| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Here, lap this up, Harry!
|
Here, lap this up, Harry!
wrote in message oups.com... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9672058/ Big deal......look at the last several president's lowest numbers. Table 1. Presidential Approval Ratings, 1953-1999 (11) President Average (%) High (%) Low (%) Kennedy 70 83 56 Eisenhower 65 79 48 Bush 61 89 29 Johnson 55 79 35 Clinton 54 73 37 Reagan 53 65 35 Nixon 49 67 24 Ford 47 71 37 Carter 45 74 28 http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...109025096/pg_4 |
Here, lap this up, Harry!
P Fritz wrote: wrote in message oups.com... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9672058/ Big deal......look at the last several president's lowest numbers. Table 1. Presidential Approval Ratings, 1953-1999 (11) President Average (%) High (%) Low (%) Kennedy 70 83 56 Eisenhower 65 79 48 Bush 61 89 29 Johnson 55 79 35 Clinton 54 73 37 Reagan 53 65 35 Nixon 49 67 24 Ford 47 71 37 Carter 45 74 28 http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...109025096/pg_4 Good point for once, **** for brains! The only two anywhere NEAR are Nixon, and Carter!!! |
Here, lap this up, Harry!
wrote in message oups.com... P Fritz wrote: wrote in message oups.com... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9672058/ Big deal......look at the last several president's lowest numbers. Table 1. Presidential Approval Ratings, 1953-1999 (11) President Average (%) High (%) Low (%) Kennedy 70 83 56 Eisenhower 65 79 48 Bush 61 89 29 Johnson 55 79 35 Clinton 54 73 37 Reagan 53 65 35 Nixon 49 67 24 Ford 47 71 37 Carter 45 74 28 http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...109025096/pg_4 Good point for once, **** for brains! The only two anywhere NEAR are Nixon, and Carter!!! Clinton was at 37% at one point in his Presidency...which matches CBS's current number. |
Here, lap this up, Harry!
"NOYB" wrote in message link.net... wrote in message oups.com... P Fritz wrote: wrote in message oups.com... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9672058/ Big deal......look at the last several president's lowest numbers. Table 1. Presidential Approval Ratings, 1953-1999 (11) President Average (%) High (%) Low (%) Kennedy 70 83 56 Eisenhower 65 79 48 Bush 61 89 29 Johnson 55 79 35 Clinton 54 73 37 Reagan 53 65 35 Nixon 49 67 24 Ford 47 71 37 Carter 45 74 28 http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...109025096/pg_4 Good point for once, **** for brains! The only two anywhere NEAR are Nixon, and Carter!!! Clinton was at 37% at one point in his Presidency...which matches CBS's current number. Kevin once again shows why he maintains the title of "King of the NG idiots" |
Here, lap this up, Harry!
NOYB wrote: wrote in message oups.com... P Fritz wrote: wrote in message oups.com... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9672058/ Big deal......look at the last several president's lowest numbers. Table 1. Presidential Approval Ratings, 1953-1999 (11) President Average (%) High (%) Low (%) Kennedy 70 83 56 Eisenhower 65 79 48 Bush 61 89 29 Johnson 55 79 35 Clinton 54 73 37 Reagan 53 65 35 Nixon 49 67 24 Ford 47 71 37 Carter 45 74 28 http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...109025096/pg_4 Good point for once, **** for brains! The only two anywhere NEAR are Nixon, and Carter!!! Clinton was at 37% at one point in his Presidency...which matches CBS's current number. Oh, so now in order to spin, you find lowest of the low numbers from any poll, then match them to the highest low number for Bush from any poll. Nice. |
Here, lap this up, Harry!
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: wrote in message oups.com... P Fritz wrote: wrote in message oups.com... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9672058/ Big deal......look at the last several president's lowest numbers. Table 1. Presidential Approval Ratings, 1953-1999 (11) President Average (%) High (%) Low (%) Kennedy 70 83 56 Eisenhower 65 79 48 Bush 61 89 29 Johnson 55 79 35 Clinton 54 73 37 Reagan 53 65 35 Nixon 49 67 24 Ford 47 71 37 Carter 45 74 28 http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...109025096/pg_4 Good point for once, **** for brains! The only two anywhere NEAR are Nixon, and Carter!!! Clinton was at 37% at one point in his Presidency...which matches CBS's current number. Yeah, well, Clinton had a particular problem and a House of Representatives and a special right-wing prosecutor keeping that problem on the front burner for years. I'm pretty sure that the 37% number came prior to the Republicans gaining control of the House of Representatives. Bush has many problems, and all sorts of individuals and organizations are keeping them on the front burner. Moveon.org (funded by Soros), DNC, liberal media... |
Here, lap this up, Harry!
