Whose job is to Make a Man and Build a Nation ?

Question

Everybody thinks, " What did Nation for me ? " but nobody thinks, " What did I for Nation ? " Who is responsible for cultivating and Teaching Child ? Should we depend on government for everything ?

Answer 1

its our business to invest in such things so that the society as a whole can reap the benefits.

Answer 2

I'm very glad you asked this badly phrased question.

Firstly, my dear, dear friend. You must remember that the nation is in fact a group of bullies and robbers, at least historically. Basically, they just took half of what the common folk (farmers and such) had in exchange for "protection".

Sounds an awful lot like the mafia or gangsters to me, now doesn't it, Binky!!!

Over the centuries, nerds got involved, because the gangsters realized nerds were good at managing things, writing and reading, and therefore increasing profits.

Nowadays, governments in the first world are almost totally dominated by nerds. Yet, the traditional institution of taking what half of what we have, or else they will take away our lives, "taxes", continues. And anytime the **** really hits the fan, like during war time, governments still, like their dark ages forebearers drop all the "human rights" bullcrap they are always touting in peace time, and force us all to go get dismembered in some godforsaken warzone.

Therefore, I advise you to not worry too much about what you give your government. If they need something, besides half of all your earnings, they'll let you know.

Answer 3

It is parents working together.

Parents who have character, who are honest, have a love for their child and their country.

I think some would expect the government to wipe their nose if they could get away with it.

Answer 4

A childs mother, mother is the first teacher or GURU to teach the child from the womb itself.NExt is the teacher.

Answer 5

Upto 5years mother after father (parents)

Answer 6

a man may be built by his parents........but building a nation.... i would say......a PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHER plays a very important role...

Answer 7

Mine, of course.--Let everybody believe this and act accordingly

Answer 8

me and my only
because
frist every men should make himself
a nation is biult by men

Answer 9

Some great, reflective diaries, presented on a day history itself asks us to learn from the past: January 17th saw President Eisenhower deliver his prophetic warning about the military-industrial complex (1961), and a nuke-laden B-52 crash in Spain (1966). But hey, we did win the Battle of Cowpens (1781).

(Tonight’s Rescue Rangers are claude, Got a Grip, Patriot Daily, pico, and ybruti, with Unitary Moonbat editing)

Being anti-war doesn't mean you're a weak-kneed, slobbery idealist. In Have You Got What It Takes To Torture?, the aptly-named halcyondays delivers a sober and refreshing argument that wars of choice are inherently corrupting. (pico)


bink asks where is the saturated media coverage and public outrage over Bush firing federal attorneys in Travelgate Firings vs. Legalgate Firings. (Patriot Daily)


Examining tax policy, particularly in regards to children, Constantine 1982 suggests how the Democrats need to deal with tax policy in The Democrats 100 Day Agenda and What About 2008?(claude)


New diarist Bando writes a creative analysis of Bush's flawed reasoning process in Bush on Baseball: His Presidency in a Nutshell. (Patriot Daily)


Analyzing Bush's speech on "60 Minutes" leads syQodem to have a bit of a rant in If Wishes Were Horses. (Got a Grip)


While hindsight is 20/20, fladem shows how this community correctly assessed the failures of the Iraq war even before it started in Setting the record straight: DKos on Iraq in 2003. (Patriot Daily)


DrForbush blows away the smoke and readjusts the mirrors to reveal why Bush's new "surge" plan is really the same old plan in The Magic Wand. (Got a Grip)


d3n4l1 connects the dots between freezing rain in Houston and cancellation of the ice fishing season in Wisconsin in Baby it's Cold Outside! But enjoy it while it lasts.. (Got a Grip)


Civic participation is a family affair, so get your kids involved! A Siegel shows the good things that can happen when you bring your children along: Joe Sestak, Howard Dean, Bill Clinton, My Daughter, and the Swearing In Ceremony ... (pico)


Hannibal brings us our dark comedy of the day: Watch in horror/amusement as a new generation of Yellow Republicans performs a "valuable public service" by turning disabled veterans into a political sideshow, in College Republicans To Finally See The Real Cost Of War. (pico)


Everest42 brings up a question on a lot of minds right now, as the need for an answer takes on more urgency with every hour that passes, in Stopping the Iran War - after it starts. (Got a Grip)


With this collection of documents, Jay Shaft CFTM EDITOR tells us of Spc. Doug Barber: One Year After His Tragic Suicide - Unaired Interviews. (ybruti)

Alien Abductee attempts to define this new "movement" that seems to be emerging on the Left in Where's the steering wheel?(claude)


blksista writes about some of the politics involved in the lack of reconstruction in Bob Herbert nails it again regarding New Orleans. (Patriot Daily)


With a brief trip down memory lane, maddogg shows us why Experience and electability are not related. (Got a Grip)
emeraldmaiden brings Top Comments.

