I Like Bush, BUT...

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Panther1015 wrote:
Pharmaceuticals are a NON-PARTISAN issue, people. They have the resources and the clout to sway policy in their favor regardless of who’s in office or which party controlls the house and/or senate. I don’t need sources to realize this because I worked on many PR campaigns for one of the big boys for 3 years in DC. But if some of you want to blame this on Bush, go right ahead. It just shows your true colors and it’s a nice snapshot of your critical thinking skills, which need a lot of work.

I do believe the issue of this thread is the screening of kids for mental issues as standard practice in schools.
[/quote]

Maybe the tone of the thread escaped you, but I clearly remember the subject heading saying “I like Bush, BUT”. It’s no surprise that brought on the Bush-haters in droves with their political spin on a social issue.

[quote]Panther1015 wrote:

Maybe the tone of the thread escaped you, but I clearly remember the subject heading saying “I like Bush, BUT”. It’s no surprise that brought on the Bush-haters in droves with their political spin on a social issue.

[/quote]

The tone doesn’t discount the issue. You only take offense because I assume you support Bush. How about staying on topic?

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Maybe this particular incident is from JTF’s side of the fence, but don’t discount the govt’s intrusion into the parent’s business.

It is rampant. And a quick look at the migration out of public schools should tell folks something about the quality of public education.

[/quote]

Oh definitely – but it doesn’t tend to be nationally mandated programs like the one this post suggests that do the most damage in that regard. It tends to be state-level stuff, as well as local-level bureaucrats over-reacting to judicial decisions.

John Dewey (the educator) laid all this out back in the 1930’s: get religion and the bible out of our schools, stamp out individualism, and seperate the parent from the child. His literal goal (as stated by one of his cronies) was creation of Soviet America. What we are seeing today are his followers following his blueprint. He advocated that teachers should ‘take over’. Well, here we go. The chickens have come home to roost.

BTW: Dewey and his cronies at Columbia University are regarded as the founding fathers of today’s educational system. Pretty pathetic, eh?

Panther, there have been a few minor comments, but really very little political spin in this thread.

I think everyone is concerned with the concepts, but basically it seems that most are not willing to believe it is anything other than some conspiracy theory at this point.

Perhaps parts of it are fact and parts are theory, such as JTF’s post? I mean, with respect to JTF’s post, the fact that things exist does not mean that there is in fact an agenda to use them.

Maybe somebody can dig a bit further and find out what, beyond some type of mandatory screening, is really in the works here?

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Panther1015 wrote:

Maybe the tone of the thread escaped you, but I clearly remember the subject heading saying “I like Bush, BUT”. It’s no surprise that brought on the Bush-haters in droves with their political spin on a social issue.

The tone doesn’t discount the issue. You only take offense because I assume you support Bush. How about staying on topic?
[/quote]

No, not really. I make it more clear - you can think what you want about any political figure. That’s your perogative. Just don’t (and I’m not talking to you specifically) say that every disturbing social trend is Bush’s fault in knee-jerk fashion. Anybody familiar with the pharmaceutical industry will tell you this is a commercially motivated move that goes beyong partisan politics.

[quote]Panther1015 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Panther1015 wrote:

Maybe the tone of the thread escaped you, but I clearly remember the subject heading saying “I like Bush, BUT”. It’s no surprise that brought on the Bush-haters in droves with their political spin on a social issue.

The tone doesn’t discount the issue. You only take offense because I assume you support Bush. How about staying on topic?

No, not really. I make it more clear - you can think what you want about any political figure. That’s your perogative. Just don’t (and I’m not talking to you specifically) say that every disturbing social trend is Bush’s fault in knee-jerk fashion. Anybody familiar with the pharmaceutical industry will tell you this is a commercially motivated move that goes beyong partisan politics. [/quote]

Ok, and Bush is in office this time around. Deal with it. It isn’t like had the current president been a Democrat that Republicans would never do the exact same thing.

Nothing like this has ever come from any other administration, so tell me, why should I not notice this? Tell me why I should also ignore other stories in the media like:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,160406,00.html

which shows a small provision in the No Child Left Behind Act that compels public high schools to open their doors and pupil records to military recruiters.

Districts that don’t comply could risk annual federal funding.

There seems to be an air of control in this administration that has not been present in other recent presidencies. You may be willing to overlook that, but don’t act surprised when the rest of us don’t.

the house passed a bill opposing this a few weeks ago…time to call your senators

OK, here is the plan. I am gonna run for president, and all of you are gonna help me. Our one and only goal is going to be eliminating all the pork that goes through the government. We will cut the spending dramatically and put a little more to good use like constructive social programs that benefit all people and increased military (technology).