wrote in message ups.com... NOYB wrote: wrote in message oups.com... P Fritz wrote: wrote in message oups.com... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9672058/ Big deal......look at the last several president's lowest numbers. Table 1. Presidential Approval Ratings, 1953-1999 (11) President Average (%) High (%) Low (%) Kennedy 70 83 56 Eisenhower 65 79 48 Bush 61 89 29 Johnson 55 79 35 Clinton 54 73 37 Reagan 53 65 35 Nixon 49 67 24 Ford 47 71 37 Carter 45 74 28 http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...109025096/pg_4 Good point for once, **** for brains! The only two anywhere NEAR are Nixon, and Carter!!! Clinton was at 37% at one point in his Presidency...which matches CBS's current number. Oh, so now in order to spin, you find lowest of the low numbers from any poll, then match them to the highest low number for Bush from any poll. Nice. The lowest Bush approval rating in *any* of the polls is 37%...and it came in a CBS News poll. The lowest Clinton approval rating according to *Gallup* was 37%. If you want a true apples to apples comparison, then let's look at Gallup's lowest-ever number for Bush: 40%...which is three points higher than Clinton's lowest approval rating. |
Here, lap this up, Harry!
NOYB wrote: wrote in message ups.com... NOYB wrote: wrote in message oups.com... P Fritz wrote: wrote in message oups.com... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9672058/ Big deal......look at the last several president's lowest numbers. Table 1. Presidential Approval Ratings, 1953-1999 (11) President Average (%) High (%) Low (%) Kennedy 70 83 56 Eisenhower 65 79 48 Bush 61 89 29 Johnson 55 79 35 Clinton 54 73 37 Reagan 53 65 35 Nixon 49 67 24 Ford 47 71 37 Carter 45 74 28 http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...109025096/pg_4 Good point for once, **** for brains! The only two anywhere NEAR are Nixon, and Carter!!! Clinton was at 37% at one point in his Presidency...which matches CBS's current number. Oh, so now in order to spin, you find lowest of the low numbers from any poll, then match them to the highest low number for Bush from any poll. Nice. The lowest Bush approval rating in *any* of the polls is 37%...and it came in a CBS News poll. The lowest Clinton approval rating according to *Gallup* was 37%. If you want a true apples to apples comparison, then let's look at Gallup's lowest-ever number for Bush: 40%...which is three points higher than Clinton's lowest approval rating. A "true apples to apples comparison" would be each and every poll for Clinton, through his first and second terms, compared to each and every poll for Bush, through his first and second terms. |
Here, lap this up, Harry!
|
Here, lap this up, Harry!
wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: wrote in message ups.com... NOYB wrote: wrote in message oups.com... P Fritz wrote: wrote in message oups.com... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9672058/ Big deal......look at the last several president's lowest numbers. Table 1. Presidential Approval Ratings, 1953-1999 (11) President Average (%) High (%) Low (%) Kennedy 70 83 56 Eisenhower 65 79 48 Bush 61 89 29 Johnson 55 79 35 Clinton 54 73 37 Reagan 53 65 35 Nixon 49 67 24 Ford 47 71 37 Carter 45 74 28 http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...109025096/pg_4 Good point for once, **** for brains! The only two anywhere NEAR are Nixon, and Carter!!! Clinton was at 37% at one point in his Presidency...which matches CBS's current number. Oh, so now in order to spin, you find lowest of the low numbers from any poll, then match them to the highest low number for Bush from any poll. Nice. The lowest Bush approval rating in *any* of the polls is 37%...and it came in a CBS News poll. The lowest Clinton approval rating according to *Gallup* was 37%. If you want a true apples to apples comparison, then let's look at Gallup's lowest-ever number for Bush: 40%...which is three points higher than Clinton's lowest approval rating. A "true apples to apples comparison" would be each and every poll for Clinton, through his first and second terms, compared to each and every poll for Bush, through his first and second terms. Of course. But lacking the necessary data, we have to work with what we have. According to Gallup: Bush's lowest-ever approval rating was 40%. Clinton's lowest-ever approval rating was 37% |
Here, lap this up, Harry!
wrote in message oups.com... wrote: Here, why don't you lap THIS up: http://tinyurl.com/9za2n You sure do visit some strange sites there bassie. I never knew you had a homoerotic fetish. |
Here, lap this up, Harry!
wrote in message oups.com... Here, why don't you lap THIS up: http://tinyurl.com/9za2n Looks like it could be a pic of you, just before you got the monkey fist from your Father in-law. Did Monte get one too? |
Here, lap this up, Harry!
