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

You cannot provide one scintilla of evidence that he lied about WMDs.
He
was wrong, .... But he
lied? Show me the evidence, not just your left-wing dogmatic opinion.

By that logic, Clintoon didn't "lie" about the BJ - he just didn't
consider
a BJ "sex".

Bark up some other tree, Vito, or is it Guido? :-) I accepted Clinton's
explanation at the time. Sex, as most people define it, is sexual
intercourse. He didn't do the nasty with that hog, so his statement was
accurate in the modern vernacular.

Then we agree. Clinton was smart enough to choose true words to cover his
ass and Bush was stupid enough to believe there were WMDs in Iraq - but
neither lied.

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

Most of the teachers I've met are hard working, concerned, dedicated
individuals. Absolutely, there are a few duds, they're everywhere; in every
profession. I think many of those duds were idealists at one point in their
careers, but came to realize an uncomfortable kinship with Don Quixote. I
can name the teachers I've had that were duds, but they were few and far
between. I've seen duds get dumped too. People think tenure means job
security, but a course in educational law would clear that up quickly.
Tenure means one thing - a teacher has the right to due process before they
are whacked. To the best of my knowledge, all state and federal employees
have that right. Anything wrong with providing evidence that someone
deserves to lose their job? Most union workers have similar rights - some
people don't like that but it's not too hard to figure out why. Read "The
Grapes of Wrath" ~ a great book by the way!
I'm not sure on what evidence you base your conclusion that the NEA is
clueless regarding education. Seems a bit broad. I'm a teacher and I don't
feel any pressure from the NEA to go stagnant, quite the opposite is true.
I'm not here to defend the NEA and don't even see why you felt the need to
change the subject from Bush to the NEA. If you are right about the NEA, are
you implying that two wrongs are making a right? Geez, I just read a thread
that says 4 rights can't even get you back to where you started from! Go
figure.
I'm not sure that we're not all suffering from entropy, which is why I don't
typically argue much here in a.s.a., beyond a few shots from left field.
Pick any thread and read it through and you'll see that 99% of the time, the
place is full of little Caesars jabbing each other with sharp sticks. That
goes for me too, when I feel like being petty, I come here. Don't have your
feelings hurt if I don't debate you point for point, it just means that I
think your mind is made up and I'm not particularly interested in swaying
your opinion. Hell, maybe you're right! But if you have real answers, now
would be a good time to come forward and lead us all into a new
enlightenment.
Scout


"Maxprop" wrote in message
link.net...

"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.

Your last sentence is absolutely correct. But as long as the NEA is
resistant to any and all attempts to improve the quality of teachers and
teaching, there will be little or no improvement in our school systems.
Why
is the NEA so opposed to anything that insures uniform teaching standards
and eliminates the duds? I'll tell you why: the NEA isn't interested in
good education; it is only interested in protecting teachers from any
accountability and responsibility in their profession. The NEA is a
special
interest group for/by/and of teachers. Not students, not education, not
society. You were right in that society ( American families) don't get
involved with the education process. But the NEA insures that teachers
won't accept any of the fault either.

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,

. . . nor does the NEA.

and that
parental involvement is critical for the vast majority of kids.

That is true. W won't risk alienating minorities or the poor by targeting
their parents as the source of many of education's problems. But for
teachers to place all the blame on society for education's ills is equally
disingenuous. There is culpability on both sides.

Unless you
can get the parents to partner up with the teachers, you're just blowing
smoke up the taxpayers collective ass.

Attempting to get parents to do this is probably blowing smoke up
everyone's
asses. No one will take on the minorities--it's just too politically
incorrect. No one will take on the poor--same reason. So the problems
will
continue. Teachers, OTOH, aren't perfect either. Most are excellent
educators, but there are some serious deficiencies in their ranks. Tenure
and NEA protectionism keeps the losers in their jobs along with the
top-notch teachers.

Max

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

"Vito" wrote in message

You cannot provide one scintilla of evidence that he lied about
WMDs.
He
was wrong, .... But he
lied? Show me the evidence, not just your left-wing dogmatic
opinion.

By that logic, Clintoon didn't "lie" about the BJ - he just didn't
consider
a BJ "sex".

Bark up some other tree, Vito, or is it Guido? :-) I accepted
Clinton's
explanation at the time. Sex, as most people define it, is sexual
intercourse. He didn't do the nasty with that hog, so his statement was
accurate in the modern vernacular.

Then we agree. Clinton was smart enough to choose true words to cover his
ass and Bush was stupid enough to believe there were WMDs in Iraq - but
neither lied.

