Who is John Kerry? and why he is a loser...
 

Maxprop wrote:
Your point of view.

Perhaps so, but soundly based on easily observable fact.

... I think you babble like a liberal whacko. My point of
view.

That's because your point of view is ignorant and incomplete. You have
been schooled to accuse people who disagree with you as liberals, as
though that were an insult rather than a rather plain descriptor.


... I disagree with your knee-jerk assessment.

Of course you do, as well as feeling it necessary to call my statements
"knee-jerk" when in fact they are (sorry to repeat myself again) based
on some rather easily observable fact.

.... He was
appealing to that part of his constituency that had grown tired of funding
the lives of those able to fund themselves.

In that case, why was it that he portrayed welfare recipients as black?

... It was a fiscal issue.

If that is true, then why didn't Reagan undertake any significant reform
of the system?


I've also noted that by omission you've ignored my question about the racial
nature of welfare. Predictable.

Really? Why did you ignore my comment that the main beneficiary of the
welfare system is the administrators & employees of the welfare
department(s)?


I would like you to show me what Reagan did to reform the situation.


He tried.

Oh, really? Any references?

I don't recall which Reagan cabinet member coined the term "voodoo
economics, but Bush 41 also criticized it in principle. Depite that, it's
generally thought of as a conservative appeal, certainly not that of
liberals.

It's thought of as nonsense by people with any education in economic
prinicples. Supply-side or Reaganomics or voodoo economics is just as
much a matter of misapplied ideology as is Marxism.


And corporate welfare is NOT a conservative belief?

No, conservatives believe in limiting gov't intervention in the marketplace.



I'm a fan of both, and have four of Buckley's books, albeit two are novels.
And I find it particularly interesting that both Heinlein's and Buckley's
views coincide about 80% of the time with those "sleazy demagogues" you so
despise.

Really? Heinlein is in favor of drug addiction (Limbaugh)? Is Buckley in
favor of starting wars of aggression and carelessly slaughtering anybody
& everybody in the other country (Hannity)? In all of Heinlein's books,
did he ever express approval of a regime that tortured it's critics
(Savage)?




I'm puzzled by your hatred of Limbaugh and his ilk. By and large they
express commonly-held conservative views

No, by and large they are raging hypocrits and liars.


... are generally non-racist,

That's why Limbaugh stated just a few days ago that blacks are less
intelligent, and should stick to sports & music.


.... and do
their best to dispel liberal myths.

Which is why they simply make up stuff.

... I'm guessing you've never really
listened to any of them.

Well, this is another one of your wrong assumptions. Several of my
co-workers are Rush Limbaugh fans and play his show much of the day. I
hear several hours of his whining & lying every week.



.... Your venom toward them is same typical liberal
brand of dogma expressed by those who've never heard their programs, but
adopt the knee-jerk mindset of their detractors.

Since you're wrong about everything else so far, it won't surprise
anybody to learn that this is also incorrect. But one of the first rules
of being a caveman fascist whacko is the you must arrogantly insist that
everybody else is wrong, no matter how obvious the facts against you.

DSK

Who is John Kerry? and why he is a loser...
 

On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 14:44:42 -0400, DSK wrote:

Maxprop wrote:


... I'm guessing you've never really
listened to any of them.

Well, this is another one of your wrong assumptions. Several of my
co-workers are Rush Limbaugh fans and play his show much of the day. I
hear several hours of his whining & lying every week.

My condolences. If you get desperate, you might try large numbers of
OxyContin, Rush's drug of choice. They are said to kill pain and cause
deafness:)

Who is John Kerry? and why he is a loser...
 

I don't know where you are seeing all this protection or all these rotten
teachers. I've yet to see the NEA step in to help a teacher save his/her job
without just cause. I've seen 4 teachers fired from my school alone, not a
peep from the NEA. Why? Because they deserved to be let go. The NEA is most
certainly behind standards in Pennsylvania, in fact they promote standards
in Pennsylvania. I know because I follow them. In fairness, I work in a
vocational high school. All of our teachers are also professionals in other
fields, including me, and perhaps I see a different kind of teacher than you
see. I see welders, nurses, engineers, carpenters, auto technicians,
electricians, chefs, machinists, etc., all turned teacher. I see hard
working men and women who found out, as I have, that teaching is not as easy
as it looks.
Regarding the NEA: of course they are advocates for teachers, that doesn't
mean they are bad for students, now that, my friend, is a silly conclusion
on your part. Do you find evil in the AMA because it is an advocate for
doctors, and because it's officiated by doctors? Of course not. Same can be
said for cops, lawyers, and God knows how many other professional groups.
Would it be reasonable to expect to see cops running the NEA?
Teachers, at least in Pennsylvania, do NOT have permanent certification.
Don't assume they do. I'm in a class now to satisfy Act 48 requirements. Act
48 simply states: teachers, don't continue going to college and lose your
teaching cert - forever. And by the way, I've earned 5 individual
certifications in the last 8 years. On top of that, I was asked to drive our
school bus on field trips, so I went to night school and got my CDL. I
don't know where you live, but at my school, my students have strong
advocates, beginning with me.

Scout

Rush Limbaugh? and why he & his listeners are losers...
 

What surprises me is
that no left-wing equivalent of Limbaugh has become popular cuz the Shrub
certainly provides lots of material.

The answer to that and not surprisingly why Libertarian radio attracts
listeners while their counter-culture equavalents do not is the same.
However your are wrong in saying their is no equivalent. The basis is simply
mindset. Radio require some mental acuity and ability to reason. The
equivalent to radio is TV and in some cases movies. TV requires no
attention span nor thinking ability. Nor in do movies (and I draw a
distinction between 'movies' and 'film.' The equivalent to Rush Limbaugh is
probably somebody like Jerry Springer, or the evening news provided by the
former 'major media.' Radio and it's equivalents invite discourse, debate,
the use of logic, facts and reasoning. TV, along with most movies are
propaganda efforts. The main purpose of which is to program those who
respond to 'emotion.' Two of the most recent and most successful
propaganda pieces though belong to the movie industry, not to television.
They are "Starship Troopers" and "Primary Colors." The former catered to the
idea that if you see the movie you don't have to read the book and the book
contains ideas supremely dangerous to the left wing mind set. So it's
purpose was to stop the spread of 'ideas.' Primary Colors was quite a
different piece of propaganda. It's purpose was to promote the notion that
no matter how immoral, untrustworthy, dastardly a person might be or for
that matter a 'statement' might be it's "OK" if they fully support the
accepted ideology. The phrase, vote for the lesser of two evils; i.e.
support evil if it supports the cause is an example. However in an open
debate the underlying premise of Primary Colors could not survive, while
the political and social philosophy espoused in Starship Troopers (the book)
would flourish.

M.

"Support a return to the two party system . . .vote Libertarian."

Who is John Kerry? and why he is a loser...
 

You're an idiot. Clearly.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 10:16:15 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
said:

Clinton
presided over the longest and strongest expansion in recent memory.
You can spew your right-wing crap all you want. The facts remain the
facts.

Nonsense. But the facts do indeed remain the facts. When Reagan took
office
he inherited the tail end of the disastrous Carter years of both high
unemployment and high inflation--say 12%? (I remember them well. A
classmate
of mine was Carter's domestic policy adviser.) There followed a period of
20
years of expansion through three administrations, with a brief and
relatively minor interruption in 1991.

Dave
S/V Good Fortune
CS27

Who goes duck hunting with Jamie Gorelick?

Who is John Kerry? and why he is a loser...
 

No guess, saw an ad for their breakfast menu. Was that you flipping an egg
McMuffin?

SV

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
Wow... how did you guess??

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Scott Vernon" wrote in message
...
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote

They're worth repeating, but it's late and I need to get up
early.

Oh, that's right, McDonalds serves breakfast now.

S

Who is John Kerry? and why he is a loser...
 

"Bobspirt" wrote in message


I've also noted that by omission you've ignored my question about the
racial
nature of welfare. Predictable.


