it very difficult to replenish the soldiers whose three-year terms had expired. Popular support for the war was at its all-time low, and Washington had to put down mutinies both in the Pennsylvania Line and New Jersey Line. Congress voted to cut funding for the Army, but Washington managed nevertheless to secure important strategic victories.
The Continental Army of 1783-84, was succeeded by the United States Army, which persists to this day. As peace was closed with the British, most of the regiments were disbanded in an orderly fashion, though several had already been diminished.
In addition to the Continental Army regulars, local militia units, raised and funded by individual colonies/states, participated in battles throughout the war. Sometimes, the militia units operated independently of the Continental Army, but often local militias were called out to support and augment the Continental Army regulars during campaigns. (The militia troops developed a reputation for being prone to premature retreats, a fact that was integrated into the strategy at the Battle of Cowpens.)
The financial responsibility for providing pay, food, shelter, clothing, arms, and other equipment to specific units was assigned to states as part of the establishment of these units. States differed in how well they lived up these obligations. There were constant funding issues and morale problems as the war continued. This led to the army offering low pay, often rotten food, hard work, cold, heat, poor clothing and shelter, harsh discipline, and a high chance of becoming a casualty.
If you actually look at our history instead of assuming what you were told in school was accurate. You'd learn that history is evolving and facts are uncovered every day. The generalized history taught in public schools is very very generalized. And like any generalization is subject to being misinterpeted.
Just in case anyone is wondering, what Kyle wrote about is the impetus for the "well-regulated militia" part of the 2nd amendment. It was a lesson learned from the Revolution. Learning from history is something our current government fails to do.
By the way Julie I'd like to respond to something else you wrote.....
"Who are you to melodramatically accuse anyone of “taking America for granted” because you don’t like what s/he has to say? I don’t like the way you’ve attempted to distort what was posted in the above article and deliberately mislead people who aren’t inclined to actually read it, but I won’t accuse you of anything other than that….and being melodramatic."
The sad truth is that very very few people here in this Country dont take the country for granted. Almost everyone, even those that know better like myself. Take it for granted in some way shape or form. There are a few experts on American history whom in living and researching our past from colonial to today who appreciate where and what we as a Nation have come from. I suggest you pick up a few books, (one book never does anything justice) and see for yourself. Make sure to do your research though, and pick up books on MANY viewpoints, not just what you like. Try reading about Lincoln's presidency written by people from BOTH sides of Congress or both sides of the Mason Dixon line. I bt you walk away with an entirely different perspective.
I'm pretty sure you wont do that however cause most people shy away from the work of educating themselves on other viewpoints. Or find it too tiring to excercise critical thinking.
After all its better to just shove a tablespoon of cinnamon up your rear end to end a cold. Because someone posted that on the internet it MUST be true. Why bother arguing it's veracity.
"The more the merrier. What's democratic and freedom loving about artificially restricting who can run?"
And likewise, for that matter, restricting who can vote.
Julie? Where did you go? This is a forum where you have the opportunity to back what you say, offer ideas, and maybe make some people think.
Or are you just a spewer of demeaning personal attacks as so many liberals are? Some facts to support your opinion would be appreciated if you have any.
Oh Bob, I’m so flattered you missed me! Muah!
Yeah. Apparently it’s too much to expect people posting to a thread will actually follow it.
Bob Harker: “um, Julie? All the quotes you have attributed to me are NOT mine.”
Me: “Oh Mr. Harker, you must have missed post 15, in part:”
….means POST 15. cj sruger. Not you.
Bob Harker: “As far as Roberta, please point out to me how I have "picked " on her.”
Really? Can you be so unaware of your own postings, yet so obsessed over your thumb-votes? POST 26. It sounds like you suspect Roberta of an evil thumbs-down conspiracy against you.
Bob Harker: “When you vote thumbs down for this post, please include your opinion on these issues rather than trying to mistakenly demean people.
Though I'll never see see an apology from you, I hope your head does not hurt too much after re-reading the above posts and then slapping yourself in the head while saying ‘Oh Sh..’”
Hey Bob…that’s some giant ego you’ve got there….do you find it cumbersome? How about I thumb-up you just to mess with your mind?
Oh I’d appreciate it if you didn’t label me….unless it’s like Beautiful, Genius, etc. etc.
Kyle Couchman: “Common knowledge Julie.... I know you wont read a bit of this because you know your right and everyone else is wrong.”
I never said anything like that, Kyle, and you sound like a petulant six year old. I won’t read it because I can tell it will bore me. What exactly am I wrong about? Calling out cj sruger’s disrespectful comment or Bob’s hissy fit?
Kyle Couchman: “I'm pretty sure you wont do that however cause most people shy away from the work of educating themselves on other viewpoints. Or find it too tiring to excercise critical thinking.”
Wow, you sure told me….how about I won’t bother to do what you tell me to do because it has absolutely nothing to do with why I posted what I posted.
It’s not cj sruger’s place (POST 24) or anyone else’s to accuse Roberta or anyone else of taking America for granted because s/he doesn’t like his or her opinion. I don’t need a treatise dressing me down to try to convince me otherwise.
And…I’m not really into kinky stuff like shoving cinnamon up my rear end, but I won’t judge you if that’s what you like to do.
What the heck with the males on here telling me what I think and what I will or won’t do? Jeez! You boys kill me.
Julie, thank you for proving my point.