On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 17:47:53 +0000, NOYB wrote:
The lowest Bush approval rating in *any* of the polls is 37%...and it came in a CBS News poll. The lowest Clinton approval rating according to *Gallup* was 37%. If you want a true apples to apples comparison, then let's look at Gallup's lowest-ever number for Bush: 40%...which is three points higher than Clinton's lowest approval rating. Spin it any way you want, but let's look at Bush's data historically. Any President has normal gains and ebbs in their approval. A gradual rise, means that people who at one time disapproved, are now approving. The rises are gradual, as we each make our mind of at different rates. The opposite is also true, approval turning to disapproval. Spikes, on the other hand, are generally major events, that change peoples mind rapidly. Here's Bush's historical data graphed: http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm You'll notice, there aren't *any* gradual upturns, only spikes. The gradual trend is down, down, down. People who once approved of Bush are turning away. The only question is, when his base finally kicks in. You know the base, people like you, NOYB, those with unfaltering loyalty to this President. The curtain is open, the honeymoon is over, where is Bush's base. I'm guessing, somewhere between Carter and Nixon. |
Here, lap this up, Harry!
NOYB wrote: wrote in message oups.com... wrote: Here, why don't you lap THIS up: http://tinyurl.com/9za2n You sure do visit some strange sites there bassie. I never knew you had a homoerotic fetish. What would make you think that I've got a homoerotic fetish, nitwit? Because I've got enough brains to go to google and enter "hairy ass" to get a picture to post to tschnautz to "lap it up"? |
Here, lap this up, Harry!
Harry Krause wrote in message ... In the end, Bush will be done in by his incompetency. Your hero. Tough darts. In any event, Bush will be done in by the expiration of his term. Time to start thinking about a successor, from both sides or more. I heard an interesting statistic this afternoon. Paul Harvey, I think. Last year the US graduated 70,000 new engineers. Japan graduated 350,000 and China graduated 650,000. Related, more money was spent in the US on liability lawsuits than on new technical research and development. Seems this country has taken it's eye off the ball, and I personally believe it has a lot more to do with loosing traditional values than it does due to the policies of any particular politician. Eisboch |
Here, lap this up, Harry!
On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 18:07:16 +0000, NOYB wrote:
Bush's lowest-ever approval rating was 40%. Clinton's lowest-ever approval rating was 37% Yeah, but Clinton's lowest numbers were in the early days of his first term. I'll guarantee Bush wishes he had Clinton's second term numbers, Monica and all. http://www.pollkatz.homestead.com/fi...7_image001.gif |
Here, lap this up, Harry!
"thunder" wrote in message ... On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 17:47:53 +0000, NOYB wrote: The lowest Bush approval rating in *any* of the polls is 37%...and it came in a CBS News poll. The lowest Clinton approval rating according to *Gallup* was 37%. If you want a true apples to apples comparison, then let's look at Gallup's lowest-ever number for Bush: 40%...which is three points higher than Clinton's lowest approval rating. Spin it any way you want, but let's look at Bush's data historically. Any President has normal gains and ebbs in their approval. A gradual rise, means that people who at one time disapproved, are now approving. The rises are gradual, as we each make our mind of at different rates. The opposite is also true, approval turning to disapproval. Spikes, on the other hand, are generally major events, that change peoples mind rapidly. Here's Bush's historical data graphed: http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm Do you have a link for any historical data graphs of other recent Presidents? You'll notice, there aren't *any* gradual upturns, only spikes. The gradual trend is down, down, down. People who once approved of Bush are turning away. Ironically, his numbers fell right after he pitched the $200 billion for New Orleans, and then again after the Miers' nomination. Abandoning his base has hurt him much worse than when he sticks to his guns. The only question is, when his base finally kicks in. You know the base, people like you, NOYB, those with unfaltering loyalty to this President. His base is there when he needs them. It's just that right now they're showing their displeasure with his "caving in" on several important issues to most Conservatives. The curtain is open, the honeymoon is over, where is Bush's base. I'm guessing, somewhere between Carter and Nixon. See above. |
Here, lap this up, Harry!
