Barihawk

I eat for less than $4 a day and some people state that I eat like a king. That's less than a Big Mac. And much healthier.

Anyone wanting a history of the KKK from the Klan's perspective should watch the first movie, ever. Birth of a Nation. Shown in the White House dozens of times to Presidents who enjoyed it's racist views. It does, however, show how the South viewed the North in the aftermath of the Civil War, which is understandable.

I'm not coming to the OP's rescue here as I don't really like this topic, but this needs to be addressed. The lower income brackets spend more money on fancy smartphones, accessories for their cars, movie tickets, concert tickets, fast food (expensive food), and other "luxury" spending items than both the middle and upper classes. There have been psychological studies done that this is do to wanting to feel more affluent than they are, and with all that work for little pay, they need entertainment. This is why a huge chunk of advertising for said products is done to this socio-economic section. It's called the poverty trap, and is generally grossly defined by the powers that be. If we were to start discouraging frivolous spending and encourage putting even small amounts of money in savings, many people would be able to rise out of poverty. It's not a complete fix, but it would help millions of people. "Then they will just need to work more." Sorry, you're an idiot. Generally these people work 40+ hours a week (everyone over the age of 16) and then are so bummed out they need to spend the money on entertainment and crap.

The rule of tanning is that as long as you are not darker than your hair color, you are all right. Also, orange never is good looking.

Barihawk, this is very misleading. The KKK originated and flourished in the South after the Civil War. It was predominantly used by southern officials covertly as a terrorist organization to prevent African-Americans from voting. After Congress passed laws against the KKK in order to protect voting rights, the organization went largely underground. There was a time when the clan was probably slightly stronger in the Midwest, around the time when a famous Klansman raped and murdered a woman, and was tried and convicted. But now, I'd like to know where you are getting your information. Even if there is a stronger presence in the North today (and I'd only imagine that happening if they are linking up with neo-nazi groups), the Klan has very deep southern roots, and is always associated with the South. The Klan has chapters in every state, and racism is a common American theme. Many Northern Presidents even supported the Klan off the record. This also being long ago. The Klan is definitely more vocal in some areas of the South like in Alabama, but it's very hard to find and lacks support in many other metropolitan areas of the South. The KKK is most likely to be found in any rural region of any US state, and currently has more chapters in what used to be the Union, according to KKK's own website. Now, does that mean the North must be a den of racists? No, it just means that there happen to be more chapters up there, and that doesn't mean all that much. Alabama has the highest number of members, Illinois comes in at number 2, surprisingly. White supremacy is absolutely not a southern theme. The KKK is actually looked down on by most society here, today. Many officials will outright refuse to issue permits for the KKK to march. Some cities in Texas have even made hoods illegal. But associating the South with racism is a completely misleading point in itself. Racism exists everywhere, no matter which side of the Mason-Dixon line. And whether it's skinheads or idiots in bedsheets, it's still wrong. However, people take it for granted. A simple flag does not cause nor perpetuate these feelings. It's what people believe that matters.

I wish I had that luxury. I only eat whatever is cheap. You can eat like a king cooking and preparing your own food that's much more healthy for you rather than spending craptons of money (a day's worth of food costs less than the average fast food combo) on greasetraps.

I prefer to cook my own food and eat lots of whole grains. My food is tasty and my bowels are firm. Eating healthy means eating freaking tasty.

Ever heard of the KKK?(these guys) Again, an organization which has a slightly stronger presence in the Northern United States than it does in the South. There is less public support for the Klan as well. To the best of my knowledge the emancipation proclamation was mostly issued to keep European powers out of the civil war(i.e. France and Britain) which they probably would have done to keep up their cotton supply... EDIT: Please tell me if i am misinformed You are. Britain and France by this time had moved cotton production to their colonies in Africa and India and no longer needed the South. Lincoln issued the Proclamation (which freed zero slaves) merely to garner support among abolitionists and slaves in the South. Particularly the latter, he reasoned, would not be intelligent enough to see the flaw in the bill and then lead slave insurrections.