Quite so. It has become clear that Doug is as slippery as our old friend
RB
when presenting a point. Back him into a corner and he is not man enough
to
admit an error. He will simply try to ignore it and call you names. It
is
unfortuante, because I had hopes that Doug could carry the flag of logic
and
honesty for the liberals around here, but alas it is not to be so.

My feelings precisely. Doug's been a disappointment.

Max

Who is John Kerry? and why he is a loser...
 

"DSK" wrote in message

Maxprop wrote:
Your point of view.

Perhaps so, but soundly based on easily observable fact.

As is mine. Works both ways, Doug. When you **** into the wind you quite
often get wet.


... I think you babble like a liberal whacko. My point of
view.

That's because your point of view is ignorant and incomplete. You have
been schooled to accuse people who disagree with you as liberals, as
though that were an insult rather than a rather plain descriptor.

No. Others have disagreed with me, and I've not "accused" them of being
liberals. Several of my closest friends are staunch liberals. It's not a
derogatory term. But my discussions of issues political are clearly more
fair and balanced than your own, not to mention the fact that I don't find
it necessary to engage in derogatory name-calling. I defend my
positions--you become shrill and insulting. But that's okay, really. I've
come to expect it of you. Have for years, actually. I suppose I'd be
disappointed if you actually became logical, cogent, and dispassionate in
your arguments.

... I disagree with your knee-jerk assessment.

Of course you do, as well as feeling it necessary to call my statements
"knee-jerk" when in fact they are (sorry to repeat myself again) based
on some rather easily observable fact.

I've seen nothing whatever that might indicate you are anything other than a
parrotting liberal. You love to cite references to conservative rhetoric,
but those references never support your point of view or your arguments.
More than likely they contradict what you've been spouting. The easily
observable facts support that you are a liberal.


.... He was
appealing to that part of his constituency that had grown tired of
funding
the lives of those able to fund themselves.

In that case, why was it that he portrayed welfare recipients as black?

I'm unaware of any speech or document in which he referred to welfare
recipients strictly as black to the exclusion of other minorities and
non-minorities. This sounds like a classic liberal distortion or outright
lie. But I'm open to any evidence you care to provide.


... It was a fiscal issue.

If that is true, then why didn't Reagan undertake any significant reform
of the system?

I explained that, but obviously you've chosen to ignore it. He did.
Welfare cuts were in several of his annual budgets. He attempted to trim
the fat from that bloated, overly bureaucratic program. But during his 8
years in office he was faced with a predominantly democrat congress. Very
difficult to enact welfare reform of any sort with that. His budgets were
rejected out of hand by the democrats who pander to the have-nots for voter
support. You might note that Clinton signed the welfare reform bill as a
compromise to enable other legislation he was attempting to get through a
predominantly republican congress. Which is, by the way, the way our system
of government works, like it or not.

I've also noted that by omission you've ignored my question about the
racial
nature of welfare. Predictable.

Really? Why did you ignore my comment that the main beneficiary of the
welfare system is the administrators & employees of the welfare
department(s)?

I don't recall such a comment. But I completely agree.

I would like you to show me what Reagan did to reform the situation.


He tried.

Oh, really? Any references?

Check out his *proposed* budgets during almost any year. IIRC he finally
abandoned any hope of doing so during his last two or three years in office
and omitted any reference to welfare reform.

I don't recall which Reagan cabinet member coined the term "voodoo
economics, but Bush 41 also criticized it in principle. Depite that,
it's
generally thought of as a conservative appeal, certainly not that of
liberals.

It's thought of as nonsense by people with any education in economic
prinicples. Supply-side or Reaganomics or voodoo economics is just as
much a matter of misapplied ideology as is Marxism.

Perhaps, but William F. Buckley didn't discard the idea as nonsense. He
does favor alternative systems, however, stating that there were too many
uncontrolled variables in supply-side economics to be effective. I recall a
TV interview he did at the time in which he mentioned that the
"trickle-down" effect would take too long to show any substantive
improvement during Reagan's term in office (he was referring to his first
four years). I don't recall him referring to supply-side as "nonsense."


And corporate welfare is NOT a conservative belief?

No, conservatives believe in limiting gov't intervention in the
marketplace.

LOL. Conservatives employ corporate welfare toward the same goal as
democrats utilize public welfa getting votes. Corporate welfare is just
another means of paying back political debts. To be fair, democrats have
engaged in it as well, but less so. Check out the record of LBJ.

I'm a fan of both, and have four of Buckley's books, albeit two are
novels.
And I find it particularly interesting that both Heinlein's and
Buckley's
views coincide about 80% of the time with those "sleazy demagogues" you
so
despise.

Really? Heinlein is in favor of drug addiction (Limbaugh)?

I offer this comment (above) as clear cut evidence that Doug is a liberal.
Only a liberal would conclude that Limbaugh favored drug addiction. Thanks,
Doug. You made my point better than I've been able to so far.

Is Buckley in
favor of starting wars of aggression and carelessly slaughtering anybody
& everybody in the other country (Hannity)?

More regurgitated liberal dogma. Thanks. You really are making this all
too easy. Actually Buckley spoke in favor of ousting Saddam, in '91 and
more recently on Fox News. He is supportive of the current administration's
intent in Iraq, if disappointed in the execution. I agree with him.

In all of Heinlein's books,
did he ever express approval of a regime that tortured it's critics
(Savage)?

Doubtful. Who is Savage? I've never heard any support from Hannity,
Limbaugh, Snow, or other conservative pundits for torture. Nor have I heard
of support from Bush for same. Another liberal concocted lie.


I'm puzzled by your hatred of Limbaugh and his ilk. By and large they
express commonly-held conservative views

No, by and large they are raging hypocrits and liars.

My, but you are of a liberal mindset this evening, aren't you. You've never
listened to them, have you?

... are generally non-racist,

That's why Limbaugh stated just a few days ago that blacks are less
intelligent, and should stick to sports & music.

More liberal bull****. You really should check your sources for this crap
before you defecate it here.

.... and do
their best to dispel liberal myths.

Which is why they simply make up stuff.

No, they don't. They mostly quote other political pundits, either in the
printed media or from TV. And the data they give is soundly backed up by
references. Limbaugh almost always tells who said what and where you can
read/see it for yourself. It's the liberals who make stuff up--like your
comment above.

... I'm guessing you've never really
listened to any of them.

Well, this is another one of your wrong assumptions. Several of my
co-workers are Rush Limbaugh fans and play his show much of the day. I
hear several hours of his whining & lying every week.

I'm going to call your bluff on this. I doubt if you've listened to
anything he's said beyond sound bites and periodic quips. No rational,
conservative individual could have listened to him and levelled the
accusations you've made.

.... Your venom toward them is same typical liberal
brand of dogma expressed by those who've never heard their programs,
but
adopt the knee-jerk mindset of their detractors.


Since you're wrong about everything else so far, it won't surprise
anybody to learn that this is also incorrect. But one of the first rules
of being a caveman fascist whacko is the you must arrogantly insist that
everybody else is wrong, no matter how obvious the facts against you.

That's amusing. You call me arrogant, while you claim that your typed word
(opinion, no matter how distorted by a liberal mentality) is obviously
factual. Thanks for the entertainment, Doug. I've enjoyed it, but this is
going nowhere. You won't convince me or anyone else that you aren't a
liberal. And I'm not about to change your mind about me. But I must say
you've been a disappointment. I've read your posts w/r/t sailing and other
topics, and have found you to be bright and well-spoken. Your left-wing
vitriol, however, is knee-jerk and not worthy of your intellect. And your
proclivity to engage in derisive name-calling should be beneath you. But
I'm not here to tell you how to live your life. Grovel in the gutter of
pseudo-intellectualism if you so desire.

Have the final volley, if you will.

Max

Who is John Kerry? and why he is a loser...
 

