|
I've figured it out
On Sep 8, 9:27*pm, wrote:
On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 13:46:08 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message .. . On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 12:13:01 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message ... On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 11:34:29 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message om... On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 00:11:59 -0700, jps wrote: These idiots who don't want the President talking to their kids about school... They're afraid the kids are going to find out Obama is a completely reasonable guy who makes a lot of sense. *It'll totally undercut the lies they've been telling their kids at home. Then there are those concerned citizens that don't trust that the Obama Administration will keep it unsullied from politics. Ummm... several former presidents have talked "policy" with students.. What's so terrible? I can't speak to the veracity of your assertion, nor can I speak for those concerned citizens regarding your assertion. HW Bush promoted his education policy in, I believe, 1991. Pres. Reagan talked about tax cuts and Christianity I believe in 1988 or 1989. Here's a CNN link... http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/...ech/index.html "Those concerned citizens" sound fairly uninformed. You've confused the issue. *There is nothing in the statement that may be reasonably inferred that concerned citizens have been unconcerned about previous improprieties. No confusion here. I never heard of people refusing to let their kids listen to the president speak until this year. Yes, you are confused. *You are not a careful thinker, else you're given to sophistry. -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service * * * * * * *-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - So, which one of our local desk dwellers do you think it is? Hertvic, didn't he leave when we all read his gay emo son's facebook.. Or was it when he got caught calling someone elses' wife with a foul mough? It's not Joe Spare Bedroom, not drunk enough, Gould, no, not smart enough, Harry, no, too smart. Donnie, no, he can't think that far out of the box.. Who does it leave? We do have a few others who beleive anything Letterman or Stewart say.. Doesn't matter, just kf him and get done with it... Funny, I had to log on with Google today and found that WAFA is still stalking me and the others.. Must be lonely there in the basement, if that is really where he is. Do they let convicted pedo's post from jail??? |
I've figured it out
JustWaitAFrekinMinute! wrote:
Funny, I had to log on with Google today and found that WAFA is still stalking me and the others.. Must be lonely there in the basement, if that is really where he is. Do they let convicted pedo's post from jail??? Chuckling at your ignorance, stupidity, and ****-poor parenting skills is not stalking. -- Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger: Idiots All |
I've figured it out
wrote in message
... HW Bush promoted his education policy in, I believe, 1991. Pres. Reagan talked about tax cuts and Christianity I believe in 1988 or 1989. Here's a CNN link... http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/...ech/index.html "Those concerned citizens" sound fairly uninformed. No confusion here. I never heard of people refusing to let their kids listen to the president speak until this year. Yes, you are confused. You are not a careful thinker, else you're given to sophistry. I'm not confused, but you're attempting yet another personal attack, which is pretty low-brow. I've posted the facts. Your response was to try and put me down... unsuccessfully, however. -- Nom=de=Plume |
I've figured it out
On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 19:27:44 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote: wrote in message .. . HW Bush promoted his education policy in, I believe, 1991. Pres. Reagan talked about tax cuts and Christianity I believe in 1988 or 1989. Here's a CNN link... http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/...ech/index.html "Those concerned citizens" sound fairly uninformed. No confusion here. I never heard of people refusing to let their kids listen to the president speak until this year. Yes, you are confused. You are not a careful thinker, else you're given to sophistry. I'm not confused, but you're attempting yet another personal attack, which is pretty low-brow. I've posted the facts. Your response was to try and put me down... unsuccessfully, however. I've told my son before that he was not a careful thinker. It was not an attack. It was an honest critique. But, then it's my contention that those that won't recognize their shortcomings won't be able to correct the same. You are not a careful thinker. You inferred a proposition from my comment that was not implied. -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
I've figured it out
wrote in message
... I'm not confused, but you're attempting yet another personal attack, which is pretty low-brow. I've posted the facts. Your response was to try and put me down... unsuccessfully, however. I've told my son before that he was not a careful thinker. It was not an attack. It was an honest critique. But, then it's my contention that those that won't recognize their shortcomings won't be able to correct the same. You are not a careful thinker. You inferred a proposition from my comment that was not implied. Firstly, that's an intensly cruel thing to say to someone. Saying to your son?? Good gosh! Secondly, you don't know me near as well as you supposedly know your son. Based on a few posts, it seems hardly likely that you would know me well enough to make that judgement. I think you just prefer to put people down who don't agree with you 100%. Oh, and you're a very rude person. Like I said, low-brow. -- Nom=de=Plume |
I've figured it out