My cabinet will consist of those of you from both sides of the isle, ZEB, BB, Rain, ProfX, JTF, ELK, even Jeffy and 100M get a position. We all clean the shit out of our respective departments and completely restructure this big government career politician bullshit.

Who’s coming with me?

Who’s coming with me…

V

[quote]Tell me why I should also ignore other stories in the media like:

[links break on quote]

which shows a small provision in the No Child Left Behind Act that compels public high schools to open their doors and pupil records to military recruiters.[/quote]

Hmm, I guess no child left behind really means that when the next call to arms happens for Iran, North Korea, Taiwan or someplace else… really, no child will be left behind!

The government is indeed getting its fingers very tightly into the business of the public. If I lived in the USA I’d be worried about it. Heck, I’m worried for you!

[quote]vroom wrote:
Tell me why I should also ignore other stories in the media like:

[links break on quote]

which shows a small provision in the No Child Left Behind Act that compels public high schools to open their doors and pupil records to military recruiters.

Hmm, I guess no child left behind really means that when the next call to arms happens for Iran, North Korea, Taiwan or someplace else… really, no child will be left behind!

The government is indeed getting its fingers very tightly into the business of the public. If I lived in the USA I’d be worried about it. Heck, I’m worried for you![/quote]

What gets me is the attitude as if issue after issue doesn’t matter or isn’t important. If you add all of this crap up, it does not look good.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
What gets me is the attitude as if issue after issue doesn’t matter or isn’t important. If you add all of this crap up, it does not look good. [/quote]

Issue after issue? You mean government powers have been extended elsewhere?

WASHINGTON - The House voted to extend indefinitely the anti-terrorist USA Patriot Act, while limiting to 10 years two provisions of the law that have become linchpins in the ongoing congressional debate: allowing federal agents to use roving wiretaps and to search library and medical records.

By a 257-171 margin, lawmakers who earlier Thursday had watched reports of attempted terrorist bombings in London, agreed to renew key provisions of the Patriot Act that were set to expire at the end of this year.

Forty-three Democrats joined 214 Republicans in passing the bill, which dropped 14 of 16 expiration dates on provisions initially drafted into the law shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Hours earlier, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved its own general extension of the law, but it called for Congress to re-examine the wiretap and library provisions after another four-year time period. The full Senate likely will vote on the bill this fall, before the competing measures are reconciled in a conference committee.

Left wingnut rag

[quote]Professor X wrote:
vroom wrote:
Tell me why I should also ignore other stories in the media like:

[links break on quote]

which shows a small provision in the No Child Left Behind Act that compels public high schools to open their doors and pupil records to military recruiters.

Hmm, I guess no child left behind really means that when the next call to arms happens for Iran, North Korea, Taiwan or someplace else… really, no child will be left behind!

The government is indeed getting its fingers very tightly into the business of the public. If I lived in the USA I’d be worried about it. Heck, I’m worried for you!

What gets me is the attitude as if issue after issue doesn’t matter or isn’t important. If you add all of this crap up, it does not look good. [/quote]

Ummm, there’s already mandatory draft registration for all 18-year-old males, which has been in place for decades.

I don’t think this makes much difference w/r/t individuals - but it does make a difference to local school administrators who may have not wanted to admit military recruiters (under what pretense of authority, I have no idea).

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Ummm, there’s already mandatory draft registration for all 18-year-old males, which has been in place for decades.
[/quote]

Ummm, mandatory draft registration didn’t used to mean access to all school records.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Panther1015 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Panther1015 wrote:

Maybe the tone of the thread escaped you, but I clearly remember the subject heading saying “I like Bush, BUT”. It’s no surprise that brought on the Bush-haters in droves with their political spin on a social issue.

The tone doesn’t discount the issue. You only take offense because I assume you support Bush. How about staying on topic?

No, not really. I make it more clear - you can think what you want about any political figure. That’s your perogative. Just don’t (and I’m not talking to you specifically) say that every disturbing social trend is Bush’s fault in knee-jerk fashion. Anybody familiar with the pharmaceutical industry will tell you this is a commercially motivated move that goes beyong partisan politics.

Ok, and Bush is in office this time around. Deal with it. It isn’t like had the current president been a Democrat that Republicans would never do the exact same thing.