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

So, you now claim that you didn't say it? It's ok for you but not
for anyone else? What a hypocrite.

LOL. I never claimed not to have said anything. I inserted two completely
ludicrous statements, much as were yours, to demonstrate a point.

Oh, never mind.

Max

Who is John Kerry? and why he is a loser...
 

"Scout" wrote in message

Do you find evil in the AMA because it is an advocate for
doctors, and because it's officiated by doctors? Of course not.

Wrong guy of whom to ask this question. Yes, I do vilify the AMA, on many
counts. They fight battles for organized medicine (predictable) against
many foes, but do almost nothing for the public and health care in general.
Are you aware that the AMA has less than 38% membership of currently
practicing physicians? Apparently most physicians feel similarly.

I
don't know where you live, but at my school, my students have strong
advocates, beginning with me.

My compliments and admiration, Scout. Teachers (some) have always been the
advocates for their students, but not the NEA. Another anecdote (and I
sincerely wish I could find a reference for you to read, but I've been
unable to do so). An attorney on the radio last week related a story about
a teacher in San Diego (I think) who taught in a school predominately
composed of disadvantaged Hispanic students. Few, if any of them, got into
college. And this teacher, I believe his name was Jaimie (pronounced
Hi-me), decided this was unacceptable. He began to teach after-school
classes on test-taking to help kids perform well on the SATs and other
college admission exams. And it was a resounding success. The percent of
kids getting into colleges and universities jumped dramatically, thanks at
least in part to his help. But his fellow teachers were miffed, claiming he
made them "look bad" by comparison. So they engaged the NEA to assist them
with their plight. The NEA applied pressure, both legal and political (via
the school administration), against Jaimie. Ultimately he grew weary of the
fight, threw up his hands, and quit. He's now doing something outside of
education. The teachers were able to get a blurb in the statewide (?) NEA
newsletter, lauding their efforts in getting rid of "a problem teacher."

You do the math.

Max

Who is John Kerry? and why he is a loser...
 

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

I said "there were job losses during Clinton." I didn't say that there was
a net loss. There was a net gain during Clinton.

I heard on the news this week that the unemployment rate is currently at
5.5%. The average during the Clinton years was 5.8%.

Assuming you're right (which you aren't, but I am not willing to check
since
it's your claim not mine) that the rate of employment is lower now, it's
easily
explained by remembering that after a certain period one is dropped from
the unemployment count for several reasons.

Unemployment rates are distorted by many factors. During the summer months,
out-of-school, unemployed teens are added to the count, for example. My
point is that there really is very little statistical difference between the
rate during the Clinton admin. and that currently. I'm a bit puzzled why
the liberals are screeching about all the lost jobs under Bush. I just
don't see it.


No. You're wrong. There was no recession during Clinton. Only a fool
would think so. The economy perhaps slowed during the very end, but
it was not in recession. You are the one not thinking clearly.

It was termed "an economic slump" by economists at the time. And it
continued to slide into the Bush administration. And any economist will
tell you that the business cycle is just that: cyclical. There will be ups
and downs. Much as US presidents might like to imagine themselves
omnipotent, they probably have only a little more impact upon the economy
than you or I. Congress plays a larger, but still largely unimportant,
role. But of course the party out of the White House loves to blame the
current occupant for recessions, and praise their man in that same house
when the economy's good.

Clinton
presided over the longest and strongest expansion in recent memory.
You can spew your right-wing crap all you want. The facts remain the
facts.

Your memory isn't very extensive, then. The longest and strongest expansion
in the 20th Century was following WWII. Yes, Clinton was privileged to
preside over a long-term high in the business cycle, but was he responsible
for it? Show me the evidence? And show me the evidence that Bush is
responsible for the immediate past recession, which is now recovering
nicely, thank you.

The democrats are grasping at straws, harping about jobs and the economy,
which are almost non-issues. Personally I'm disappointed that Kerry, et.
al., haven't come up with something positive and substantive, beyond Iraq.
This race portends to be little more than a ****-sling of the worst kind.

Max

Who is John Kerry? and why he is a loser...
 

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

You're an idiot. Clearly.

(whew!) Thanks, Jon. I was almost on the verge of believing you were
beginning to use your head.

Max
(relieved by the status quo)

Who is John Kerry? and why he is a loser...
 

Nope... I'm a manager. :-)

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Scott Vernon" wrote in message
...
No guess, saw an ad for their breakfast menu. Was that you flipping an egg
McMuffin?

SV

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
Wow... how did you guess??

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Scott Vernon" wrote in message
...
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote

They're worth repeating, but it's late and I need to get up
early.

Oh, that's right, McDonalds serves breakfast now.

S

Who is John Kerry? and why he is a loser...
 

Clearly you are an idiot. That's why you're not surprised.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 16:14:47 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
said:

You're an idiot. Clearly.

Ah, Ganz's all-purpose substitute for rebuttal--name calling. Why am I not
surprised?

BTW "clearly" is another of those fluff words that are a sure tip off the
speaker is blowing smoke. As I tell young associates when editing their
briefs, whenever you see "clearly" you can be pretty sure that what he's
saying is anything but clear, but he hopes that if he huffs and puffs
enough
you won't notice.


Dave
S/V Good Fortune
CS27

Who goes duck hunting with Jamie Gorelick?

Who is John Kerry? and why he is a loser...
 

I used my fingers to type. Dave uses his head, which is why he's
not too bright.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

You're an idiot. Clearly.

(whew!) Thanks, Jon. I was almost on the verge of believing you were
beginning to use your head.

Max
(relieved by the status quo)

Who is John Kerry? and why he is a loser...
 

Obviously, you don't read very well...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton

On the rest, you're completely WRONG.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

I said "there were job losses during Clinton." I didn't say that there
was
a net loss. There was a net gain during Clinton.

I heard on the news this week that the unemployment rate is currently at
5.5%. The average during the Clinton years was 5.8%.

Assuming you're right (which you aren't, but I am not willing to check
since
it's your claim not mine) that the rate of employment is lower now, it's
easily
explained by remembering that after a certain period one is dropped from
the unemployment count for several reasons.

Unemployment rates are distorted by many factors. During the summer
months,
out-of-school, unemployed teens are added to the count, for example. My
point is that there really is very little statistical difference between
the
rate during the Clinton admin. and that currently. I'm a bit puzzled why
the liberals are screeching about all the lost jobs under Bush. I just
don't see it.


No. You're wrong. There was no recession during Clinton. Only a fool
would think so. The economy perhaps slowed during the very end, but
it was not in recession. You are the one not thinking clearly.

It was termed "an economic slump" by economists at the time. And it
continued to slide into the Bush administration. And any economist will
tell you that the business cycle is just that: cyclical. There will be
ups
and downs. Much as US presidents might like to imagine themselves
omnipotent, they probably have only a little more impact upon the economy
than you or I. Congress plays a larger, but still largely unimportant,
role. But of course the party out of the White House loves to blame the
current occupant for recessions, and praise their man in that same house
when the economy's good.

Clinton
presided over the longest and strongest expansion in recent memory.
You can spew your right-wing crap all you want. The facts remain the
facts.

Your memory isn't very extensive, then. The longest and strongest
expansion
in the 20th Century was following WWII. Yes, Clinton was privileged to
preside over a long-term high in the business cycle, but was he
responsible
for it? Show me the evidence? And show me the evidence that Bush is
responsible for the immediate past recession, which is now recovering
nicely, thank you.

The democrats are grasping at straws, harping about jobs and the economy,
which are almost non-issues. Personally I'm disappointed that Kerry, et.
al., haven't come up with something positive and substantive, beyond Iraq.
This race portends to be little more than a ****-sling of the worst kind.

Max

Who is John Kerry? and why he is a loser...
 

LOL:

(Now, don't your statements sound as completely idiotic as my own? Make
cogent points if you will, Jon, but put a sock in the thoughtless liberal
dogma.)