On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 22:04:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote: wrote in message .. . I'm not confused, but you're attempting yet another personal attack, which is pretty low-brow. I've posted the facts. Your response was to try and put me down... unsuccessfully, however. I've told my son before that he was not a careful thinker. It was not an attack. It was an honest critique. But, then it's my contention that those that won't recognize their shortcomings won't be able to correct the same. You are not a careful thinker. You inferred a proposition from my comment that was not implied. Firstly, that's an intensly cruel thing to say to someone. No, it's not. You're invested in histrionics. Saying to your son?? Good gosh! Secondly, you don't know me near as well as you supposedly know your son. Based on a few posts, it seems hardly likely that you would know me well enough to make that judgement. I think you just prefer to put people down who don't agree with you 100%. Oh, and you're a very rude person. Like I said, low-brow. My apologies. I'll amend my original indictment. You have demonstrated at least one instance of poor thinking. It's an odd thing that you can liberally charge me with cruelty while you take umbrage with being taken to task for poor thinking. But I must remind myself that you are thinking poorly. -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
I've figured it out
In article ,
says... JustWait wrote: In article , says... JustWait wrote: In article , says... Frogwatch wrote: On Sep 8, 1:34 pm, NotNow wrote: Frogwatch wrote: On Sep 8, 12:12 pm, Jim wrote: jps wrote: These idiots who don't want the President talking to their kids about school... They're afraid the kids are going to find out Obama is a completely reasonable guy who makes a lot of sense. It'll totally undercut the lies they've been telling their kids at home. Kids, being what they are, will question the indoctrination the parents give them on a daily basis. I'd bet some of these irrational right wingers are raising future Democrats. I now favor making kids watch the speech and forcing them to do the lesson plans. Teenagers being teens will rebel and become anti-Obama. What "lesson plans"? You don't get much news do you? http://www.ed.gov/teachers/how/lessons/7-12.pdf Psssst, that's the Department of Education's plan not something Obama wanted nor did he ask them to do. You know this how? Please cite your source... Click the friggin' link for crying out loud. Well, there was a waste of five minutes. Nowhere did it say they did it totally on their own. Funny how they are so smart they could set up a curriculum without knowing what the speech was to be about.. Yeah, no communication or preview of the speech, right... Pffffttt. That's because they didn't "set up a curriculum". Oh noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo here is that "is, is" thing again. You say tomatoe, I say tomatoe, you say end of life panels, I say death panels, I say cirriculum, you say what, lesson plan??? Either way, the speech was probably changed a lot because of the backlash, good for that... -- Wafa free since 2009 |
I've figured it out
JustWait wrote:
That's because they didn't "set up a curriculum". Oh noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo here is that "is, is" thing again. You say tomatoe, I say tomatoe, you say end of life panels, I say death panels, I say cirriculum, you say what, lesson plan??? Either way, the speech was probably changed a lot because of the backlash, good for that... 1. I doubt the speech was changed because of the "backlash" from morons like you. But I am sure it went through the typical speech draft process. 2. There's no "e" in tomato. But there can be in tomatoes. 3. There are no end of life or death panels. 4. A curriculum is a course of study. A lesson plan is a specific course of instruction. They are not the same. It's too bad you took that job as a warehouse worker instead of staying in school. It shows with your every uneducated, ill-informed, ignorant post. -- Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger: Idiots All |
I've figured it out
JustWait wrote:
In article , says... JustWait wrote: In article , says... JustWait wrote: In article , says... Frogwatch wrote: On Sep 8, 1:34 pm, NotNow wrote: Frogwatch wrote: On Sep 8, 12:12 pm, Jim wrote: jps wrote: These idiots who don't want the President talking to their kids about school... They're afraid the kids are going to find out Obama is a completely reasonable guy who makes a lot of sense. It'll totally undercut the lies they've been telling their kids at home. Kids, being what they are, will question the indoctrination the parents give them on a daily basis. I'd bet some of these irrational right wingers are raising future Democrats. I now favor making kids watch the speech and forcing them to do the lesson plans. Teenagers being teens will rebel and become anti-Obama. What "lesson plans"? You don't get much news do you? http://www.ed.gov/teachers/how/lessons/7-12.pdf Psssst, that's the Department of Education's plan not something Obama wanted nor did he ask them to do. You know this how? Please cite your source... Click the friggin' link for crying out loud. Well, there was a waste of five minutes. Nowhere did it say they did it totally on their own. Funny how they are so smart they could set up a curriculum without knowing what the speech was to be about.. Yeah, no communication or preview of the speech, right... Pffffttt. That's because they didn't "set up a curriculum". Oh noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo here is that "is, is" thing again. You say tomatoe, I say tomatoe, you say end of life panels, I say death panels, I say cirriculum, you say what, lesson plan??? Either way, the speech was probably changed a lot because of the backlash, good for that... Do you have any evidence that the speech was changed, or are you going with what the GOP has told you about this speech, which so far has proven to be all lies? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:40 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com