NOYB wrote:
Yale grades portray Kerry as a lackluster student
His 4-year average on par with Bush's
By Michael Kranish, Globe Staff | June 7, 2005

WASHINGTON -- During last year's presidential campaign, John F. Kerry was
the candidate often portrayed as intellectual and complex, while George W.
Bush was the populist who mangled his sentences.


He's not "portrayed" that way, President Bush does in fact mangle words
& sentences.

But newly released records show that Bush and Kerry had a virtually
identical grade average at Yale University four decades ago.


Does anybody actually believe this? Strikes me as yet another case of
Bush's records being conveniently lost or falsified.

If you want to see the *real* difference between the two, compare how
the two's children speak in public, and behave in general. But hey, if
'family values' matter most to you, then you probably won't care about
raising intelligent, well balanced, well-spoken, professional, and
high-achieving kids... at least, if you claim you care about family
values and voted for Bush anyway...

DSK

On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 13:19:59 -0400, DSK wrote:


If you want to see the *real* difference between the two, compare how
the two's children speak in public, and behave in general. But hey, if
'family values' matter most to you, then you probably won't care about
raising intelligent, well balanced, well-spoken, professional, and
high-achieving kids... at least, if you claim you care about family
values and voted for Bush anyway...

DSK


We should have elected Kerry. Besides well-balanced, well-spoken, professional,
and high-achieving kids, we could have expected:

Taxes to go up *only* for those making over $200,000,
The 'No Child Left Behind Act' to be fully funded,
The Iraq Coalition to become much larger very soon, especially with
all the French and German troops that will join,
Everyone able to have the same medical care afforded members of
Congress,
Cheap prescription drugs,
All children going to college,
An immediate end to the nuclear weapons aims of North Korea and Iran,
America to soon be the beloved nation of the entire world,
A tremendous decrease in unemployment,
A huge increase in high-paying jobs,
A resurgence of manufacturing jobs,
A tremendous decrease in outsourcing, with jobs returning to the US,
An energy independent America, with no reliance on Mideast oil,
A modernized military, able to meet all threats,
The failure of terrorist organizations to breed new generations,
A 50% reduction in the deficit,
Enforcement of all of our trade laws, with a complete review in 120
days,
An increase in the minimum wage to $7.00,
The creation of10 million new jobs in his first term,
Changes in credit laws to prevent very high interest rates,
The savings of billions of dollars in medical overhead costs,
The inspection of the 95% of containers entering the country not
currently inspected,
More secure borders,
The hardening of nuclear plants, airports, trains and subways against
attack,
Improvement of our intelligence gathering, analysis and sharing to
stop terrorists before they can do harm,
A tougher, smarter, more effective war on terror,
The securing of nuclear materials worldwide,
A speed-up in drug and vaccine development,
and,
did I mention he will raise taxes only on those making $200,000 or
more?

Did I leave anything out?

--
John H

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction
... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real
...."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

If you want to see the *real* difference between the two, compare how
the two's children speak in public, and behave in general. But hey, if
'family values' matter most to you, then you probably won't care about
raising intelligent, well balanced, well-spoken, professional, and
high-achieving kids... at least, if you claim you care about family
values and voted for Bush anyway...



John H wrote:
We should have elected Kerry. Besides well-balanced, well-spoken, professional,
and high-achieving kids, we could have expected:

Taxes to go up *only* for those making over $200,000,

Or maybe a reduction in the huge defecit due to the "war on terrorism"
which Bush & Cheney are fighting by invading countries that have no
connection to terrorism...

The 'No Child Left Behind Act' to be fully funded,

Or maybe the 'No Child Left Behind' act would be rescinded and in it's
place a reasonable, effective, and non-punitive, educational policy that
could be executed with the existing level of funding

BTW you're an educator John H (or at least have claimed to be) what do
you really think of President Bush's unfunded mandate called 'The No
Child Left Behind Act'?