You're comment. Not mine.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

So, you now claim that you didn't say it? It's ok for you but not
for anyone else? What a hypocrite.

LOL. I never claimed not to have said anything. I inserted two
completely
ludicrous statements, much as were yours, to demonstrate a point.

Oh, never mind.

Max

Who is John Kerry? and why he is a loser...
 

Max, the first thing wrong with this anecdote is that is begins with, "An
attorney on the radio last week related a story . . . "
There are so many things that sound fishy with this story, that I'd need to
see something verifiable. It just doesn't ring true, and sounds like a
lawyer tying to make a case for his client (i.e., he needs a villain). I am
interested however, and looking for the story myself; so far no luck. It
should be a fairly easy story to find. If you see the story, preferably with
two sides, please post it.
Several year's ago I was Pennsylvania's New Teacher of the Year. Part of the
reason for that was that I was at school an hour before and at least an hour
afterschool for kids who needed extra help. The other teachers had no
problems with this, and I can't understand why any would, unless there is
more to this story than the radio lawyer has let on. Please keep me posted
if you hear more.
Scout


"Maxprop" wrote
{snip}.
Another anecdote (and I
sincerely wish I could find a reference for you to read, but I've been
unable to do so). An attorney on the radio last week related a story
about
a teacher in San Diego (I think) who taught in a school predominately
composed of disadvantaged Hispanic students. Few, if any of them, got
into
college. And this teacher, I believe his name was Jaimie (pronounced
Hi-me), decided this was unacceptable. He began to teach after-school
classes on test-taking to help kids perform well on the SATs and other
college admission exams. And it was a resounding success. The percent of
kids getting into colleges and universities jumped dramatically, thanks at
least in part to his help. But his fellow teachers were miffed, claiming
he
made them "look bad" by comparison. So they engaged the NEA to assist
them
with their plight. The NEA applied pressure, both legal and political
(via
the school administration), against Jaimie. Ultimately he grew weary of
the
fight, threw up his hands, and quit. He's now doing something outside of
education. The teachers were able to get a blurb in the statewide (?) NEA
newsletter, lauding their efforts in getting rid of "a problem teacher."

Who is John Kerry? and why he is a loser...
 

Perhaps so, but soundly based on easily observable fact.

Maxprop wrote:
As is mine. Works both ways, Doug.

Oh? How come you don't seem to be able to supply any references to your
facts? My posts are well documented. You have yet to back up anything
you've claimed.


... When you **** into the wind you quite
often get wet.

Practicing your potty-mouth so you can be like Vice President Cheney?

... Several of my closest friends are staunch liberals.

I bet.


It's not a
derogatory term. But my discussions of issues political are clearly more
fair and balanced than your own,

That's why you haven't been able to quote a single post of mine which
backs up your claim that I am a liberal. Nor have you been able to state
any principles of either liberalism or conservatism.



not to mention the fact that I don't find
it necessary to engage in derogatory name-calling.

Have I called you any derogatory names, other than fascist caveman
(which is demonstrably what your political leanings are)?

.. I defend my
positions--you become shrill and insulting.

When?



But that's okay, really. I've
come to expect it of you. Have for years, actually.

When?

... I suppose I'd be
disappointed if you actually became logical, cogent, and dispassionate in
your arguments.

Well, I gave you the facts. Now it's your turn.

As I said, put up or shut up. So far you have not supported or
documented a single one of your claims.



... I disagree with your knee-jerk assessment.

Of course you do, as well as feeling it necessary to call my statements
"knee-jerk" when in fact they are (sorry to repeat myself again) based
on some rather easily observable fact.


I've seen nothing whatever that might indicate you are anything other than a
parrotting liberal.

You haven't seen anything to show that I'm a liberal, other than your
wanting to be like Rush Limbaugh.

. ... You love to cite references to conservative rhetoric,
but those references never support your point of view or your arguments.

Yes, they do. Buckley doesn't contradict himself. He is in favor of
fiscal conservatism and he has scorn for hypocrits. If you'd read any
Heinlein you'd know his opinion of torturers & drug addicts.


More than likely they contradict what you've been spouting.

When?

The easily
observable facts support that you are a liberal.

Well, in that case, why haven't you stated some of these easily
observable facts?



I'm unaware of any speech or document in which he referred to welfare
recipients strictly as black to the exclusion of other minorities and
non-minorities. This sounds like a classic liberal distortion or outright
lie. But I'm open to any evidence you care to provide.

You said yourself that Reagan claimed welfare was a trap for inner city
blacks. Which is it? Or is blatant self-contradiction such a standard
for you that you don't even see it any more?



... It was a fiscal issue.

If that is true, then why didn't Reagan undertake any significant reform
of the system?


I explained that, but obviously you've chosen to ignore it.

No, you made some unsupported (because they're unsupportable) claims.

Show the facts. What legislation did Reagan introduce to reform the
welfare system that was shot down by Congress?


Welfare cuts were in several of his annual budgets.

Really? Can you cite any data at all on this?

... He attempted to trim
the fat from that bloated, overly bureaucratic program.

Is that why his budgets always included perpetually rising deficits?

... But during his 8
years in office he was faced with a predominantly democrat congress. Very
difficult to enact welfare reform of any sort with that.

In other words, it's always somebody elses fault?


... His budgets were
rejected out of hand by the democrats who pander to the have-nots for voter
support.

If that were true, then how come Reagan's military spending always got
through?

Really? Why did you ignore my comment that the main beneficiary of the
welfare system is the administrators & employees of the welfare
department(s)?


I don't recall such a comment.

Of course not. Odd how your memory has these conveninet little lapses.


... Supply-side or Reaganomics or voodoo economics is just as
much a matter of misapplied ideology as is Marxism.


Perhaps, but William F. Buckley didn't discard the idea as nonsense. He
does favor alternative systems, however, stating that there were too many
uncontrolled variables in supply-side economics to be effective.

In other words, he didn't support it. Does this mean that Buckley
"contradicts" my stated views? Wait a minute, it seems to support what I
said... oops, you've been caught contraicting yourself again.



... conservatives believe in limiting gov't intervention in the
marketplace.

LOL. Conservatives employ corporate welfare toward the same goal as
democrats utilize public welfa getting votes.

Yes it is funny isn't it... you seem unable to grasp an abstract idea
and apply it as principle. I stated a principle of conservative
ideology, you can't see beyond line-item partisanship.



... Heinlein is in favor of drug addiction (Limbaugh)?


I offer this comment (above) as clear cut evidence that Doug is a liberal.
Only a liberal would conclude that Limbaugh favored drug addiction.

Well, he is a drug addict. The fact that he rails & whines about how
awful drug addicts are, and how they all should be locked up, makes him
a hypocrit & buffoon as well.

... Thanks,
Doug. You made my point better than I've been able to so far.

You're welcome. And your point is....

DSK

Who is John Kerry? and why he is a loser...
 

On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 03:13:35 GMT, "Maxprop"
wrote this crap:


"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

I said "there were job losses during Clinton." I didn't say that there was
a net loss. There was a net gain during Clinton.

I heard on the news this week that the unemployment rate is currently at
5.5%. The average during the Clinton years was 5.8%.

And golly gee, that was the best economy in 84 years!



Clinton
presided over the longest and strongest expansion in recent memory.
You can spew your right-wing crap all you want. The facts remain the
facts.

I guess you don't remember the Reagan years.


The democrats are grasping at straws, harping about jobs and the economy,
which are almost non-issues. Personally I'm disappointed that Kerry, et.
al., haven't come up with something positive and substantive, beyond Iraq.
This race portends to be little more than a ****-sling of the worst kind.

Agreed. The demoncrats got nothing. They got nothing on the economy.
They got nothing on health care. They got nothing on Iraq.

I heard on the radio that if Edwards becomes V.P. he plans to sue Iraq
to recover the cost of the war.


(I better not say anything bad about Edwards, he'll sue me.)





Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

Who is Rush Limbaugh? and why he is a loser...
 

