Sunday, 8/8/10, Public Square

Saying what we think gives us a wider conversational range than saying what we know.


Filed under The Public Square

23 responses to “Sunday, 8/8/10, Public Square

  1. prairie pond

    I really don’t like having Obama on the header. I liked the old header better. Not everyone here is an Obama fan.

  2. prairie pond

    Why would we want someone on the header who opposes gay marriage? Are we just talking the talk on that subject or are we the kind of people who will walk the walk?

  3. Then there’s the fact that some of our more lively conversations have nothing in the world to do with politics. I still prefer a more general header.

  4. prairie pond

    I agree fnord. We talk about more than politics. And if this is a forum for all, it does no good by chasing off new people with this new header. Some will just walk on by….

  5. prairie pond

    The books were good. Makes us look smart, ya know? Well, at least makes us look like seekers of knowledge and understanding.


  6. I’ve been reading books again lately. I had forgotten how much I love to read, and hadn’t made the time for books. Me and books are back together now. I’ve found nowadays I need to sit to read, the light needs to be better, I prefer the room to be quiet.

    Gettin’ old, I guess. Years I could read anywhere, anytime, no matter what was going on. My eyes and mind focused more easily then…

  7. wicked

    I have several pics of fields of wheat…

    • In the middle of North America is a huge area of land which was once covered with grasses and colorful wild flowers. The French called the rolling plains of grass “prairie”, from the word for a meadow grazed by cattle. The prairies are a type of grassland dominated by herbaceous plants and grasses. Very few trees grow on the prairies and are usually widely scattered.

      The prairies form a triangular area from Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba down through the Great Plains to southern Texas and Mexico, and approximately 1,000 miles from western Indiana westward to the Rocky Mountains. They cover about 1.4 million square miles.

  8. wicked

    I just read an article about an illegal who had a car accident while driving drunk and killed a nun. Just one more strike against illegals, as far as I can see.

    But the really mouth-dropping thing about it was the comments. I’m shocked–shocked, I tell you–to know that the problem with illegal immigrants in this country began with Obama and this administration! It’s all the Democrats fault! Apparently there wasn’t a problem prior to 2009. I guess all those photos I saw of protests with Mexican flags waving were photoshopped. Or maybe someone got in a time machine and went into the future (which would now be the present) to take pictures and do interviews.


    Either that or at least half of the country was in some deep sleep, probably cast by some fairies, like in Sleeping Beauty, for 8 years, prior to the election of a Democrat president.

    Would a large bucket of water tossed in the faces of these people do any good? No, I didn’t think so. 😦

    • The world and all it encompasses was perfect prior to January 20, 2009.


      Everything that isn’t perfect with our world began on January 20, 2009.

  9. prairie pond

    As Tracy would say, it’s pitiful, Wicked. Just pitiful.

    Obama abandoned his base(s) to pander to the right in a failed and futile effort at bipartisanship. He’ll never get the right, or even center right. And now he’s pretty much lost the left.

    The good thing has been the SCOTUS appointments. But if the democrats lose control of the house and/or senate, the right will just stall appointments for the next two years, hoping he’ll be a one termer.

    And if he doesn’t decide to change course, get rid of some folks like geitner and summers, etc., I think a one term presidency is possible. Get ready for the mittens, or worse.

    Unlike fnord, I think marriage equality, abortion, and illegal immigration will indeed be the issues of the next election. And jobs, but obama isnt doing so hot on that one either, and I dont see how he’ll turn anything around before November. Or even in two years, for that matter.

  10. prairie pond

    Oh, and thanks to whomever changed the header. I appreciate it.

  11. According to an article in The Washington Post the GOP’s push to ditch the 14th amendment isn’t gaining any steam and little interest among lawmakers to do the heavy lifting to amend the Constitution, but is sure to win them political points with their ‘base.’

    These GOP guys sound desperate to me!

    I find it difficult to believe there are voters who would be so easily fooled and persuaded! Guess there’s no accounting for what rallies people who want badly to believe their party might be doing something other than obstructing.

    “GOP push to revise 14th Amendment not gaining steam

    South Carolina Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R) says America faces a new and growing foreign threat: illegal immigrants and tourists who come to here for the express purpose of giving birth so their children obtain citizenship.

    Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and other top Republicans quickly jumped on the issue and called for hearings.

    Bills related to birthright citizenship have been introduced in Congress every year since the 1990s, experts say. They almost never gain traction and rarely attract high-profile supporters such as Graham and McCain. When the issued was raised this year, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) as well as Sens. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) and Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) said they, too, would be open to hearings.”

    • indypendent

      If Republicans hate anchor babies so much – then I wonder what they would have said about the Founding Fathers’ children.

      Wouldn’t they have been anchor babies?

      The only true native born Americans would be the Native American Indians.

  12. itolduso

    The Founding Fathers weren’t here in violation of United States law.

  13. 6176746f6c6c65

    The Founding Fathers had absolutely nothing to do with the Fourteenth Amendment. At the time of its ratification, the “Founding Fathers” would have been well over 120 years old.

    There were many people here in the U.S. in violation of United States law at the time the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, who had been born here. I do not see the difference, unless it is based upon the fact that the ancestors of these folks were brought to the U.S. involuntarily…

  14. If you really study ‘the immigration problem‘ you’ll see that fewer and fewer people are entering our country, that ‘the problem‘ isn’t as great today as it was a few years ago. Then you’ll realize this is a big political football, and you may even begin to realize this ‘problem‘ is on the way to solving itself.

  15. itolduso


    Sorry, I disagree. This isn’t a big political football, Illegal immigration is a matter of serious importance, whether it is the lowering of the wage standard in an area, whether it is in the sheer numbers of tax dollars that are used to support these individuals, or whatever. I find it a serious issue.

    And I still support the “anchor babies” being citizens. They are born here, the 14t Amendment makes them citizens. As such, we must give some sort of resident caretaker status to their immediate family. Not citizens, but some sort of legal status. Not because we like it, but because it is necessary

    • We agree that it is “a matter of serious importance.”

      Our disagreement comes in that it’s a more or less serious topic now, and that it’s currently being used as a political football because elections are close.

      I want facts not political games.

  16. I suspect we also agree on not wanting political games, and the need of facts.

    Thinking back, when Bush tried to address immigration the democrats blocked it, now that Obama is asking for much the same, the republicans are blocking it.

    All to score political points. And it works! I’m not very proud that Americans are that stupid.

  17. Speaking about immigration President Bush said —

    ““Family values don’t stop at the Rio Grande River,” he told a reporter. “And see, what I understand is, is that when you’re a man who got kids to feed, and are you making 50 cents and you can look up north and see the chance to make $50 and your kids are hungry, that you are going to come.”

  18. I got the quote above from an op-ed that begins, “In the age of Obama, I always assumed that the Democratic Party would define itself against George W. Bush. But I never imagined that the Republican Party would as well.”

    And, includes this gem too —

    “After September 11, Bush described Muslims in the same universalistic way. A few months after the attacks, he insisted that “Islam is peace,” a view dramatically at odds with the one being propagated by most conservative talking heads. (A 2002 poll of evangelical Protestant leaders found that only 10 percent thought Bush was right.) But Bush’s brand of Christianity was genuinely ecumenical. Although he had transformed his life through Christ, he knew that lots of former addicts had done so through born-again Islam.”