The Iraq Coalition to become much larger very soon, especially with
all the French and German troops that will join,

Or maybe coalition members would stop leaving

Everyone able to have the same medical care afforded members of
Congress,

Why doesn't the Republican controlled Congress do this now?

Cheap prescription drugs,

Why doesn't the Republican controlled Congress do this now? Instead of
the *more expensive* drug plans forced down the country's throats in the
form of a huge deficit-increasing subsidy to the big pharmaceutical
companies which the just-previous and Republican controlled Congress
enacted under the guise of "Medicare Reform" (cough cough)?

All children going to college,

Or maybe just the ones that are smart enough to benefit, whether they
can pay or not.


An immediate end to the nuclear weapons aims of North Korea and Iran,

Why doesn't the Republican controlled Congress do this now?

America to soon be the beloved nation of the entire world,

You mean like we would if GWB honored his campaign promises to put into
force the Kyoto Accords, acted to stop genocide, and didn't lock up
people forever & for no reason other than some fumbling intimation that
they *might* be terrorists?


A tremendous decrease in unemployment,
A huge increase in high-paying jobs,
A resurgence of manufacturing jobs,

Why can't President Bush and the Republican controlled Congress do this now?


An energy independent America, with no reliance on Mideast oil

Or maybe we could just ask Halliburton to return the 200 million + that
they've stolen or overcharged since the beginning of the Iraq war.

A modernized military, able to meet all threats,

I thought Rumsfeld was giving us that now, as soon as he finishes
rooting out the 'Clintonized' military leadership (why is it taking more
than 4 years?).

Etc Etc Etc

Oh and thanks for acknowledging all the problems that the Bush
Administration is creating, or worsening, and leaving for the grown-ups
to clean up after them... I hope the grown-ups get there soon...

DSK

On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 15:54:04 -0400, DSK wrote:

If you want to see the *real* difference between the two, compare how
the two's children speak in public, and behave in general. But hey, if
'family values' matter most to you, then you probably won't care about
raising intelligent, well balanced, well-spoken, professional, and
high-achieving kids... at least, if you claim you care about family
values and voted for Bush anyway...



John H wrote:
We should have elected Kerry. Besides well-balanced, well-spoken, professional,
and high-achieving kids, we could have expected:

Taxes to go up *only* for those making over $200,000,

Or maybe a reduction in the huge defecit due to the "war on terrorism"
which Bush & Cheney are fighting by invading countries that have no
connection to terrorism...

The 'No Child Left Behind Act' to be fully funded,

Or maybe the 'No Child Left Behind' act would be rescinded and in it's
place a reasonable, effective, and non-punitive, educational policy that
could be executed with the existing level of funding

BTW you're an educator John H (or at least have claimed to be) what do
you really think of President Bush's unfunded mandate called 'The No
Child Left Behind Act'?

The Iraq Coalition to become much larger very soon, especially with
all the French and German troops that will join,

Or maybe coalition members would stop leaving

Everyone able to have the same medical care afforded members of
Congress,

Why doesn't the Republican controlled Congress do this now?

Cheap prescription drugs,

Why doesn't the Republican controlled Congress do this now? Instead of
the *more expensive* drug plans forced down the country's throats in the
form of a huge deficit-increasing subsidy to the big pharmaceutical
companies which the just-previous and Republican controlled Congress
enacted under the guise of "Medicare Reform" (cough cough)?

All children going to college,

Or maybe just the ones that are smart enough to benefit, whether they
can pay or not.


An immediate end to the nuclear weapons aims of North Korea and Iran,

Why doesn't the Republican controlled Congress do this now?

America to soon be the beloved nation of the entire world,

You mean like we would if GWB honored his campaign promises to put into
force the Kyoto Accords, acted to stop genocide, and didn't lock up
people forever & for no reason other than some fumbling intimation that
they *might* be terrorists?