DSK wrote:
.... Several of my
co-workers are Rush Limbaugh fans and play his show much of the day. I
hear several hours of his whining & lying every week.



felton wrote:
My condolences.

Oh, it's not as bad as some of the music I'm forced to endure. Actually
Rush can be kind of funny once in a while. But he whines a lot... I
think of him as the Britney Spears of choice for fat angry underemployed
white men.

... If you get desperate, you might try large numbers of
OxyContin, Rush's drug of choice. They are said to kill pain and cause
deafness:)

Actually I have some sympathy for his drug problem, prescription
painkillers can run away with you. That doesn't excuse his blatant
self-serving hypocrisy though.

Rush and his ilk have almost destroyed conservative politics in this
country. They have replaced conservative ideals with an endless parade
of illogic and wishful thinking, and replaced actual campaigning with
character assassination. Their popularity proves Barnum's Law: "It is
impossible to underestimate the stupidity and bad taste of the average
American."

Thankfully, it looks like the peak of Angry Dumb White Male Power might
have passed. Maybe not, I thought it had gone with Newt Gengrich...

DSK

Who is John Kerry? and why he is a loser...
 

Scout wrote:
Max, the first thing wrong with this anecdote is that is begins with, "An
attorney on the radio last week related a story . . . "
There are so many things that sound fishy with this story, that I'd need to
see something verifiable.

Oh, it's easily verifiable. It's the movie "Stand and Deliver," the name
of the teacher is the same as the first name of the actor.

It's nice to see Maxprop trying to back up his statements with at least
some form of near-fact.

DSK

Who is John Kerry? and why he is a loser...
 

It's nice to see Maxprop trying to back up his statements with at least
some form of near-fact.

This from the guy who has yet to post anything other than innuendo and
conjecture. What a laugh.

Who is John Kerry? and why he is a loser...
 

My wife and every teacher she knows dislikes the 'no child left behind'
policy. It won't work.

Scotty

"Scout" wrote in message
...
I voted for Bush, even though I'm a reg democrat. But I'll tell you this
much: he doesn't know **** about education, other than how to make a bad
situation worse. He's good at making voters feel like he is doing
something
to improve things (no child left behind), but as funny as it sounds,
teachers are not the problem with the system (please remember that I'm
coming from a background in private industry, teaching is a second
career).
Beating up teachers won't fix what's wrong with America's schools. He
needs
to think about solving problems for America's families.
I just met with two educators from Texas, where Bush's educational plan
has
been in place for many years. Here's what I said when I walked out of the
meeting: Jesus.
Bush doesn't seem to understand that education is a two way street, and
that
parental involvement is critical for the vast majority of kids. Unless you
can get the parents to partner up with the teachers, you're just blowing
smoke up the taxpayers collective ass.
I'm wondering when Bush will pass the "no child left out of the war" act.
Scout



"Bart Senior" wrote in message
t...
Fine, write me a check.

Clinton took away hundreds of thousand of jobs including mine.
Don't blame Bush when you don't have a clue what you are talking
about. The Clinton's cheating with White Water gave the green light
for corporate greed to go crazy.

The economy that began falling with the tech collapse a few years
ago, began in Britian when they auctioned off frequency spectrum to
the highest telecom bidders, instead of the best qualified companies.
The
result was that government gained $36 billion instead of the expected
$9 billion. Nations around the world got greedy and did the same thing.

The companys that got the frequency specturm stood likely to make
billions, but not right away. First they had to pay for it, and they
didn't
have the money.

To finance all that, telecom corporations faked growth figures and
bankers
financed them when they shouldn't. When growth figures were not met,
Nokia and other cell makers crashed followed by telecom stocks, then
the whole tech sector, then the entire market.

If you want to point the finger at any President. Clinton is the clear
winner by being a cheat and greedy himself, he set the example that
everyone else followed. And he pardoned those who paid him off.

Shame on you for blaming Bush, who has integrity and morals,
things unknown in the Democratic {sell-out} Party.

The Democrats never look at the long picture, their policy is
appeasement, like England's Chamberlin in WWII--that never works.
It takes toughness and moral intergirty to look after the common
good, not personal greedy so prevalent in the Democratic Party.

Let's vote for the greediest in the Democratic Party.

The nominations are; Hilllary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Jesse Jackson,
and John Kerry.

Jonathan Ganz wrote
I think the worst offender is someone who takes away your job.
I'd gladly give up some cash to have the job market actually
be stable or growing (not talking about burger flippers). Talk
to Bu****. He's taken away millions of jobs. Fortunately, despite
him, they're starting to come back.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

Comments interspersed...

"Bart Senior" wrote in message

John Kerry has missed more Senate votes this session than he's
made.

Are you trying to say that this is a good or bad thing?

Works for me. Now if we could just get the other 99 senators to
"miss"
votes.


During a Democrat fundraiser in San Francisco Monday, Sen.
Hillary
Rodham Clinton told the audience. "We're going to take things
away
from you on behalf of the common good."

Like illegal drugs? Like WMDs? Like assault rifles? Pretty easy to
take
things out of context isn't it....

Like money. More and more of our money.

Max

Who is Rush Limbaugh? and why he is a loser...
 

NOTE: This message was sent thru a mail2news gateway.
No effort was made to verify the identity of the sender.
--------------------------------------------------------

Thankfully, it looks like the peak of Angry Dumb White Male Power
might have passed. Maybe not, I thought it had gone with Newt
Gengrich...

DSK

Here's a study from 1996 on who listens to Limbaugh. Limbaugh listeners
are wealthier and better educated than the average American, not less.

--------------------------------

Call-In Political Talk Radio: Background, Content, Audiences,
Portrayal in Mainstream Media

A Report from the Annenberg Public Policy Center of
the University of Pennsylvania under the direction of
Joseph N. Cappella, Joseph Turow and Kathleen Hall
Jamieson and funded by The Ford Foundation and the
Carnegie Corporation of New York

7 August 1996

THE ANNENBERG PUBLIC POLICY CENTER
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA

[snip]

Table 2. Four Political Talk Radio (PTR) Groups

Demographics by Percentage -- Political Talk Radio (PTR) Listeners

Demographic Non- Limbaugh Conservative Lib/Mod.
Listener Listener Listener Listener

Male 47.2 61 54 54.8
Female 52.8 39 46 45.2

Age 18-29 22.1 18.8 16.9 14.9
Age 30-49 44.4 43.0 49.3 53.6
Age 50-64 19.1 21.3 19.1 16.7
Age 65+ 14.4 16.9 14.7 14.9

high school 10.0 03.3 03.6 06.8
HS graduate 35.1 31.3 21.6 26.7
Some college 26.7 30.8 34.5 20.6
College grad 28.2 34.6 40.3 45.9

Income $20 K 25.7 14.3 12.9 18.7
Income $20-30 K 20.5 21.9 12.1 19.0
Income $30-50 K 26.0 24.5 30.6 23.0
Income $50 K 27.8 39.3 44.4 39.3

White 77.5 89.2 83.5 79.2
Non-White 22.5 10.8 16.5 20.8

Conservative 32.4 70.0 47.8 19.5
Moderate 44.2 21.4 34.1 51.1
Liberal 23.3 08.6 18.1 29.4
Republican 26.3 61.4 44.8 17.8
Independent 38.1 24.8 29.1 39.0
Democrat 35.6 13.8 26.1 43.1


Political Knowledge and Participation

2. Regular political talk radio listeners are more likely than
non-listeners to consume all types of news media (excepting tv
news), to be more knowledgeable about politics and social issues,
and to be involved in political activities. This is true regardless
of the ideology of the hosts of the programs to which they listen.
In other words, Limbaugh’s audience is no more or less knowledgeable
or active than the audience for moderate/liberal or conservative
talk radio. However listeners to Conservative talk radio are more
likely to vote than are listeners to Limbaugh or Liberal/Moderate
political talk radio.

