So what you're saying is, ...no chance in hell, or the USA.


"Commodore Joe Redcloud" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 15:18:19 GMT, "jlrogers" wrote:

So what you're saying is that the schools educate and mold character.
Now that's funny!


No, I'm saying that they "could" if things were done with the idea of
doing the
best possible job, rather than the minimum allowable by law.




"Commodore Joe Redcloud" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 05:25:23 GMT, "Maxprop"
wrote:


"Commodore Joe Redcloud" wrote in message
m...
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 20:40:12 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

All pretense of reform was dropped many years ago. We can reform
people
if
we spent some time and money on the problem. However, instead, we're
spending our money elsewhere.

For what it costs to keep someone in a federal prison, you could send
them
to
Harvard for the same period of time. When they get out of Harvard,
they
could
find a job that pays a lot more than being a punk crook or low level
drug
dealer.

So what you're saying is that if you wish to attend Harvard, don't waste
time studying your ass off, achieving excellent grades and accumulating
academic awards? Rather just break into a store and steal something?

Max


You are apparently on an intellectual par with Sloco. I never suggested
sending
convicted criminals to Harvard. I merely pointed out that a very high
quality
education was less expensive than keeping someone in prison. The problem
in the
US is that people think providing a good education is too expensive and
raises
their taxes. My feeling is that if we gave kids the absolutely best
education
possible, rather than the half-hearted system we have now, there would
be
fewer
candidates for prison, and our net cost would be lower.

Prevent the problem up front, instead of trying to patch it afterwards.


Commodore Joe Redcloud


Commodore Joe Redcloud

Thats what Robert Broady is saying. To bad he has to use his foul
puppet to do so.

Joe