My displayname is totally going to be Peregrine and I am going to rage on someone if they take it.

You obviously don't understand business models. Often times, that's how every business out to make a buck operates. As long as you make even a fraction more than you spend and multiply that by the millions of people that you serve, you make a lot of money. Let's say someone on Blue Cross Blue Shield has a $2000 deductible. That's fairly average. BCBS has about 90 million customers each year. That's 180 billion dollars a year, on average. BCBS posts profits of only 1-3 billion each quarter, if they even manage that. The same goes for banks, credit card companies, etc. It's not the price per volume from where they get their money, it's the volume itself. The more customers you have, the more profit you make, and that profit is going going to be a few dimes on the dollar. It's not a completely half assed statement, and it's not true for every insurance company. I just chose the largest for my example.

Oh, I won't deny there wasn't segregation and racism taking place in the North. Some say the reason why Castro became a communist was after visiting the UN in NYC, when the only hotel room he could get was in Harlem, and the only ambassadors that would visit him were not American, but Soviet Union. Oh, really? So do you look upon this picture with pride?[/hide] It's worth noting that statistically more KKK units operate above the Mason-Dixon line, and that there is on average less racism in the South today than there is in the North. I know it's hard to believe, but it's easier to people of any race to get a well paying job here than it is in the North. Notice the size of low-income "ghettos" or barrios in formerly Union states in comparison to such areas in the Southern United States. You will find they are much smaller in the South with a much more even distribution in wealth, which is sad considering how many illegals work down here. Hell, New York has an entire island for their minorities. As for the picture, foolish people associate the battle flag with racism. On both sides. The flag itself was simply a replacement on the field for the real flag, as people had a hard time distinguishing the Union and Confederate flags on the battlefield. To be honest, the flag is used more for Larry the Cable Guy "Git R Done" bumber stickers than it is used for racism. So who won/was the good guys in the Civil War? Nobody, that's who. The North imposed harsh judgement on the South both before and after the war and indirectly caused the racism that delayed civil rights by decades. The South started the war and defended slavery even if it was a small minority of the population that even owned one. Slavery did not cause the war alone, it was entire a matter of states rights that had already capped during the Jackson administration. Slavery was a rallying cry used by the North to gather support for the war much like how terrorists were used in our war against Iraq. Depending on who you ask, Abraham Lincoln was the greatest hero of our nation or it's biggest tyrant...and both were right. The Civil War is one of the most tumultuous and difficult times in our nation's history to understand. Hell, it takes beyond a college education to completely understand the forces at work, and the causation of the war had been ongoing for more than a century beforehand.

I think you're confused. That's how private insurance companies operate. The difference is that private insurance companies need your business and only make marginal profits off of each user. Unfortunately, the government is non-profit and therefore does not have the motive to keep its "customers" happy. And insurance plans are usually very flexible, depending on what conditions the user agrees to. Do they want a high deductible but more coverage? A low deductible with less coverage and a more expensive copay at the benefit of lower average costs? The government is likely to have a "one-size-fits-all" plan (to be honest I only made it to page 85 of the bill before my eyeballs started to bleed) but the disadvantage is that everyone shares in the government's budget. I think I read like $5,500 per individual and $10,000 for families is the maximum coverage and it will be adjusted for inflation. To be quite honest, that's not a lot. Two trips to the ER, to put it into perspective. A lot of senior citizens have that much as a deductible alone on Medicare, and they blow through that very quickly. It's not an issue of being some socialist Big Brother stops you from getting medicine. It's that people are going to make use of this, run out of their plan, and end up having to get high deductible cheapo insurance regardless, at the expense of trillions of dollars. It's a drain that could be fixed by addressing the symptoms of what's wrong in healthcare.