Add your favorites from the past 24 hours and use as an open thread.

Permalink :: Discuss (70 comments)
The Billion Dollar President's Club
by Devilstower
Wed Jan 17, 2007 at 06:35:46 PM PST
Over on Steny Hoyer's website, there's a spiffy countdown clock ticking off the remaining time in the new Congress' "First 100 Hours." Next to this clock is a list of the admirable accomplishments Democrats have made in their first few days, like supporting stem cell research and raising the minimum wage. And hey, there are still more than sixty hours left on the clock!

One item not on Hoyer's front page was actually the first accomplishment of the new congress: a set of rules prohibiting congressfolk from accepting discounted rides on corporate jets and closing gift loopholes so beloved of the Republican 109th. For a party that ran, at least in part, on "Draining the Swamp," it was a very good start.

However, if anyone thinks that the biggest problem in cleaning up congress is lobbyists, they're way off base. A free golf trip may be a nice way to put a congressman in the mood to support your Native American extortion racket, but it doesn't come close to the influence gained by stuffing campaign coffers with millions of dollars. We've stopped someone from buying congress' favor with a nice dinner, but left open the door that allows them to buy the congressional seat itself.

The cost of campaigning for congress, the Senate, and the White House has risen astronomically. Just since 1990, the cost of running for congress has grown more than three-fold, and that's after adjusting for inflation. It's enough to make drug companies jealous of the soaring prices. When even the most secure congressmen are expected to raise a million dollars every two years just to hold their seats, it's ridiculous to assume that their first concern doesn't lie with those who feed that eternal need.

At the presidential level, things are even worse. In 2000, George W. Bush was the first person to opt out of the public financing system that had lent elections a degree of sanity since Watergate. By dropping out of the system and raising what was then the astounding amount of $100 million, Bush opened up a presidential money arms race that threatens to rewrite all the rules.

In 2004, not only did Bush skip public funds, but both Kerry and Dean followed. The results were amazing.

Kerry raised $234 million for the primaries and Bush $269 million, according to FEC records.

$100 million had revolutionized the system in 2000, but it wasn't even in the ballpark for 2004. For 2008, some analysts are predicting the first billion dollar presidential election.

"I think we're gonna see multiple candidates raising $100 million this year alone," says Federal Election Commissioner Michael Toner. He points out that in the 2004 primaries, President Bush and Democrat John Kerry raised more than $250 million each.

"I continue to believe that the nominees of the two major parties will end up raising $500 million apiece in this 2008 race, so it's going to be the first billion-dollar election," Toner predicts.

The public funding system is so dwarfed by these figures that the expectation is that none of the major candidates will opt to take public dollars this season. We'll be back to the same state we were in before the 1972 legislation attempted to reign in the excess -- only with far larger expenditures.

Can we raise it from small donations? We can. If we have to, we will. Considering the stakes, there's no doubt that individual Democrats of every income level will bleed green to see that our candidate is competitive. We'll match any dollar amount, even if it means a lot of mac & cheese on the dinner table, because we can't afford not to come through.

That doesn't mean a billion dollar presidential race is a good thing. There's nothing admirable about plowing a billion dollars into a mass media system that's ready to absorb this income like a sponge and squeeze out ever more ludicrous wignuttery. Every dollar put into this election goes into the pocket of right-friendly media. And what doesn't fatten CEO salaries will be used to launch more Limbaughs, more Coulters, more O'Riellys. The increasing costs of even starting a presidential bid also means that only those with the biggest media machine and name recognition at the outset need apply. The outsiders are getting shoved ever further to the outside.

It does not have to be that way. Congress can still act to change the rules for 2008. It's not too late -- though it soon will be.