I think we've found common ground. I'll go one step further and state my
belief that Bush was searching for an excuse to attack Iraq. WMDs were a
convenient gambit, good intel or not, and he ran with it. I also stated on
this NG before we entered Iraq (for the second time) that if WMDs weren't
found, Bush's credibility and his chances for re-election would be damaged.
I believe that to be the case currently. Ousting Saddam was a good thing,
but at a huge cost to the US in terms of both lives and funds.

Max

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

"DSK" wrote in message

Maxprop wrote:

This is pointless, because you'll accuse me of "fascist whackoism" no
matter
what I say.

That's not true at all. If you didn't babble like a fascist whacko, I
wouldn't accuse of it.

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


But I'm a glutton for liberal punishment, so here goes.

1) You vilified Reagan for his stance against welfare.

No, I did not. I said that Reagan made an appeal to racism with his
stance against welfare recipients. A rather different thing. Is it your
belief that conservatives must also be racists?

Of course not. And I disagree with your knee-jerk assessment. He was
appealing to that part of his constituency that had grown tired of funding
the lives of those able to fund themselves. It was a fiscal issue. He also
believed that welfare was a trap for many who might otherwise become
productive. That was a humanitarian concern. He also stated unequivocally
that there were those who had no other options beyond welfare, and believed
the program to be justified for them. Another humanitarian point. How that
appeals to racists is beyond me. But this does demonstrate that you've
chosen to look for the worst in the man, rather than any possible good.

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

... I would like you to
show me where in the US Constitution it provides for taking money from
some
and giving it to others.

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

He tried. But with a largely democrat congress--whose very political
careers depend upon the perpetuation of social programs such as welfare--any
attempt at welfare reform was doomed from the get-go. He faced major
battles with every single budget he proposed, and had to compromise
ultimately.


2) You branded so-called "Reaganomics" as absurd.

As do most economists. Even the more intelligent of Reagan's & Bush Sr's
cabinets thought it was a lot of malarkey.

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 called supply-side economics, and it has been around for
centuries. I found an obscure reference to it in a yellowed book on
early
economics of the Continent (that would be Europe for those of you who
graduated from public schools). The book was copywritten in the early
1900s, but dealt with the period beginning with the signing of the Magna
Charta. Supply-side economics is generally a conservative mantra.

No, it is generally the mantra of those who believe in corporate welfare.

And corporate welfare is NOT a conservative belief? One I happen to take
issue with, but conservative nonetheless. Liberals favor welfare for the
poor in order to garner votes. Conservatives favor welfare for the rich in
order to garner votes. I oppose welfare of any kind, except for those with
no other options. I suppose that makes me heartless and racist in your
liberal mindset.

3) You've made reference to other topics--too many to enumerate
here--that
seem to imply a belief in larger, more expansive government.

Really? Please quote them.

Don't ask me to quote your posts of weeks ago. I have no stomach for the
pedantry that generally pervades these NGs.


... Despite your belief to the
contrary, Rush Limbaugh, Ollie North, and Sean Hannity have a far better
grasp of conservatism than you.

The fact that you think so shows that you really can't think very well.

Or perhaps it shows that I hear them voice my own opinions on their
programs. Of course you've never considered that. You only accuse me of
parrotting the talk show hosts. That shows your very myopic view of others.
Flash for ya, Doug: two individuals may arrive at the same conclusions
independently.

But keep trying. I'd suggest reading instead of listening to sleazy
demagogues. Try sampling the writings of William F. Buckley and Robert
Heinlein.

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.

I'm puzzled by your hatred of Limbaugh and his ilk. By and large they
express commonly-held conservative views, are generally non-racist, and do
their best to dispel liberal myths. I'm guessing you've never really
listened to any of them. 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.

Max

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

"Scout" wrote in message

Most of the teachers I've met are hard working, concerned, dedicated
individuals.

My observation as well.

snip


I'm not sure on what evidence you base your conclusion that the NEA is
clueless regarding education. Seems a bit broad.

By its actions, both political and internally functional, it has
demonstrated a tremendous desire to protect and assist teachers with little
or no regard to protecting students from lousy teachers. It lobbies for
better pay for teachers, better working conditions for teachers, more job
security for teachers, better retirement programs for teachers, and so on.
For students or the education process as a whole? Nada. NEA is a
misnomer--it should be NTA.

I'm a teacher and I don't
feel any pressure from the NEA to go stagnant, quite the opposite is true.