Nothing like this has ever come from any other administration, so tell me, why should I not notice this? Tell me why I should also ignore other stories in the media like:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,160406,00.html

which shows a small provision in the No Child Left Behind Act that compels public high schools to open their doors and pupil records to military recruiters.

Districts that don’t comply could risk annual federal funding.

There seems to be an air of control in this administration that has not been present in other recent presidencies. You may be willing to overlook that, but don’t act surprised when the rest of us don’t.
[/quote]

ProfX,

I took you to be a more astute poster. Obviously, I was mistaken. Show me where I said that this issue is no big deal and that you shouldn’t worry about it? To save you some time, I’ll just tell you - I said no such thing.

What I DID say was that this issue is non-partisan and would arise regardless of which party was in the White House or the house/senate. This is an issue with the pharmaceutical companies and their power over virtually every politician on Capitol Hill.

Like it or not, this “control” you speak of has been a trend for decades. You can see it in WWII when movies we’d call blatant propaganda today influenced the American public’s stand on the war. You can see it in the institution of social security numbers and computerized medical and dental files. Society is just becoming more interconnected, which in tern increases the pervasiveness of the government.

So while this level of control may be increasing, it’s not something unique to the Bush administration, it’s something that’s been happening for a long, long time. If you want to stop it, don’t bitch at the administration, work on finding a way to get the general population informed on the issues surrounding our country in a non-partisan way. THAT would solve a lot of these problems.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Ummm, there’s already mandatory draft registration for all 18-year-old males, which has been in place for decades.

Ummm, mandatory draft registration didn’t used to mean access to all school records.[/quote]

True. I assumed from other threads you were focused on this from a draft perspective.

I really don’t see a problem with allowing recruiters access to records, as long as there is protection on how the data is used, and perhaps the ability to opt out. The info would make things more efficient.

Boston,

I know it is probably old news coming from me, but the problem is the potential for abuse, not that it is necessarily set up for abusive purposes. Anyway, ProfX may have an entirely different point of view, but that is my take.

ProfX,

Sounds like you’ve been made responsible for solving the industry lobbyist issues in society today… :wink:

[quote]vroom wrote:
Hmm, I guess no child left behind really means that when the next call to arms happens for Iran, North Korea, Taiwan or someplace else… really, no child will be left behind!

The government is indeed getting its fingers very tightly into the business of the public. If I lived in the USA I’d be worried about it. Heck, I’m worried for you![/quote]

We’re officially becoming a totalitarian, militarized state but somehow 50% of the people don’t notice.

The drugs are for the other 50% who do…

Uncle Sam wants you - even if you’re 42 years old
The Defense Department quietly asked Congress on Monday to raise the maximum age for military recruits to 42 for all branches of the service.

The Pentagon’s request to raise the maximum recruit age to 42 is part of what defense officials are calling a package of “urgent wartime support initiatives” sent to Congress Monday night prior to a Tuesday hearing of the House Armed Services military personnel subcommittee.
http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-983408.php

[quote]Panther1015 wrote:

ProfX,

I took you to be a more astute poster. Obviously, I was mistaken. [/quote]

Ooh, we got insults. At least you can’t say I started it.

[quote]
What I DID say was that this issue is non-partisan and would arise regardless of which party was in the White House or the house/senate. This is an issue with the pharmaceutical companies and their power over virtually every politician on Capitol Hill. [/quote]

Labeling children with mental disorders at a young age goes beyond just the concept of the pharmaceutical companies and should bring into play psychology, the limits a label can place on a child’s future, the unknown as far as a child’s mentality and the temporary nature of any diagnosis in someone that young. You have simplified this based on your own knowledge of the drug industry. I am letting you know that I could care less about the stimulus that put this in motion.

If you can’t see the snowball effect this can have and how this administration is responsible in spite of the efforts of the drug industry, then there isn’t much else to say. Drug companies have power. However, we elected these people into positions as representatives. I suggest that you spend more time focusing on how we get the power back to the people rather than making excuses for why we are now powerless.

[quote]
Like it or not, this “control” you speak of has been a trend for decades. You can see it in WWII when movies we’d call blatant propaganda today influenced the American public’s stand on the war. You can see it in the institution of social security numbers and computerized medical and dental files. Society is just becoming more interconnected, which in tern increases the pervasiveness of the government. [/quote]

More excuses for a seemingly growing problem.

I do that, in part, right here, by discussing these issues. I could care less who else in history was guilty of pushing the same ideals. I have no power over what happened before I was born and neither do you. Right now, Bush is the president. I am amazed at how you want to shine the light at all others instead.