With the hundred hours still ticking away, and the "big six" original items well on their way to passage, I want to urge Speaker Pelosi to take up campaign finance reform now. Not in the second hundred hours, or the third, or some time months or years from now when the billion dollar season is unstoppable. Now.

Ideally, this would mean clean election laws. Such laws have been very popular, and have passed with wide margins in several states. But the first step is to just restore the public financing system that worked from 1972 till Bush wrecked it in 2000. Make the package more attractive by expanding the limits and providing candidates who use the public system free access to radio and television.

If we wait, those hungry for the money will start to claim it's "too late" for this election cycle. Then it will be 2012 -- and what will it take to compete that year? $500 million to start? A billion to be taken seriously? The system has already become ridiculous. Don't let it the presidency turn into nothing but a billionaire boy's club.

Permalink :: Discuss (93 comments)
Open Thread
by openthread
Wed Jan 17, 2007 at 06:25:01 PM PST
Chat away.
Permalink :: There's more... (75 comments)
And in Montana, what's up with racist Republicans?
by kos
Wed Jan 17, 2007 at 05:08:19 PM PST
The Montana Senate's top Republican is a classy dude.

Journalists don’t know the meaning of a “holiday.” No matter whether it’s Christmas or Easter, there’s some lonely reporter pumping out copy for tomorrow’s newspaper. But roaming the halls of the Capitol, I’ve heard more than one disgruntled comment about Montana’s Legislature working on Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, a federal holiday

“No one in the Negro caucus objected,” Senate Minority Leader Corey Stapleton joked.

(Uh, for those that don’t know, there are no black lawmakers in Montana.)

Montana's largest minority community are Native Americans, and they haven't been spared lately either.

Permalink :: Discuss (102 comments)
The racist anti-Martinez campaign
by kos
Wed Jan 17, 2007 at 04:49:19 PM PST
The racist English First organization is running a campaign on conservative sites advertising the site Stop Martinez. The site seeks to derail Bush's nominee for the head of the RNC -- Sen. Mel Martinez of Florida and gives five reasons why he'll be no good:

Reason One:

The RNC Chairman should unite the Republican Party. Mel Martinez divides the GOP.

Martinez's strong support for an amnesty/guestworker program for illegal aliens places him well outside the mainstream of the Republican Party.

If Martinez wins on January 20th, Republican elected officials who oppose amnesty or support official English can be expected to find themselves debating the chairman of their own party on television.

Reason Two:

Mel Martinez's impressive personal story as a Cuban immigrant will not attract other Hispanic voters to the GOP.

There is no such thing as a "Hispanic vote." Cuban Americans traditionally vote Republican while Puerto Rican Americans overwhelmingly vote Democratic. Even Mexican Americans disagree about amnesty and guestworker programs, given that they all too often must compete with illegal aliens for jobs.

Reason Three:

Shouldn't John McCain at least win the 2008 Republican presidential nomination before his friend Mel Martinez becomes Chairman of the Republican Party?

Mel Martinez is part of John McCain's kitchen cabinet. In December, McCain hired Martinez's former spokeswoman, Melissa Shuffield. A Martinez RNC chairmanship will look like the RNC has a pro-McCain thumb on the presidential nomination scale one full year before the first Republican primary vote is cast.

Reason Four:

The main jobs of the RNC Chairman are to win elections for the GOP and raise money. The Martinez record is less than impressive in both of these categories.

Winning Elections? In 2004 Mel Martinez eked out a 49.4% to 48.3% victory in his Senate race while George W. Bush beat Kerry handily 52% to 47%. Without President Bush heading the ticket, would Martinez have won?

Raising Money? According to Opensecrets.com, Martinez (with the full support of President Bush) raised just $12,463,752 for his race. In the 2006 Florida Senate race, another Democrat, Bill Nelson, raised $18,011,553, despite not having a viable Republican opponent.

Reason 5:

The General Chairman of the Republican National Committee faces an extremely busy 2007 and 2008.

The RNC faces an open contest for the party's presidential nomination, 2008 convention planning for Minnesota and efforts to retake control of the House and Senate for the GOP in 21 months. In addition, the General Chairman of the RNC will be a major party spokesman, given the GOP's loss of the House and the Senate in 2006.

