Who do you feel Pittsburghers would prefer more? (Washington: public schools, authority)

[rhondee]

Originally Posted by KingKrab

I am done with the Pittsburgh forum. This forum is to clannish and cliquish for me too with too many people with their heads up their ass.

Which is exactly why you shouldn't be done with, nor stop posting, on the forum. The only way to bust up a virtual clique is to have a steady stream of different, new or outside people circulating in a forum.

If you harken back to your high school days ( and for me I'm going way back!) the "clique" starts to push others out because they decide that others don't meet their criteria of what makes its members so exclusive- or special. When they have finished that process, they eventually start to eliminate each other, by infighting and turning on each other and ends the group.The death of a clique almost always ends this way. It's so predictable ( ho hum) some things will never change.

[Goinback2011]

I like this forum. I'm here to learn as much as I can about the city I left when I was young, its neighborhoods, the issues facing it, all of it, good and bad. I don't want to argue with anyone, denigrate their opinions, tell them their dumb.....It's pointless. Better to stop typing than make enemies.

I've spent hours recently looking at real estate sites for homes in neighborhoods that I only vaguely knew existed when I lived in Pittsburgh. That's thanks to the info in this forum.

I live in Tampa, FL. now. I've lived here for 23 years. I'm probably moving back to Pittsburgh next year, assuming I can get out of here, and despite all of my friends/family in Florida thinking I've gone mad.

I suspect there will be a trail of family and friends from here and other parts of the country who will follow me once I get settled and they come for a visit. Already, one of my sisters is interested in returning.

The more threads for me to read, the better.

[MeinGlanzendMotorrad]

Originally Posted by Caladium

Hey, it could be worse. Donald Trump, anyone?

I would vote Trump in a heartbeat.

[mike02]

Originally Posted by Caladium

Hey, it could be worse. Donald Trump, anyone?

Even worse than that, a second term of Obama.

The Republican presidential field, in my opinion, has one of the most honest, consistent, and knowledgeable candidates which is Ron Paul. He is truly authentic, no matter if you agree with him or not. There is absolutely nothing authentic about the other Republican candidates. The mantra seems to focus on recipients of welfare and food stamps, use of war mongering propaganda (fears of Iran), gays in the military, defending marriage, gays in general and more military spending. They also try to copy Paul's message about the Fed. Reserve.

And then there's Obama... Oh where to begin. He really can't brag about the Stimulus or the Health Care Law or the unemployment rate. Like some of the Republican candidates, he needs to create a scapegoat. The tool he uses is class warfare. "The rich don't pay their fair share" "The tax breaks for the rich caused this mess" "The rich the rich the rich."

[WINDCHIMES]

Thanks mike...I believe there are alot of people, who would vote for Ron Paul if they can just get past him not being an elitist...the last thing we need is another Obama in office...why people overlook Ron Paul...Is beyond me...

[MeinGlanzendMotorrad]

Ron Paul is a racist religious fundamentalist.

[WINDCHIMES]

No, he is not...he is a good man, a very good man with a good heart.

[jimmyev]

It's really hard to tell who a state full of anti-abortion Democrats and Socialistic Republicans will vote for.

[BrianTH]

It is customary when attributing a statement in quotes to a person that the person actually said the quotation.

Anyway, here is a non-exhaustive list of reasons to think Paul would be a terrible President:

(1) He believes a lot of what the federal government does violates the Tenth Amendment, and he has vowed to veto any bill that he believes violates the Tenth Amendment. I very much disagree on the substance of his views, and additionally this means of enforcing his views would be disasterous;

(2) He doesn't believe in central banking and does believe in a gold standard. While he hasn't been clear on how he would enforce these views, they reflect fundamental misunderstandings about monetary systems and how modern economies function, and the President has far too much influence over economic policy for a person with such misunderstandings to be a good President;

(3) He believes the U.S. Constitution allows states to promote Christianity, and he believes the states should be promoting Christianity, including in public schools. Again, it isn't clear how he would enforce these views, but presumably he would seek to appoint federal judges with similar views (on this and other matters).

Now of course some people may agree with Paul on all of those issues. But speaking just for myself, I am not overlooking Paul, I am judging he would be a terrible President if elected.

[mike02]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

It is customary when attributing a statement in quotes to a person that the person actually said the quotation.

Anyway, here is a non-exhaustive list of reasons to think Paul would be a terrible President:

(1) He believes a lot of what the federal government does violates the Tenth Amendment, and he has vowed to veto any bill that he believes violates the Tenth Amendment. I very much disagree on the substance of his views, and additionally this means of enforcing his views would be disasterous;

(2) He doesn't believe in central banking and does believe in a gold standard. While he hasn't been clear on how he would enforce these views, they reflect fundamental misunderstandings about monetary systems and how modern economies function, and the President has far too much influence over economic policy for a person with such misunderstandings to be a good President;

(3) He believes the U.S. Constitution allows states to promote Christianity, and he believes the states should be promoting Christianity, including in public schools. Again, it isn't clear how he would enforce these views, but presumably he would seek to appoint federal judges with similar views (on this and other matters).

Now of course some people may agree with Paul on all of those issues. But speaking just for myself, I am not overlooking Paul, I am judging he would be a terrible President if elected.

Most of what the federal government does violate the Tenth Amendment. But it's not just the Tenth Amendment, we have also seen violations of most of the Bill of Rights thanks to the Patriot Act, War on Drugs, gun control laws, etc. We have witnessed decades of gross misunderstanding of the interstate commerce clause and general welfare clause. They also may potentially violate the Tenth Amendment when it comes to federal funding. Even if it doesn't, it is still blackmail and coercion to get the states to do what the federal gov't tells them. The Constitution was written to specify specific limited powers to the Federal govt. No where in it does it say that the fed. gov't can create a Dept. of Education. I don't know which clause the gov't abused in order to create that dept. It's beyond me. The Gun Free Zone Act of 1990 violated the interstate commerce clause. Congress passes laws with disregard to the Constitution, thus clogging our judicial system with thousands of cases year after year. The new health care law is one major example.

As far as the economy and central banking, I'm still trying to figure out how this current system is working. How is printing more money and devaluing the dollar great for the economy? We already committed economic suicide with Obama's economic plan and so what's wrong with experimenting with Paul's? Just because you disagree with it, doesn't mean it's not right. You're in that minority camp that doesn't believe if we don't curb or reduce current spending, disaster is on the horizon. Now that's a dangerous idea! Let's just keep spending. No problems at all. Only minor fixes

And finally your Christianity comment. I'm actually going to have to wait until you dig up a source on that one. After you do that, I'll address you're gross misunderstanding.

We already have a terrible President. His approval ratings are abysmal, the unemployment rate is high, and our national debt is high. He resorts to class warfare tactics. He failed to gain congressional approval for his actions in Libya. He is an utter failure on the problems experienced at the U.S./Mexican border. He has a poor record on civil liberties -- renewal of Patriot Act, failure to close GITMO, and can assassinate an American citizen suspected of being a terrorist. His justice department has no problem suing any state they want over something they disagree with. He believes he can force Americans to buy a private product called health insurance by grossly misinterpreting the interstate commerce clause. He bailed out Chrysler. His past State of the Union was an embarrassment. He spoke mostly about education, which is not the responsibility of a president. Great, encourage people to become a teacher! Lets see what else? Fast & Furious. More regulations. More debt. He is as plastic and phony as all the Republican candidates except for Paul.