KNOWLEDGE

Survey respondents were asked a variety of questions about their
knowledge of political and social issues. They were asked about how
much they felt they knew about various topics in the news (e.g."How
much do you feel you know about the debate in Washington about the
budget?"). They were also asked factual questions about civics (e.g.
the percentage of the House and Senate required to override a
presidential veto), general information (e.g., the percentage of
welfare mothers receiving benefits for more than 3 years), and
current information in the news (e.g. the number of troops in Bosnia
who are members of the U.S. armed forces).

Two conclusions obtain. First, regular listeners of PTR have higher
levels of knowledge and correctly think they have higher levels of
knowledge than non-listeners. Second, regular listeners of Rush
Limbaugh, Conservative, and Liberal/Moderate PTR are no different
from one another in actual or reported knowledge. This is true of
civics knowledge, general factual knowledge about social and
political issues, and factual knowledge about things in the news.
The claims are based on knowledge and felt knowledge scores after
they are corrected for a variety of controls including education,
sex, gender, age, main stream media exposure, and ideology.

The audience of PTR may bring some special characteristics with it
to the medium which we are unable to measure. Or the content of PTR
may add to or facilitate the audience’s store of knowledge. What is
clear is that for the questions we used, no one audience of PTR --
Limbaugh’s or others -- is different in social or political
knowledge, from the other listeners.

POLITICAL PARTICIPATION

In previous surveys, PTR listeners have been shown to have higher
levels of political participation than others. Some hosts may
encourage their listeners to oppose or support specific issues. For
example, our content analysis of Limbaugh’s show suggested that a
substantial proportion of his time is spent on personal and
political efficacy.

Respondents were asked about their participation in political
affairs including contacting public officials, contributing money,
contacting newspapers or TV stations, and so on. Other forms of
participation include a general question on following what’s going
on in public affairs and government and reported voting frequency.

Regular listeners of PTR report higher levels of political
participation, closer following of politics and government, and
higher levels of voting than those who do not listen regularly.
These differences remain after a variety of controls for
demographic, party and ideological differences, and exposure to
other media. With one exception, which we will note in a moment,
those who listen regularly to Rush Limbaugh, Conservative, and
Liberal/Moderate PTR do not differ from one another in
participation, or the extent they follow "what’s going on in
government and public affairs."

The same findings (under the same set of controls) obtain on
measures of political efficacy ("people like me don’t have any say
...") and political meaninglessness ("there aren’t any important
differences between Republicans and Democrats ..."). Regular
listeners are higher in efficacy and lower in meaninglessness than
non-regular listeners (even after controls) indicating that they
believe that politics is important and they can influence government
and politicians. No differences were found among the three regular
listener groups.

One exception to this pattern which is not readily explainable is
that listeners to Conservative PTR report higher levels of voting
than any other group and this effect remains even after differences
due to audience characteristics and media exposure are removed.
Since there are no other differences in political participation,
knowledge, media use, or other obvious factors which would explain
these differences, we have an anomaly without an explanation.

As with knowledge questions, those who are regular listeners of PTR
have elevated levels of political involvement either because PTR
activates their involvement or because of some unknown
characteristics the audience brings with it to PTR. What can be said
is that the consumers of PTR are political activists.

Who is John Kerry? and why he is a loser...
 

Hey idiot... hate to tell you but it was the best economy in 30 years.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Horvath" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 03:13:35 GMT, "Maxprop"
wrote this crap:


"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

I said "there were job losses during Clinton." I didn't say that there
was
a net loss. There was a net gain during Clinton.

I heard on the news this week that the unemployment rate is currently at
5.5%. The average during the Clinton years was 5.8%.

And golly gee, that was the best economy in 84 years!



Clinton
presided over the longest and strongest expansion in recent memory.
You can spew your right-wing crap all you want. The facts remain the
facts.

I guess you don't remember the Reagan years.


The democrats are grasping at straws, harping about jobs and the economy,
which are almost non-issues. Personally I'm disappointed that Kerry, et.
al., haven't come up with something positive and substantive, beyond
Iraq.
This race portends to be little more than a ****-sling of the worst kind.

Agreed. The demoncrats got nothing. They got nothing on the economy.
They got nothing on health care. They got nothing on Iraq.

I heard on the radio that if Edwards becomes V.P. he plans to sue Iraq
to recover the cost of the war.


(I better not say anything bad about Edwards, he'll sue me.)





Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

Who is John Kerry? and why he is a loser...
 

You're right. It doesn't. One reason it doesn't is that it's not been
funded. It was a great idea, but without actually allocating the
funds, it's less than worthless.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Scott Vernon" wrote in message
...
My wife and every teacher she knows dislikes the 'no child left behind'
policy. It won't work.

Scotty

"Scout" wrote in message
...
I voted for Bush, even though I'm a reg democrat. But I'll tell you this
much: he doesn't know **** about education, other than how to make a bad
situation worse. He's good at making voters feel like he is doing
something
to improve things (no child left behind), but as funny as it sounds,
teachers are not the problem with the system (please remember that I'm
coming from a background in private industry, teaching is a second
career).
Beating up teachers won't fix what's wrong with America's schools. He
needs
to think about solving problems for America's families.
I just met with two educators from Texas, where Bush's educational plan
has
been in place for many years. Here's what I said when I walked out of
the
meeting: Jesus.
Bush doesn't seem to understand that education is a two way street, and
that
parental involvement is critical for the vast majority of kids. Unless
you
can get the parents to partner up with the teachers, you're just blowing
smoke up the taxpayers collective ass.
I'm wondering when Bush will pass the "no child left out of the war"
act.
Scout



"Bart Senior" wrote in message
t...
Fine, write me a check.

Clinton took away hundreds of thousand of jobs including mine.
Don't blame Bush when you don't have a clue what you are talking
about. The Clinton's cheating with White Water gave the green light
for corporate greed to go crazy.

The economy that began falling with the tech collapse a few years
ago, began in Britian when they auctioned off frequency spectrum to
the highest telecom bidders, instead of the best qualified companies.
The
result was that government gained $36 billion instead of the expected
$9 billion. Nations around the world got greedy and did the same
thing.

The companys that got the frequency specturm stood likely to make
billions, but not right away. First they had to pay for it, and they
didn't
have the money.

To finance all that, telecom corporations faked growth figures and
bankers
financed them when they shouldn't. When growth figures were not met,
Nokia and other cell makers crashed followed by telecom stocks, then
the whole tech sector, then the entire market.

If you want to point the finger at any President. Clinton is the
clear
winner by being a cheat and greedy himself, he set the example that
everyone else followed. And he pardoned those who paid him off.

Shame on you for blaming Bush, who has integrity and morals,
things unknown in the Democratic {sell-out} Party.

The Democrats never look at the long picture, their policy is
appeasement, like England's Chamberlin in WWII--that never works.
It takes toughness and moral intergirty to look after the common
good, not personal greedy so prevalent in the Democratic Party.

Let's vote for the greediest in the Democratic Party.

The nominations are; Hilllary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Jesse Jackson,
and John Kerry.

Jonathan Ganz wrote
I think the worst offender is someone who takes away your job.
I'd gladly give up some cash to have the job market actually
be stable or growing (not talking about burger flippers). Talk
to Bu****. He's taken away millions of jobs. Fortunately, despite
him, they're starting to come back.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

Comments interspersed...

"Bart Senior" wrote in message

John Kerry has missed more Senate votes this session than he's
made.

Are you trying to say that this is a good or bad thing?

Works for me. Now if we could just get the other 99 senators to
"miss"
votes.


During a Democrat fundraiser in San Francisco Monday, Sen.
Hillary
Rodham Clinton told the audience. "We're going to take things
away
from you on behalf of the common good."

Like illegal drugs? Like WMDs? Like assault rifles? Pretty easy
to
take
things out of context isn't it....

Like money. More and more of our money.

Max

Who is John Kerry? and why he is a loser...
 

It's nice to see Maxprop trying to back up his statements with at least
some form of near-fact.