Of these, reasons four and five are actually legitimate reasons. Martinez is, indeed, a terrible choice to lead the RNC.

Reason #3 is interesting in that it's a slam at John McCain. That dude faces a revolt from so many different angles, that he's lucky he doesn't face a top-tier xenophobic theocon to give the crazies a clearer alternative.

The first two are the sort of unmitigated anti-Latino and anti-immigrant drivel that drives English First and a significant portion of the Republican base.

The "recent immigrant" vote in 2004 actually favored Bush and the Republicans. It was second- and third-generation Latinos that leaned Democratic. Rove may not be the genius many thought he was, but he's not an idiot. He knows that Latinos were a swing vote that Republicans needed to own for the party's long-term health.

Unfortunately for him, Bush, and the Republican Party, it's xenophobic/racist Right continues to sabotage their efforts to craft a solution to the immigration problem that would 1) be good for America, 2) be good for
immigrants, and 3) bring those grateful immigrants into the GOP fold.

The Martinez nomination has gotten attention in Spanish-language media, and the increasing opposition to him will do so as well. Every time Republicans have gone hard after Latinos and immigrants it's bit them in the ***. Heck, the last election of the year booted South-Texan, anti-immigration, right-wing Republican Henry Bonilla in favor of Ciro Rodriguez. The immigration issue just absolutely decimated Bonilla, and probably cost Republicans several more seats (including our two pickups in Arizona).

The proudly bilingual Latino in me cringes at the English First attacks and the embrace of Tom Tancredo-style xenphobia. But the partisan Democrat in me applauds their efforts. Unlike their covert "Southern Strategy", which kept the Dixiecrats' racism hidden from plain view, the anti-brown people hysteria is out in the open and hard to miss.

So I hope they keep it up. I liked winning the 2006 elections. I want to win more. And mass alienation of the largest growing demographic in the country is a fantastic way to making that happen.

Permalink :: Discuss (83 comments)
Congress can't reject Bush's war fast enough. Or often enough.
by Kagro X
Wed Jan 17, 2007 at 04:32:06 PM PST
A flood of bills calling for an everything from a rejection of the Bush/McCain escalation to the requirement of separate authorization for any hostilities with Iran have been introduced by both houses, and even by Members from both sides of the aisle. In all, 11 bills have been introduced, dealing with bringing the Iraq war to an end, or preventing a war in Iran. The latest, announced today in a "Dear Colleague" letter (can't resist: quick lesson) by Rep. Jack Murtha, is his reintroduction of his bill in the 109th Congress, H.J. Res. 73. What makes it most poignant, though, is not necessarily the substance, but the corrections, as circulated in his letter:

109th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. J. RES. 73

To redeploy U.S. forces from Iraq.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

November 17, 2005

Mr. MURTHA introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

JOINT RESOLUTION

To redeploy U.S. forces from Iraq.

Whereas Congress and the American people have not been shown clear, measurable progress toward establishment of stable and improving security in Iraq or of a stable and improving economy in Iraq, both of which are essential to `promote the emergence of a democratic government';

Whereas additional stabilization in Iraq by U.S. military forces cannot be achieved without the deployment of hundreds of thousands of additional U.S. troops, which in turn cannot be achieved without a military draft;

Whereas more than $277 billion $471 billion has been appropriated by the United States Congress to prosecute U.S. military action in Iraq and Afghanistan;

Whereas, as of the drafting of this resolution, 2,079 U.S. troops 3,020 3,024 US troops have been killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom;

Whereas U.S. forces have become the target of the insurgency;

Whereas, according to recent polls, over 80 percent of the Iraqi people 91% of Sunni Iraqis and 74% of Shiite Iraqis want the U.S. forces out of Iraq;

Whereas polls also indicate that 45 percent 61 percent of the Iraqi people feel that the attacks on U.S. forces are justified; and

Whereas, due to the foregoing, Congress finds it evident that continuing U.S. military action in Iraq is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the people of Iraq, or the Persian Gulf Region, which were cited in Public Law 107-243 as justification for undertaking such action: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That:

SECTION 1. The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date.

SEC. 2. A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S. Marines shall be deployed in the region.

SEC. 3. The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy.

That gives us all a sense of how far wrong we've gone, just since Murtha came to the conclusion that something had to be done.