"NOYB" wrote in message link.net... wrote in message ups.com... NOYB wrote: wrote in message oups.com... P Fritz wrote: wrote in message oups.com... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9672058/ Big deal......look at the last several president's lowest numbers. Table 1. Presidential Approval Ratings, 1953-1999 (11) President Average (%) High (%) Low (%) Kennedy 70 83 56 Eisenhower 65 79 48 Bush 61 89 29 Johnson 55 79 35 Clinton 54 73 37 Reagan 53 65 35 Nixon 49 67 24 Ford 47 71 37 Carter 45 74 28 http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...109025096/pg_4 Good point for once, **** for brains! The only two anywhere NEAR are Nixon, and Carter!!! Clinton was at 37% at one point in his Presidency...which matches CBS's current number. Oh, so now in order to spin, you find lowest of the low numbers from any poll, then match them to the highest low number for Bush from any poll. Nice. The lowest Bush approval rating in *any* of the polls is 37%...and it came in a CBS News poll. The lowest Clinton approval rating according to *Gallup* was 37%. If you want a true apples to apples comparison, then let's look at Gallup's lowest-ever number for Bush: 40%...which is three points higher than Clinton's lowest approval rating. HeeHee....kevin caught by his own illogic. And he wonders why he is the "King of the NG idiots"????? |
Here, lap this up, Harry!
On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 18:44:54 +0000, NOYB wrote:
Do you have a link for any historical data graphs of other recent Presidents? Yup, I was going to be a wise ass and leave it at that, but . . . These aren't as precise, but they show the trends of Presidents going back to FDR. http://progressivewritersbloc.com/DC...lon-Velcro.htm Ironically, his numbers fell right after he pitched the $200 billion for New Orleans, and then again after the Miers' nomination. Abandoning his base has hurt him much worse than when he sticks to his guns. A counterpoint to that, he was trying to stop the bleeding. It didn't work. Face it, Bush's base isn't large enough to rule this country. He needs the moderates, and he hasn't been doing well there. His base is there when he needs them. It's just that right now they're showing their displeasure with his "caving in" on several important issues to most Conservatives. See above. The curtain is open, the honeymoon is over, where is Bush's base. I'm guessing, somewhere between Carter and Nixon. See above. Yeah, but . . . IMO he's still searching for bottom. He has three years to find it, and I expect he will. |
Here, lap this up, Harry!
On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 18:26:53 +0000, Eisboch wrote:
In any event, Bush will be done in by the expiration of his term. Time to start thinking about a successor, from both sides or more. I heard an interesting statistic this afternoon. Paul Harvey, I think. Last year the US graduated 70,000 new engineers. Japan graduated 350,000 and China graduated 650,000. Related, more money was spent in the US on liability lawsuits than on new technical research and development. Seems this country has taken it's eye off the ball, and I personally believe it has a lot more to do with loosing traditional values than it does due to the policies of any particular politician. I'm always leery of that "traditional values" thing. I'm never sure what values they mean. ;-) But you are right, we have lost something. Someone promised us a free lunch, and we believed them. Those lawsuits are a prime example. People get injured, and they think they have won the lottery. We want it all, and we want it now, like spoiled children. |
Here, lap this up, Harry!
"thunder" wrote in message ... On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 18:07:16 +0000, NOYB wrote: Bush's lowest-ever approval rating was 40%. Clinton's lowest-ever approval rating was 37% Yeah, but Clinton's lowest numbers were in the early days of his first term. I'll guarantee Bush wishes he had Clinton's second term numbers, Monica and all. http://www.pollkatz.homestead.com/fi...7_image001.gif Historically, Presidents never have had good approval ratings during a war (except for Bush 41). When you compound the war with the fact that gas is 50% higher than just a year or two ago, it's amazing that Bush isn't in the 20's. |
Here, lap this up, Harry!