Bobspirt wrote:
This from the guy who has yet to post anything other than innuendo and
conjecture. What a laugh.

Always glad to help.

Did you think the links I posted about Halliburton's overcharges were
"innuendo"? Maybe my statements about President Reagan failing to
reform the welfare system were "conjecture"?

DSK

Who is John Kerry? and why he is a loser...
 

But he wasn't fired, he quit. He connected with the kids, but not the
adults, and not just the teachers. The early / late complaint came from the
janitor, not sour-grapes teachers.
Scout


"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Scout wrote:
Max, the first thing wrong with this anecdote is that is begins with,
"An
attorney on the radio last week related a story . . . "
There are so many things that sound fishy with this story, that I'd need
to
see something verifiable.

Oh, it's easily verifiable. It's the movie "Stand and Deliver," the name
of the teacher is the same as the first name of the actor.

It's nice to see Maxprop trying to back up his statements with at least
some form of near-fact.

DSK

Who is John Kerry? and why he is a loser...
 

oops, my bad. Max did say "quit"

"Scout" wrote in message
...
But he wasn't fired, he quit. He connected with the kids, but not the
adults, and not just the teachers. The early / late complaint came from
the
janitor, not sour-grapes teachers.
Scout


"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Scout wrote:
Max, the first thing wrong with this anecdote is that is begins with,
"An
attorney on the radio last week related a story . . . "
There are so many things that sound fishy with this story, that I'd
need
to
see something verifiable.

Oh, it's easily verifiable. It's the movie "Stand and Deliver," the name
of the teacher is the same as the first name of the actor.

It's nice to see Maxprop trying to back up his statements with at least
some form of near-fact.

DSK

Rush Limbaugh? and why he & his listeners are losers...
 

An Metet wrote:
Here's a study from 1996 on who listens to Limbaugh. Limbaugh listeners
are wealthier and better educated than the average American, not less.

Thanks for posting this, but frankly I don't believe it. Limbaugh caters
to the lowest common denominator and spews so much blatant falsehood
(like the other day when he was whining about Alan Greenspan's record
with the Fed) that you'd have to be a retard, with a very short memory,
to believe half what he says.

At one point some years ago, Limbaugh described himself as 'an
entertainer, not a journalist' and said that he just made stuff up
because it was easier than doing research. He also said that most of his
audience were "morons"... that was his word, not mine. Since then I
guess he has made so much money that he guards his off-show comments
more carefully

...One exception to this pattern which is not readily explainable is
that listeners to Conservative PTR report higher levels of voting
than any other group and this effect remains even after differences
due to audience characteristics and media exposure are removed.
Since there are no other differences in political participation,
knowledge, media use, or other obvious factors which would explain
these differences, we have an anomaly without an explanation.

I can explain it easily. It is due the average Limbaugh listener's
pathologic rage against the Clintons. He pushes this button almost
daily. His listeners get all stoked with righteous indignation, then
they get out there and vote, dammit!

DSK

Who is John Kerry? and why he is a loser...
 

That's really my point. It looks good on paper, but doesn't address the real
problems.
Scout

"Scott Vernon" wrote in message
...
My wife and every teacher she knows dislikes the 'no child left behind'
policy. It won't work.

Scotty

"Scout" wrote in message
...
I voted for Bush, even though I'm a reg democrat. But I'll tell you this
much: he doesn't know **** about education, other than how to make a bad
situation worse. He's good at making voters feel like he is doing
something
to improve things (no child left behind), but as funny as it sounds,
teachers are not the problem with the system (please remember that I'm
coming from a background in private industry, teaching is a second
career).
Beating up teachers won't fix what's wrong with America's schools. He
needs
to think about solving problems for America's families.
I just met with two educators from Texas, where Bush's educational plan
has
been in place for many years. Here's what I said when I walked out of
the
meeting: Jesus.
Bush doesn't seem to understand that education is a two way street, and
that
parental involvement is critical for the vast majority of kids. Unless
you
can get the parents to partner up with the teachers, you're just blowing
smoke up the taxpayers collective ass.
I'm wondering when Bush will pass the "no child left out of the war"
act.
Scout



"Bart Senior" wrote in message
t...
Fine, write me a check.

Clinton took away hundreds of thousand of jobs including mine.
Don't blame Bush when you don't have a clue what you are talking
about. The Clinton's cheating with White Water gave the green light
for corporate greed to go crazy.

The economy that began falling with the tech collapse a few years
ago, began in Britian when they auctioned off frequency spectrum to
the highest telecom bidders, instead of the best qualified companies.
The
result was that government gained $36 billion instead of the expected
$9 billion. Nations around the world got greedy and did the same
thing.

The companys that got the frequency specturm stood likely to make
billions, but not right away. First they had to pay for it, and they
didn't
have the money.

To finance all that, telecom corporations faked growth figures and
bankers
financed them when they shouldn't. When growth figures were not met,
Nokia and other cell makers crashed followed by telecom stocks, then
the whole tech sector, then the entire market.

If you want to point the finger at any President. Clinton is the
clear
winner by being a cheat and greedy himself, he set the example that
everyone else followed. And he pardoned those who paid him off.

Shame on you for blaming Bush, who has integrity and morals,
things unknown in the Democratic {sell-out} Party.

The Democrats never look at the long picture, their policy is
appeasement, like England's Chamberlin in WWII--that never works.
It takes toughness and moral intergirty to look after the common
good, not personal greedy so prevalent in the Democratic Party.

Let's vote for the greediest in the Democratic Party.

The nominations are; Hilllary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Jesse Jackson,
and John Kerry.

Jonathan Ganz wrote
I think the worst offender is someone who takes away your job.
I'd gladly give up some cash to have the job market actually
be stable or growing (not talking about burger flippers). Talk
to Bu****. He's taken away millions of jobs. Fortunately, despite
him, they're starting to come back.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

Comments interspersed...

"Bart Senior" wrote in message

John Kerry has missed more Senate votes this session than he's
made.

Are you trying to say that this is a good or bad thing?

Works for me. Now if we could just get the other 99 senators to
"miss"
votes.


During a Democrat fundraiser in San Francisco Monday, Sen.
Hillary
Rodham Clinton told the audience. "We're going to take things
away
from you on behalf of the common good."

Like illegal drugs? Like WMDs? Like assault rifles? Pretty easy
to
take
things out of context isn't it....

Like money. More and more of our money.

Max

Who is John Kerry? and why he is a loser...
 

Some school districts (not the unions) are telling the feds to shove their
money. They'd rather do without then play that game. Reading (PA) SD is
suing the state over what it sees as inequities in the law.
Scout
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0211/p01s02-ussc.html

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
You're right. It doesn't. One reason it doesn't is that it's not been
funded. It was a great idea, but without actually allocating the
funds, it's less than worthless.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Scott Vernon" wrote in message
...
My wife and every teacher she knows dislikes the 'no child left behind'
policy. It won't work.

Scotty

"Scout" wrote in message
...
I voted for Bush, even though I'm a reg democrat. But I'll tell you
this
much: he doesn't know **** about education, other than how to make a
bad
situation worse. He's good at making voters feel like he is doing
something
to improve things (no child left behind), but as funny as it sounds,
teachers are not the problem with the system (please remember that I'm
coming from a background in private industry, teaching is a second
career).
Beating up teachers won't fix what's wrong with America's schools. He
needs
to think about solving problems for America's families.
I just met with two educators from Texas, where Bush's educational
plan
has
been in place for many years. Here's what I said when I walked out of
the
meeting: Jesus.
Bush doesn't seem to understand that education is a two way street,
and
that
parental involvement is critical for the vast majority of kids. Unless
you
can get the parents to partner up with the teachers, you're just
blowing
smoke up the taxpayers collective ass.
I'm wondering when Bush will pass the "no child left out of the war"
act.
Scout



"Bart Senior" wrote in message
t...
Fine, write me a check.