I honestly will agree with that second-to-last statement and ante up that it's how the Democrats got in there recently :P. American politics needs an infusion of fresh blood who will listen to their constituants instead of painting "the other guys" as being wrong. Heaven forbid we elect Congressmen on their merits instead of the other party's flaws (which is a universal problem).

Err, Magekllr? Why do you always paint me as some ultra-right wing bastard son of George W. Bush? Just because I'm a registered Republican does not mean I vote ® every chance I get or organize mobs to go raid town hall meetings. If your entire argument comes down to attacking my character in every thread by accusing me of being anything but the slightly right moderate I am, you are the one being "intellectually dishonest." For the last freaking time, I'm sick of both parties and the only reason I supported the Iraq War was because it rid us of Saddam. I did not support our reasons for getting into it, but I appreciate the outcome along with a good chunk of people in that nation, no less. You seem to be the one on the crusade to make your dare-I-say-it flawed views everyone's business and do nothing but mock and attack those who disagree with you. You will go out of your way to insult Republicans, despite the fact that I honestly don't care which ® is banging which South American sweetheart or which (D) is abusing taxpayer dollars. You are symbolic of the bickering between (lettersbetweenparenthesis) bullcrap that is almost completely neutralizing the effectiveness of the government. Dude, you need to get a grip. Your opinions are beyond bias at this point and you hide behind "intellectualism" at every opportunity for fear of having to admit that someone else has an opinion. I stand behind my post, as it is merely a reflection of what is happening now in regards to public opinion towards HR 3200, and what has happened in the past when any legislative body has done what the Democrats are thinking about doing, regardless of party affiliation. And for the last freaking time, stop treating me as if I go home and make out with a poster of Glenn Beck every night. It's rather irritating to see you demean yourself just to make a personal attack.

The President is stating along with Pelosi that they are thinking about nuking the bill through the Senate with 51 votes. I hope healthcare is that much worth it to him because if they attempt to ram a bill that 65% of Americans disagree or are unsure about (37% for), they are going to be utterly destroyed as a Party in upcoming elections. It will be their death sentence. Even several Democrats agree with that. All in all, the bill was poorly thought out and quite rushed. I'm telling you that if Obama spent his entire two terms working on the bill and putting other matters first, we might have a viable bill that would garner public support. But this bill is rushed, and it's no-compromise. Without the public option it's nothing but a bill that raises premiums and copays. With the option it faces opposition from 54% of the population and a good chunk of those undecided. Right now it's a lose-lose, and forcing it through will eliminate almost every American's trust in government, regardless of Party. This bill is nothing but a sign of how screwed up the government has been the last decade, where Partisan politics rules all. Six months is absolutely not enough time to overhaul something like healthcare. If nothing else, the debate over this bill has caused severe dissatisfaction among constituents and will hopefully make Americans more cautious in future elections for Congress and the Executive. I am predicting that we will be seeing quite a few more Independants coming into Congress in upcoming terms as people will end up trusting them more than traditional Parties.

Think you could explain what you're getting at to us? Looking at the definition, I expect it involves making the laws of one weed-tolerant state applicable to other states, or something like that. As you can probably tell, I have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. ^_^;; The movie that quote comes from a movie that every American needs to see, period. It's called "A Clear And Present Danger" and revolves around Colombian drug cartels. Stars Harrison Ford and is one of the Jack Ryan series by Tom Clancy. RECIPROCITY was a secret operation that took Latino US commandos and dropped them in Colombia to take part in an illegal war against the cartels.

One word. RECIPROCITY. I hope at least someone gets what I mean :P.