A tremendous decrease in unemployment,
A huge increase in high-paying jobs,
A resurgence of manufacturing jobs,

Why can't President Bush and the Republican controlled Congress do this now?


An energy independent America, with no reliance on Mideast oil

Or maybe we could just ask Halliburton to return the 200 million + that
they've stolen or overcharged since the beginning of the Iraq war.

A modernized military, able to meet all threats,

I thought Rumsfeld was giving us that now, as soon as he finishes
rooting out the 'Clintonized' military leadership (why is it taking more
than 4 years?).

Etc Etc Etc

Oh and thanks for acknowledging all the problems that the Bush
Administration is creating, or worsening, and leaving for the grown-ups
to clean up after them... I hope the grown-ups get there soon...

DSK

Check out Virginia's implementation of the NCLB Act. You'll not find a lot of
whining about lack of funds. Of course, Virginia already had some standards for
its educational system. It seems as though a big problem is the states'
inability to spend the money allocated them. Why fund more when what's funded
isn't being spent?

http://www.pen.k12.va.us/VDOE/nclb/

As to several of your questions, "Why hasn't the Republican controlled...?", I
would say, for many of these, because it's impossible.

Lastly, you made my point. We should have elected Kerry, who can do the
impossible and only tax the rich. He would have worked miracles, like getting
folks out of wheel chairs.


--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

John H wrote:
As to several of your questions, "Why hasn't the Republican controlled...?", I
would say, for many of these, because it's impossible.


That's funny, they reduced the deficit under Clinton *and* had NO
terrorist attacks on US soil... and put many more *real* terrorists
behind bars for life than Bush has done... after due process, too. Icing
on the cake.

Is making Social Security more fiscally sound "impossible"?
Is an energy-independent America "impossible"
Would it have been impossible to put together a *real* coalition to
invade Iraq, like say for example the one that President George Bush Sr
put together?
Is it "impossible" to increase manufacturing jobs?
Is it "impossible" to gain the respect of, and cooperation with, other
nations?
Is influencing North Korea to not build "nookular" weapons totally
impossible, when it had been done for years before President Bush Jr
took office?
Is it "impossible" to protect the environment?


Lastly, you made my point.

Actually, you made mine. Most of Bush & Cheney's policy's have been a
total failure if you look at the good of the country overall, and if you
look at successful policies of the past.

Of course, it's a lot easier to call names and then say doing all these
things is "impossible."

.... We should have elected Kerry

I agree. Actually, we did elect Gore, but unfortunately he didn't get
tot ake office and even you agree that the country is the poorer for it.

... He would have worked miracles, like getting
folks out of wheel chairs.


If that were true, maybe the Pope would have endorsed Kerry.

DSK

On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 17:35:30 -0400, DSK wrote:


That's funny, they reduced the deficit under Clinton *and* had NO
terrorist attacks on US soil... and put many more *real* terrorists
behind bars for life than Bush has done... after due process, too. Icing
on the cake.

Clinton - a real winner as far as terrorism goes.

Is making Social Security more fiscally sound "impossible"?

No, Bush has started the job.

Is an energy-independent America "impossible"

In the near term? Yes. If we build a lot of nuclear plants? Maybe.
If we owned Iraq and Saudi Arabia? Probably.

Would it have been impossible to put together a *real* coalition to
invade Iraq, like say for example the one that President George Bush Sr
put together?

Ah yes, we missed the liberals icons, France, Germany, and Russia.

Is it "impossible" to increase manufacturing jobs?

Bush has increased manufacturing jobs where he could - M1 Tanks, Bradleys,
Humvees, M16s, etc. He couldn't increase the production of automobiles,
textiles, etc. like Kerry could have.
Is it "impossible" to gain the respect of, and cooperation with, other
nations?

See above.

Is influencing North Korea to not build "nookular" weapons totally
impossible, when it had been done for years before President Bush Jr
took office?