Clinton took away hundreds of thousand of jobs including mine.
Don't blame Bush when you don't have a clue what you are talking
about. The Clinton's cheating with White Water gave the green light
for corporate greed to go crazy.

The economy that began falling with the tech collapse a few years
ago, began in Britian when they auctioned off frequency spectrum to
the highest telecom bidders, instead of the best qualified
companies.
The
result was that government gained $36 billion instead of the
expected
$9 billion. Nations around the world got greedy and did the same
thing.

The companys that got the frequency specturm stood likely to make
billions, but not right away. First they had to pay for it, and
they
didn't
have the money.

To finance all that, telecom corporations faked growth figures and
bankers
financed them when they shouldn't. When growth figures were not
met,
Nokia and other cell makers crashed followed by telecom stocks, then
the whole tech sector, then the entire market.

If you want to point the finger at any President. Clinton is the
clear
winner by being a cheat and greedy himself, he set the example that
everyone else followed. And he pardoned those who paid him off.

Shame on you for blaming Bush, who has integrity and morals,
things unknown in the Democratic {sell-out} Party.

The Democrats never look at the long picture, their policy is
appeasement, like England's Chamberlin in WWII--that never works.
It takes toughness and moral intergirty to look after the common
good, not personal greedy so prevalent in the Democratic Party.

Let's vote for the greediest in the Democratic Party.

The nominations are; Hilllary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Jesse Jackson,
and John Kerry.

Jonathan Ganz wrote
I think the worst offender is someone who takes away your job.
I'd gladly give up some cash to have the job market actually
be stable or growing (not talking about burger flippers). Talk
to Bu****. He's taken away millions of jobs. Fortunately, despite
him, they're starting to come back.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

Comments interspersed...

"Bart Senior" wrote in message

John Kerry has missed more Senate votes this session than
he's
made.

Are you trying to say that this is a good or bad thing?

Works for me. Now if we could just get the other 99 senators to
"miss"
votes.


During a Democrat fundraiser in San Francisco Monday, Sen.
Hillary
Rodham Clinton told the audience. "We're going to take
things
away
from you on behalf of the common good."

Like illegal drugs? Like WMDs? Like assault rifles? Pretty
easy
to
take
things out of context isn't it....

Like money. More and more of our money.

Max

Who is John Kerry? and why he is a loser...
 

Scout wrote:
That's really my point. It looks good on paper, but doesn't address the real
problems.

It's also an "unfunded mandate" which is one of the things that
conservatives dislike intensely...

DSK

Rush Limbaugh? and why he & his listeners are losers...
 

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
An Metet wrote:
Here's a study from 1996 on who listens to Limbaugh. Limbaugh listeners
are wealthier and better educated than the average American, not less.

Thanks for posting this, but frankly I don't believe it......

I believe it was true back in 1966 when the White House was supplying him
with plenty of punch lines, but not now that Clintoon and his crowd of
comedians have been replaced by The Shrub and friends. What surprises me is
that no left-wing equivalent of Limbaugh has become popular cuz the Shrub
certainly provides lots of material.

Rush Limbaugh? and why he & his listeners are losers...
 

NOTE: This message was sent thru a mail2news gateway.
No effort was made to verify the identity of the sender.
--------------------------------------------------------

What surprises me is that no left-wing equivalent of
Limbaugh has become popular cuz the Shrub certainly provides lots of
material.

Heart-string-pulling arguments (pleas to pure emotion) work better on
television, or cinema. Dry logical debate works best in print. But the
thing that works best on radio is logic, fueled by passionate belief.
That's the essence of conservative talk radio.

The problem with the left is that they can't combine their passion with
their logic. The things they believe most passionately are illogical.

It seems, leftwing arguments can't work without all the pretty (or
disgusting) images to distract the unwashed. Leftist dogma is conveyed
best in things like fast-cut Michael Moore movies.

Most of the conservative talk hosts (those that take callers) put their
critical callers up first. They like to debate and win their points.
It's fun and it makes for good radio. None of the lame liberal talk
shows that I've heard do that. They just preach to the choir. Boring.

Rush Limbaugh? and why he & his listeners are losers...
 

What surprises me is that no left-wing equivalent of
Limbaugh has become popular cuz the Shrub certainly provides lots of
material.

Heart-string-pulling arguments (pleas to pure emotion) work better on
television, or cinema. Dry logical debate works best in print. But the
thing that works best on radio is logic, fueled by passionate belief.
That's the essence of conservative talk radio.

Also, the left already own print media and television. Radio is not an
"outlet" for liberals because their viewpoint is already prevalent across most
media.

Rush Limbaugh? and why he & his listeners are losers...
 

On Thu, 8 Jul 2004 17:45:27 -0400, An Metet
wrote:

NOTE: This message was sent thru a mail2news gateway.
No effort was made to verify the identity of the sender.
--------------------------------------------------------

What surprises me is that no left-wing equivalent of
Limbaugh has become popular cuz the Shrub certainly provides lots of
material.

Heart-string-pulling arguments (pleas to pure emotion) work better on
television, or cinema. Dry logical debate works best in print. But the
thing that works best on radio is logic, fueled by passionate belief.
That's the essence of conservative talk radio.

The problem with the left is that they can't combine their passion with
their logic. The things they believe most passionately are illogical.

It seems, leftwing arguments can't work without all the pretty (or
disgusting) images to distract the unwashed. Leftist dogma is conveyed
best in things like fast-cut Michael Moore movies.

Most of the conservative talk hosts (those that take callers) put their
critical callers up first. They like to debate and win their points.
It's fun and it makes for good radio. None of the lame liberal talk
shows that I've heard do that. They just preach to the choir. Boring.

Oh, please. "Debate", "critical callers". Rush Limbaugh and his
imitators are about as much like an open debate as professional
wrestling is a competitive sport. They spend their entire program
trying to demonize the "other side" with fabrications and
exaggerations. They control the "debate" with screeners and kill
buttons. Frankly, these programs appeal to people's baser instincts
in the same manner as the Jerry Springer Show. It is certainly not
for civil discourse, information or balanced debates. It is
propaganda pure and simple and is designed to reinforce the biases of
the weak minded. It is more akin to a Klan rally than to Meet the
Press.

You should really get off your intellectual high horse before you take
a nasty fall.

Who is John Kerry? and why he is a loser...
 

"Scout" wrote in message

Max, the first thing wrong with this anecdote is that is begins with, "An
attorney on the radio last week related a story . . . "
There are so many things that sound fishy with this story, that I'd need
to
see something verifiable. It just doesn't ring true, and sounds like a
lawyer tying to make a case for his client (i.e., he needs a villain). I
am
interested however, and looking for the story myself; so far no luck. It
should be a fairly easy story to find. If you see the story, preferably
with
two sides, please post it.

Will do. I'm still searching for it as well.

Several year's ago I was Pennsylvania's New Teacher of the Year. Part of
the
reason for that was that I was at school an hour before and at least an
hour
afterschool for kids who needed extra help. The other teachers had no
problems with this, and I can't understand why any would, unless there is
more to this story than the radio lawyer has let on. Please keep me posted
if you hear more.
Scout

My general mistrust of attorneys tends to lead me to be skeptical as well,
but the show's host (it was a WLS--Chicago--local show) claimed to have read
the same story, lending some credence. If I can find anything, I'll post it
here under "Teacher Story."

Max

Who is John Kerry? and why he is a loser...
 

"DSK" wrote in message

Scout wrote:
Max, the first thing wrong with this anecdote is that is begins with,
"An
attorney on the radio last week related a story . . . "
There are so many things that sound fishy with this story, that I'd need
to
see something verifiable.

Oh, it's easily verifiable. It's the movie "Stand and Deliver," the name
of the teacher is the same as the first name of the actor.

It's nice to see Maxprop trying to back up his statements with at least
some form of near-fact.

Why thanks, Doug. In your arrogant and derogatory way, you've paid me a
backhanded compliment.

Max