Silly statement. I never said the NEA was promoting stagnation. Rather it
protects those who have, for one reason or another, stagnated.

snip


Hell, maybe you're right! But if you have real answers, now
would be a good time to come forward and lead us all into a new
enlightenment.

In your previous post you touched on one of the key issues concerning the
problems with education in this country. Anecdote: a teacher friend told
me that one of her bright students was struggling with math. She
specifically called the girl's mother in for a conference to elucidate the
problem and offer suggestions for remediation. After showing the mother
what she could do to help, the mother replied, "That's not my job. Your the
teacher. You take care of it." Upon which she walked out.

Just a single anecdote, but probably not atypical. In fact I'm willing to
wager that many parents simply don't show up for such teacher/parent
conferences. Many don't care. Some care but are powerless to do anything
about it due to work considerations. Some simply don't have the education
to be of help to their kids. But one thing is pervasive: the input from
parents to their children is invaluable and irreplaceable, and if it is
absent, the kid has two strikes against him/her. Some wonder why the
students of Asian and Oriental families often excel in school. Simple:
from the day the kids can walk and talk their parents stress the importance
of education and excellence. It's a cultural norm. What percentage of
American parents do this? I'm betting it's far less than 50%.

I admire good teachers. It's a job I wouldn't do under the current set of
circumstances for any amount of money. But I'd like to see the NEA not be
so resistant to holding teachers to minimally acceptable standards. In my
profession I'm held to lofty standards and face recertification every two
years. Nothing wrong with that.

Max

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

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...
 

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.

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.

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. 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.

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

"Maxprop" wrote in message
link.net...

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

Oh, I forgot... I *am* a liberal. Sorry. Actually, I'm a capitalist and
a
liberal. Overall, NAFTA was good for the US. Job loss did result, but
that was to be expected in some cases.

Okay, Jon, how was NAFTA good for the US? You admitted job loss, so where
did it help us? Oh, did you mean that GM, Chrysler, and Ford watched
their
profits grow, thanks to cheaper Mexican and Canadian labor? Did you mean
that those companies profitted because Canada and Mexico have relaxed
EPA-type regulations, compared with the US? Hmmm. Strange logic for a
liberal. :-)

True, there were job losses during Clinton, but far more during Bush.

Say what? The unemployment rate is currently at a lower rate than the
average during the entire Clinton administration.


I don't believe we were in a recession during Clinton.

Then you are in denial. The facts are the facts. The downturn began
during
Clinton's last year. But ya know what? I don't even blame Clinton for
that. Business cycles just happen. Of course you knee-jerk liberals love
to blame Bush for rainy days and earthquakes, too.

It happened
well into Bush. The economy was slowing during the latter of Clinton,
but it was not a recession.

Semantics. The process was underway, regardless of whether you call it a
"slowing" or a "recession."

Bush, I submit, made it worse. As a result,
2M jobs were lost.

Most of those were lost after 9/11.

We have a long way to go before those are
regained. Didn't intend to put words in your mouth... sorry.

I wouldn't want to blow anything up your ass... really, but it is a
matter of record that Bush made the situation worse with his stupid
tax cut that benefited no one who needed a lift.

The effect of a tax cut will never be immediate. It takes time. But I do
agree that the tax cuts should have benefitted the middle class more than
they did. Putting money in the hands of the wealthiest insures only that
they will invest more overseas these days. Unfortunately the democrats
only
want to rescind tax cuts, rather than giving the middle class their fair
share. Clinton promised a huge middle-class tax cut in his first
campaign.
Gave us one hell of a tax increase, IIRC.

I think there are plenty of reasons to vilify Bush. I've done so many
times. They're worth repeating, but it's late and I need to get up
early.

Most of your reasons came from moveon.org. no doubt.

Max

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

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

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

"Maxprop" wrote in message
link.net...

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
Well you said it not I....

Okay, Jon. You regurgitate liberal dogma. If that suits you, so be it.

Max


"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...
(Now, don't your statements sound as completely idiotic as my own?

Time to take your own medicine I think.

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

You might say it, but it doesn't make it true. Support yourself
with facts if you can.

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

"Maxprop" wrote in message
link.net...

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

Not a snowball's chance in hell of that happening anytime soon.

Mind enlightening us as to why? I'd say there's at least a 50-50 chance
that one or both houses will shift back to the left.

Max

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

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

Good for you. In that case, you should be voting for Kerry.

I very well may. But I'm watching what is going to happen in
Congress,
too.
If it looks as if it's going back to the left, I'll vote for W.

Max

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

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.