You mean while they were going nuclear under Clinton's reign?
Is it "impossible" to protect the environment?


Lastly, you made my point.

My point was that we should have elected Kerry!

Actually, you made mine. Most of Bush & Cheney's policy's have been a
total failure if you look at the good of the country overall, and if you
look at successful policies of the past.

Of course, it's a lot easier to call names and then say doing all these
things is "impossible."

Please show me where I called you a name.

.... We should have elected Kerry

I agree. Actually, we did elect Gore, but unfortunately he didn't get
tot ake office and even you agree that the country is the poorer for it.

... He would have worked miracles, like getting
folks out of wheel chairs.


If that were true, maybe the Pope would have endorsed Kerry.

Maybe not true, but Edwards said he would do it!

DSK

To prevent you going in to your name-calling, put-down routine, we'll stop now.


--
John H

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction
... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real
...."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

John H wrote:
Clinton - a real winner as far as terrorism goes.


Clinton BAD! Clinton BAD! AArrk!

Polly wanna cracker?

If you bothered your little head with facts, you'd be aware that the
Clinton Administration... meaning mostly the professional counterspooks
in the NSA, along with the Justice Dept... put more terrorists behind
bars for life than the Bush Administration has even caught.

Or were you under the impression that Sept 11th happened on Clinton's
watch, and that Clinton is the one who removed US troops from the hunt
for Osama Bin Laden?



Is making Social Security more fiscally sound "impossible"?


No, Bush has started the job.

Really? How? By running up a huge deficit, reducing the tax base, and
proposing a plan which *increases* the SS income/payout split and makes
the system go bust sooner? Bush's plan is a great scheme for funneling
money to Bush/Rove affiliated political campaign chests (gotta keep the
cash out of enemy hands, like McCains or Whitmans).




Is an energy-independent America "impossible"


In the near term? Yes. If we build a lot of nuclear plants? Maybe.
If we owned Iraq and Saudi Arabia? Probably.

Are you under the impression that oil lasts forever? Do you think we've
done well at gaining control of Iraq's oil fields so far?


To prevent you going in to your name-calling, put-down routine, we'll stop now.


Is stating facts and asking for some intelligent reply "name-calling"?

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
John H wrote:
As to several of your questions, "Why hasn't the Republican
controlled...?", I
would say, for many of these, because it's impossible.


That's funny, they reduced the deficit under Clinton *and* had NO
terrorist attacks on US soil... and put many more *real* terrorists behind
bars for life than Bush has done... after due process, too. Icing on the
cake.

Is making Social Security more fiscally sound "impossible"?
It is as long as it's being made a political football.
Is an energy-independent America "impossible"
Yes unless we go from 25% nuclear to at least 75% nuclear.
Would it have been impossible to put together a *real* coalition to invade
Iraq, like say for example the one that President George Bush Sr put
together?
YES, remember the bribes that FRENCH and RUSSIAN polititions were getting.
Is it "impossible" to increase manufacturing jobs?
When we have restrictions on our companys that foreign countrys don't, yes.
Is it "impossible" to gain the respect of, and cooperation with, other
nations?
All countries act in their own short term interest.
Is influencing North Korea to not build "nookular" weapons totally
impossible, when it had been done for years before President Bush Jr took
office?
see below
Is it "impossible" to protect the environment?
No, just difficult.


Clinton made an effort to do all of the above but you need a good faith
effort on the part of all involved before anything is accomplished. From
the failures that Clinton had with both N Korea and the Palestinians, Bush
had learned that they DON'T act in good faith. The N. Koreans took the
money we gave them for fuel oil and invested it in nuclear breeder reactors
and gas diffusion enriching equipment so we took the hard line with them.
Bush refused to meet with the Palestinians until they had new management and
Arafat their leader suddenly died, new management.