1. Kyra Sedgwik. She's pretty attractive, smart, sexy, and a damn good actress. And she's married to Kevin Bacon, who is attractive to every man and woman on the planet. 2. Sandra Bullock. Always had a crush on her. She's fairly good off-camera as well, producing a few shows that I have really enjoyed. 3. Jeri Ryan. Tall, Scandinavian, good actress (well, aside from Star Trek). If she had avoided sci-fi, she'd have had great success in acting on television and stage. 4. Katherine Ross. She was in a lot of western movies I used to enjoy watching and she's very attractive. Not all that grand of an actress, but she brings back memories of good movies. 5. Raquel Welch. Duh. Pictures: 1. [hide=][/hide] 2. [hide=][/hide] 3. [hide=][/hide] 4. [hide=][/hide] 5. [hide=][/hide]

I don't know what's more pathetic in this thread. The sheer amount of 4chan, trolling, or people who take this seriously and don't notice the trolling.

May I suggest something to those of you under the age of 18? Tell your parents that for next year, get the damn shots and physicals done with the doctor BEFORE August instead of trying to come in all within two weeks of school starting. Thanks, The medical community.

Not to be an [wagon]...but did you really just ask why god would be "protected" in America? Yes, I did. You can have characters shout "Jesus Christ!" and other stuff like that that would be considered "blasphemous", but you can't say that one thing in particular? It's for the Jewish. Saying God is considered blasphemous (instead you see them type "G-d." With the above mentioned profanity being more heinous than the F word could ever be. That's why.

Communism didn't exist during this time. Their beef was with the monarchy, and their "divine right" to rule. Not to mention that they owed tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of pounds to King George...each. They took advantage of popular feelings of the days in order to skip out on a debt, it could be argued. Edit: Before you guys kill me, the guy who wrote the expose almost a hundred years ago was Frederick Jackson Turner, one of the most revered and respected historians of American history. And he had the records to prove it.

That's the thing, though. History is completely subjective. It's 100% interpretation. Having met several key historians, this only makes me worry. "Common Knowledge" for the most part is made up by lawmakers in order to create hegemony. Who discovered America? Ask any high-school graduate in America and you are most likely to hear "Columbus." And it's even more unlikely that the student can tell you the benefits of West-American interaction as opposed to the "common historical" interpretation that white man brought nothing but death to Native Americans (who miraculously appeared on the continent after Columbus discovered it, no less). The entire point of teaching analysis is to teach kids to shed off their own opinions, do research on a subject (historical or not) and make a logical conclusion based on what they find. That's a core life skill that millions of people never/will never learn. And why not? Likely because the government does not want them to. We present an educational culture where it's ok to criticize the distant and "safe" past but not one in which it's ok to question recent government actions (especially the current ones) because history "isn't ready yet." It's a trend that's been happening in Education for the last forty years. It's one of the reasons I don a tin-foil hat and claim conspiracy that history, government, and economics are being phased out of general education (leading to a "dumbing down" of America. It only makes me more nervous that people speaking out at these healthcare debates (in recent news) get called "un-American" by the same leaders who create education. To me it's like they are trying to stifle opposition from the people, which is kind of scary and I am sure some of you are gradually starting to picture me as Glenn Beck by reading this, but I assure you that's not my goal. There are only a handful of teachers out there who can manage to find the time to work analysis (real analysis) into their classroom because the states expect so much of us to teach facts. You can blame the States' educational committees for absolutely failing to work out No Child Left Behind by further increasing the importance of standardized testing and hence "teaching from the legislature" that is ruining education today. The shifting importance of teaching math and science (core skills defined by the testing) is leading to an absolute abundance of teachers in this field while creating less demand on the fields that are not as tested (such as history, government, sociology, etc) which are now becoming the domain of coaches who spend more time worrying about their lineups than creating an engaging educational community. People keep failing to realize that the people who create healthcare reform are doing so never going to use it. They impose education reform while their kids go to private academies. They don't pay taxes. They spend money like it doesn't belong to them (oh wait, it doesn't!). People need to realize that without an engaged political society to keep the government in line, it's going to be led by upper-class people with their own agendas. Even the Founding Fathers had the major motivation to sign the Declaration in order to absolve huge amounts of debt owed to King George. That, to me, is kind of silly when you think about it. People, and I mean the general population who has no intent to go to college because they make up the absolutely vast majority of this nation, need to learn the skills necessary to analyze current events and put them into perspective. Otherwise we will slowly become sheep, which is happening to an extent. Also, because magekllr will jump on this. Republicans suck as much as Democrats do. Please don't feel the need to remind me of it with a dozen posts about various ® people I don't care about. I didn't vote for most of them, I didn't even vote for John Cornyn.