"thunder" wrote in message ... On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 18:44:54 +0000, NOYB wrote: Do you have a link for any historical data graphs of other recent Presidents? Yup, I was going to be a wise ass and leave it at that, but . . . These aren't as precise, but they show the trends of Presidents going back to FDR. http://progressivewritersbloc.com/DC...lon-Velcro.htm Ironically, his numbers fell right after he pitched the $200 billion for New Orleans, and then again after the Miers' nomination. Abandoning his base has hurt him much worse than when he sticks to his guns. A counterpoint to that, he was trying to stop the bleeding. It didn't work. Face it, Bush's base isn't large enough to rule this country. He needs the moderates, and he hasn't been doing well there. His base is there when he needs them. It's just that right now they're showing their displeasure with his "caving in" on several important issues to most Conservatives. See above. The curtain is open, the honeymoon is over, where is Bush's base. I'm guessing, somewhere between Carter and Nixon. See above. Yeah, but . . . IMO he's still searching for bottom. He has three years to find it, and I expect he will. And I expect he has. |
Here, lap this up, Harry!
thunder wrote in message ... On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 18:26:53 +0000, Eisboch wrote: In any event, Bush will be done in by the expiration of his term. Time to start thinking about a successor, from both sides or more. I heard an interesting statistic this afternoon. Paul Harvey, I think. Last year the US graduated 70,000 new engineers. Japan graduated 350,000 and China graduated 650,000. Related, more money was spent in the US on liability lawsuits than on new technical research and development. Seems this country has taken it's eye off the ball, and I personally believe it has a lot more to do with loosing traditional values than it does due to the policies of any particular politician. I'm always leery of that "traditional values" thing. I'm never sure what values they mean. ;-) But you are right, we have lost something. Someone promised us a free lunch, and we believed them. Those lawsuits are a prime example. People get injured, and they think they have won the lottery. We want it all, and we want it now, like spoiled children. That's the "Ka-Thunk" that went off somewhere in my (mostly empty) head as I listened to this. It's a social change taking place where the concept of earning something by working hard is being replaced with "It's owed to me". It's a change whereby if you feel you've been wronged by a merchant - you sue him, rather that accepting the fact that you learned a lesson and won't do business with him again. It's a change where paying your dues is not necessary, you are "entitled" simply because you exist. Its a change whereby "I" has become paramount rather than "we". That's what I meant by loosing traditional values. It may be inevitable as a evolutionary step of our society, but I think it will be the primary reason of our downfall as a nation if not corrected, rather than the actions of politics and politicians. Eisboch |
Here, lap this up, Harry!
On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 19:23:37 +0000, NOYB wrote:
Historically, Presidents never have had good approval ratings during a war (except for Bush 41). When you compound the war with the fact that gas is 50% higher than just a year or two ago, it's amazing that Bush isn't in the 20's. I'm not sure I'll agree with that premise. FDR maintained high ratings throughout his war years, as did Nixon until Watergate. I will agree, though, that people will only take the bleeding from a prolonged war, if they perceive the cause to be just. Nixon maintained because he could blame Johnson for the war, and was perceived to be the "peace" candidate who promised to end the war with dignity. GWB has no one to blame but himself. The whole weight of this war, the pluses and the *minuses* will be on him, and rightfully so. When they sat around looking for a "bureaucratic" reason for this war, perhaps they should have come up with a better one than WMD. |
Here, lap this up, Harry!
On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 19:37:40 +0000, Eisboch wrote:
That's the "Ka-Thunk" that went off somewhere in my (mostly empty) head as I listened to this. It's a social change taking place where the concept of earning something by working hard is being replaced with "It's owed to me". It's a change whereby if you feel you've been wronged by a merchant - you sue him, rather that accepting the fact that you learned a lesson and won't do business with him again. It's a change where paying your dues is not necessary, you are "entitled" simply because you exist. Its a change whereby "I" has become paramount rather than "we". That's what I meant by loosing traditional values. It may be inevitable as a evolutionary step of our society, but I think it will be the primary reason of our downfall as a nation if not corrected, rather than the actions of politics and politicians. Well then, we agree. ;-) You know, this is still a democracy. We may want to blame our politicians, and I do, but the reality is that they are more a reflection of us, than we are of them. *We* elected them. Furthermore, it seems to me, politicians have very little affect on our daily lives. I'd hate to point to Carter's "Malaise" speech, but he might have been right. |
Here, lap this up, Harry!