I resent our leaders giving money away when they KNOW that all they get is
some positive world press because we tried while the people we are trying to
help laugh at our system of government. "Look we got 20 million dollars
from the stupid Americans. We know how to play the game now too."

Is making Social Security more fiscally sound "impossible"?

Jeff Rigby wrote:
It is as long as it's being made a political football.


Agreed, to a large extent.

Is an energy-independent America "impossible"

Yes unless we go from 25% nuclear to at least 75% nuclear.

That's hilarious... I guess decentralized solar & fuel-cell power won't
return enough money to the big corporations, and they're the ones that
make big political contribution$... so yeah, we won't be seeing any of
that for a long long time... do some research on "off-grid powered
housing." I used to call 'em 'survivalists' but it's a different attitude.



Would it have been impossible to put together a *real* coalition to invade
Iraq, like say for example the one that President George Bush Sr put
together?

YES, remember the bribes that FRENCH and RUSSIAN polititions were getting.

Oh yeah, park that fantasy right next to NOBBY's ongoing daydreams about
Iraqi WMDs getting shipped to Syria.

Did you know that American pals of Cheneys were getting more money from
the oil-for-food scams than the Russians and the French put together?

Like I said, if it was impossible then how come Bush's daddy managed it?


Is it "impossible" to increase manufacturing jobs?

When we have restrictions on our companys that foreign countrys don't, yes.

Gee, let's get rid of all pollution laws and let's start hiring subteens
and chaining them factory benches. Heck with that, let's just force
prisoners to work for free... BTW remember that parking ticket you got
years ago...



Is it "impossible" to gain the respect of, and cooperation with, other
nations?

All countries act in their own short term interest.

Agreed. OTOH if we don't insult & trample other countries needlessly,
they might be more cooperative on the anti-terror thing.

After Sept 11th the whole world was on our side... except for the very
few Muslim radicals who openly sided with Al-Queda.

The Bush Administration has squandered that good will and lost the
chance to forge a meaningful alliance against terrorism.



Is influencing North Korea to not build "nookular" weapons totally
impossible, when it had been done for years before President Bush Jr took
office?

see below

Is it "impossible" to protect the environment?

No, just difficult.


Clinton made an effort to do all of the above but you need a good faith
effort on the part of all involved before anything is accomplished. From
the failures that Clinton had with both N Korea and the Palestinians, Bush
had learned that they DON'T act in good faith. The N. Koreans took the
money we gave them for fuel oil and invested it in nuclear breeder reactors
and gas diffusion enriching equipment so we took the hard line with them.

Really? We sold them that stuff long before... and the Koreans knew more
than you did about Clinton's planning to raid their nuclear facilities
if they didn't dance right. The pros at the State Dept managed the show
under Clinton, not the suck-up right-wing whackos that the Bushies have
put in charge.

The Clinton Administration... or at least, the pros at State... offered
the N Koreans a carrot & a stick, and had credible intelligence about
what was going on. The Bush Administration offers no carrot, threatens
with a stick it doesn't have, and believes it's own daydreams.

The results speak for themselves.



Bush refused to meet with the Palestinians until they had new management and
Arafat their leader suddenly died, new management.


Are you insinuating that perhaps Arafat had a little 'accident?'

I resent our leaders giving money away when they KNOW that all they get is
some positive world press because we tried while the people we are trying to
help laugh at our system of government. "Look we got 20 million dollars
from the stupid Americans. We know how to play the game now too."


Yep, that's why President Bush has had such a marvelous success in
foreign policy, I guess.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
John H wrote:
As to several of your questions, "Why hasn't the Republican
controlled...?", I
would say, for many of these, because it's impossible.


That's funny, they reduced the deficit under Clinton *and* had NO
terrorist attacks on US soil...

....except for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the 1995 OKC bombing
(Nichols had numerous pre-attack contacts with terrorist elements in the
Philippines), and the 1996 downing of TWA 800.

Nawww. No domestic terrorist attacks there, right?