This makes me mad. Teddy Roosevelt was probably the most kick-[wagon] guy ever. Having him as the leader of early 20th century United States? He should have a whole damn chapter. That's a pretty pessimistic view you have there Barihawk. What kind of textbooks are you basing it on? My AP US History textbook had I think two separate chapters focusing on Teddy Roosevelt's era, with one of them being almost entirely about him and Progressivism. The coal miners' strike, his issues with Taft, the whole deal. As I said, in the history classroom it all happened from ???BC-1945AD. We idolize the far past, though. The farther you go back in time, the more larger-than-life the Presidents become. Is this because they truly were heroes? (Don't get me wrong, I think Teddy was the absolute best President of all time). Or is this simply a tool of national hegemony providing us with a common thread of tales about men long dead that have been immortalized in stone and ink? To be honest, I hold onto the latter. The success of a President, and their legacy, will always rely on the times surrounding them. Lincoln in any other time would have been considered a Tyrant. But the Civil War gave him legitimacy to his actions. Andrew Jackson by any account was an arrogant fool, but the events surrounding his Presidency immortalized him in the annals of history. George W. Bush many of you dislike, but history will always remember him as the President who rapidly charged the nation after 9/11 and sent a message to terrorists worldwide that their actions would no longer be tolerated. Bill Clinton accomplished many amazing things during his Presidency, but will always be known for the AARP healthcare reform movement that forced him to change things in that regard. George H. W. Bush? Mediocre President happened to be in office when the Wall fell. JFK was an absolutely TERRIBLE President and would have been another Jimmy Carter if he hadn't been shot. The list goes on. It's not pessimistic, it's an understanding of what history is and why and how it's used. Also, AP history = entirely different animal. You guys get a taste of what history is actually about, the analysis. That being said, it still does narrow down too much and very little effort is put into the recent past, which to be honest is some of the most relevant things that kids need to be learning about. However, it is still also very limited. History for all intents and purposes is nothing more than fact recounting (even in AP) until you get to the graduate level. Then the gloves literally come off.

As a former history teacher, here's my take on recent history making it into the history books, as evidenced by what textbooks actually convey. 9/11 and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will get an entire chapter. George Bush will be featured as prominently as Clinton was during his tenure. Katrina will get a footnote. The HLC will get a footnote and maybe a picture in some science textbook with little relevance to the unit it's in. Obama will be remembered for being the first African-American President. At the rate his approval rate is dropping, even if he serves a second term, this is likely to be his biggest achievement. I kid you not. Most Presidents are lucky to have a paragraph. It's the events that surround them that make them revered by history, not the man himself. The Warren court will still get more coverage than anything to do with Sonia Sotomayer after liberals realize she's not the next Ruth Ginsberg. The recession will be forgotten within a decade. Mark my words. It will be in the conclusion to the 9/11 (aka the Bush) chapter and maybe mentioned with President Obama's possible paragraph. The main thing to remember kids? If it didn't happen before World War 2, it's not worth giving more than a paragraph to. It's the sad state of failing education nationwide that we will overload kids with facts and dates but not teach them how to analyze history for what it is. No analysis + facts and dates = kids who can't rationalize politics but can win on Jeapardy. Schools are gradually cutting out history, government, and economics. Is there a sinister motive behind it or do they just not care? Your guess is as good as mine, but all the booksmarts in the world can't help you if you can't understand the world around you (I don't mean the natural world, either. I mean the geopolitical world.)