But Murtha's not the only game in town by a long shot. Here's a quick run-down of the 10 other bills that deal with Iraq and/or Iran. Take note, please, of the first such bill introduced and cosponsored by Republicans (and Dems, too, of course): Walter Jones' (R-NC) H. J. Res. 14.

S. 121, introduced on January 4th by Sen. Russ Feingold. The bill would give the Pentagon and State Dept. jointly 60 days to submit a plan for redeployment from Iraq, within 180 days from enactment. Cosponsors: Boxer.

S. 233, introduced on January 9th by Sen. Ted Kennedy. The bill would prohibit funds for any U.S. forces above the number of forces already there as of January 9, 2007, without a specific Congressional authorization for such increase. Cosponsors: Boxer, Brown, Harkin, Kerry, Leahy, Menendez, Sanders.

H.R. 353, introduced on January 9th by Rep. Ed Markey. This is the House counterpart to Kennedy's bill. Cosponsors: Abercrombie, Conyers, DeFazio, Delahunt, DeLauro, Grijalva, Hinchey, Maloney, McDermott, McGovern, Meehan, Olver, Schakowsky, Mike Thompson, Tierney.

H. Res. 41, intruduced on January 9th by Rep. Marty Meehan. A non-binding resolution rejecting the escalation as "the wrong course of action and should not be done without an express authorization for the increase in an Act of Congress." Cosponsors: Abercrombie, Allen, Baldwin, Blumenauer, Capps, Capuano, Conyers, Cummings, DeFazio, Fattah, Frank, Grijalva, Harman, Hinchey, Hirono, Honda, Inslee, Jackson-Lee, Kaptur, Kennedy, Lee, Lewis, Lynch, Markey, McCollum, McGovern, Moran, Neal, Olver, Payne, Rothman, Schakowsky, Smith, Solis, Stark, Tauscher, Watson, Woolsey, Wu.

H. Con. Res. 23, introduced on January 10th by Rep. Dennis Kucinich. A non-binding concurrent resolution expressing the sense of Congress (both Houses) that the President should not order an escalation in Iraq. Cosponsors: Capuano, Carson, Clay, Cohen, Conyers, Cummings, Danny Davis, DeFazio, Doyle, Fattah, Grijalva, Hirono, Holt, Honda, Jackson, Hank Johnson, Kilpatrick, Lee, Lynch, Moore, Nadler, Payne, Rothman, Schakowsky, Serrano, Solis, Stark, Watson, Woolsey, Wu.

H.R. 455, introduced on January 12th by Rep. Jerry Nadler. The bill would require that all DoD funds spent in Iraq within 30 days of enactment, be spent only for the purposes of a safe and orderly withdrawal, to be completed by the end of 2007. Cosponsors: Hinchey.

H.R. 413, introduced on January 11th by Rep. Sam Farr. Repeals the Iraq war resolution of 2002, and requires the President to provide for the withdrawal of troops. Cosponsors: None.

H.R. 438, introduced on January 12th by Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. Prohibits the use of DoD funds to increase the number of troops in Iraq beyond the number already there as of January 1, 2007, without specific authorization from Congress. Cosponsors: Lee.

H. Con. Res. 33, introduced on January 16th by Rep. Peter DeFazio. A non-binding resolution expressing the sense of Congress that the President should not initiate military action against Iran without first obtaining authorization from Congress. The resolution rejects the notion that either the AUMF of 2001 or the Iraq war resolution of 2002 authorize military action against Iran, and affirms that explicit authorization for military action is not discretionary, but a legal and constitutional requirement. Cosponsors: Blumenauer, Corrine Brown, Capuano, Conyers, Cummings, Doggett, Farr, Holt, Hooley, Kucinich, Lee, McCollum, McGovern, Murtha, Payne, Rothman, Stark, Mike Thompson, Woolsey.

H.J. Res. 14, introduced on January 12th by Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC). A binding resolution that rejects the suggestion that any prior provision of law authorizes an attack against Iran, and provides that absent an or a demonstrably imminent attack by Iran, any use of force against Iran would require Congressional authorization. Cosponsors: Abercrombie, DeFazio, Duncan (R-TN), Gilchrest (R-MD), Kucinich, Larson, Meehan, Murtha, Neal, Paul (R-TX), Taylor.