Mudslinging, out of context quotes, and still no factual basis to back up your claims. As expected and stated above.
I reiterate my statement that yours is a typical liberal response to logical debate.
Since I'm an old guy I assume you are much younger than me. I'll probably be dead before you see the results of your (and so many of those like you) naivete.
I pray for my grand daughter.
And believe it or not, I'll now pray for you too. You could use it.
Now wait just a minute. Mr. Harker, with all due respect, don't you think it a tad hypocritical for you to accuse Ms. Morales of mudslinging and/or of lobbing generalities and "demeaning personal attacks," when -- over and over again -- you, yourself, post baseless attacks like this: “Yours is a typical and expected liberal response - personal attacks against those that disagree with you.”
Although I don't know Ms. Morales personally (so I don't feel comfortable speaking for her), I read her post as simply calling you to task for your repeated b.s. suggestion that liberals are the only ones who engage in "personal attacks."
That is precisely why she quoted cj sruger, who referred to a poster on this thread as a member of the "...enviro wacko crowd on the far left.” Ms. Morales never attributed that quote to you, Mr. Harker.
In fact, as far as I can tell, CJ sruger tossed out the nastiest personal insult in this entire thread, and clearly he/she is NOT a liberal (indeed, I'd guess, from the posts, that he/she is pretty darn conservative); yet you never acknowledge this fact, Mr. Harker, when you accused liberals of making personal attacks. And cj sruger is not the only conservative who made demeaning comments here. How about a little accountability for your own "team"?
It's quite clear that the pages of the Batavian are dominated by an "old boys club," of sorts. That's all fine and dandy, and you're entitled to come out and support your friends... and/or your allies (I would -- and have -- done the same). But there's a fine line between backing up your political "pals," and ganging up to bully perceived "interlopers" who happen to disagree with your political opinions. That line, in my humble opinion, is often crossed on these pages. Is it really any wonder that people might get their hackles up?
Make excuses any way you desire Julie, as Bob stated you just proved the point. You wont read it because it bores you? I believe you were the one that wanted sources.... but I'm sorry the sources were too dry and boring for you to read. Doesn't make them any less of a fact or invalidate the point they make. Who's really the 6 yr old here?
You've been proven wrong about the fact that the Revolution was fought by what we today call rednecks.... Common sense and down to earth folks who despite... " low pay, often rotten food, hard work, cold, heat, poor clothing and shelter, harsh discipline, and a high chance of becoming a casualty." They still fought a war against one of the worlds biggest superpowers of the day, and won. Something that people like you would never do. As the training is too boring and you take for granted that someone else will do the fighting and they dying for you. I just watched a 21 year old woman get buried last week, one who DIDN'T take for granted this country and what it takes to keep it's people safe and free. She died while training to go further in her chosen profession. After accomplishing much in her 4 or 5 yrs in already.
Its people like her that should be held up as examples. We can speak to someones apparent taking for granted this country we live in because thats the right we have. The funny thing is you claim to be defending poor Roberta from us. Yet you use the same tactics you condemn in us. So I guess if it walks and talks like a liberal it must be one. Can't have it both ways, if you want respect of your opinion the you have give respect to others opinions as well, not just the ones you agree with.
Otherwise it makes you ambiguous at best or hypocritical at worst.
Just a point Emma...I dont often agree with Bob on issues. But CJ and I really disagree alot more than some in here so that Old Boys club thing is a fairly broad generalization.
As for Roberta and Julie they both prove with their words where they stand and how. Julie's ticked off with me because while she tried to seem like she was reasonable. I provided an answer to her which as I predicted she said she wasnt gonna bother with. Doesn't matter what her justification was for not reading or commenting on the content. She proved that the assessment of her motivation was accurate.
OMG my first Doublepost
Post #44: "They still fought a war against one of the worlds biggest superpowers of the day, and won. Something that people like you would never do."
Post # 45: "But CJ and I really disagree alot more than some in here so that Old Boys club thing is a fairly broad generalization."
Yes, generalizations will never do. Good work, Kyle.
"They still fought a war against one of the worlds biggest superpowers of the day, and won. Something that people like you would never do."
So, Kyle, another's politics disagree with yours, or confound you, and so you doubt their fitness -- their actual loyalty as a citizen -- or even as a partner in debate. I find this comment, and even more this sort of attitude, utterly contemptible.
Apologies. Double post
Scott again if your gonna quote, quote the whole statement to put it in context. What I said was...
Common sense and down to earth folks who despite... " low pay, often rotten food, hard work, cold, heat, poor clothing and shelter, harsh discipline, and a high chance of becoming a casualty." They still fought a war against one of the worlds biggest superpowers of the day, and won. Something that people like you would never do. As the training is too boring and you take for granted that someone else will do the fighting and they dying for you.
It might have the meaning you attributed to it however it was a statement on the members of The Continential Army that fought in the Revolutionary War and projecting the same attitude that Julie and Roberta have to THAT particular time. No one took American Revolutionaries serious....thats what some believe made the Professional Armies of England to careless and thats why we won. However the War of 1812 pitted us against them again and we won a second time. Which silenced most doubts about our ability to fight against greater powers, even at great disadvantage.
Roberta's comments were uneducated at best. Julie took up her fight to fight the "boys club" and just be contrary. I honestly admitted that EVERYONE takes this country for granted in one way shape or form. Which makes those who exhibit Real Patriotism stand out.
Drop the personal stuff.