On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 18:26:53 GMT, "Eisboch"
wrote: Harry Krause wrote in message ... In the end, Bush will be done in by his incompetency. Your hero. Tough darts. In any event, Bush will be done in by the expiration of his term. Time to start thinking about a successor, from both sides or more. I heard an interesting statistic this afternoon. Paul Harvey, I think. Last year the US graduated 70,000 new engineers. Japan graduated 350,000 and China graduated 650,000. Related, more money was spent in the US on liability lawsuits than on new technical research and development. Seems this country has taken it's eye off the ball, and I personally believe it has a lot more to do with loosing traditional values than it does due to the policies of any particular politician. Eisboch And people blame Bush because we're losing the middle class. I agree with your opinion on the loss of traditional values, especially the ones associated with hard work. We need fewer liberals teaching Liberal Arts. -- John H "The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant: It's just that they know so much that isn't so." Ronald Reagan |
Here, lap this up, Harry!
On 13 Oct 2005 11:01:35 -0700, wrote:
wrote: Here, why don't you lap THIS up: http://tinyurl.com/9za2n Anally fixated? Is this prevalent among liberals, or is it primarily you and Harry? Have you discussed this with *any* adult in your life? Here, this may help: http://psychology.about.com/od/gloss...Fixation13.htm I hope everything works out OK for you. -- John H "The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant: It's just that they know so much that isn't so." Ronald Reagan |
Here, lap this up, Harry!
On 13 Oct 2005 11:24:47 -0700, wrote:
NOYB wrote: wrote in message oups.com... wrote: Here, why don't you lap THIS up: http://tinyurl.com/9za2n You sure do visit some strange sites there bassie. I never knew you had a homoerotic fetish. What would make you think that I've got a homoerotic fetish, nitwit? Because I've got enough brains to go to google and enter "hairy ass" to get a picture to post to tschnautz to "lap it up"? Again, http://psychology.about.com/od/gloss...Fixation13.htm Maybe Harry's wife, who is a Doctor Doctor, I think, can help out. -- John H "The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant: It's just that they know so much that isn't so." Ronald Reagan |
Here, lap this up, Harry!
On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 20:37:50 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing
wrote: On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 15:12:18 -0400, thunder wrote: On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 18:26:53 +0000, Eisboch wrote: In any event, Bush will be done in by the expiration of his term. Time to start thinking about a successor, from both sides or more. I heard an interesting statistic this afternoon. Paul Harvey, I think. Last year the US graduated 70,000 new engineers. Japan graduated 350,000 and China graduated 650,000. Related, more money was spent in the US on liability lawsuits than on new technical research and development. Seems this country has taken it's eye off the ball, and I personally believe it has a lot more to do with loosing traditional values than it does due to the policies of any particular politician. I'm always leery of that "traditional values" thing. I'm never sure what values they mean. ;-) But you are right, we have lost something. Someone promised us a free lunch, and we believed them. Those lawsuits are a prime example. People get injured, and they think they have won the lottery. We want it all, and we want it now, like spoiled children. TANSTAAFL. There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch Where we've lost is in basic and middle education. We're much more interested in diversity and socialization than in rote learning of math and science skills. Just yesterday, in a school system in which I am intimately aware of, they eliminated a science period for the 7th graders so they could have a "social" event - namely a make believe 20th reunion so the kids could start thinking of where they are and where they are going. At eleven years old, it's a little over the top. Personally, I think the only thing they knew was (1) they got out of science and (2) there was ice cream and cake. As an observation, I have noticed that when I emergency substitute in high school advanced math classes, they are getting smaller and smaller because its' an elective and nobody believes it's important. Don't know what that proves - something. Amen. And, what percent of the students are Asian? -- John H "The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant: It's just that they know so much that isn't so." Ronald Reagan |
Here, lap this up, Harry!
On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 21:48:00 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing
wrote: On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 17:21:57 -0400, PocoLoco wrote: On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 20:37:50 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing wrote: On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 15:12:18 -0400, thunder wrote: On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 18:26:53 +0000, Eisboch wrote: In any event, Bush will be done in by the expiration of his term. Time to start thinking about a successor, from both sides or more. I heard an interesting statistic this afternoon. Paul Harvey, I think. Last year the US graduated 70,000 new engineers. Japan graduated 350,000 and China graduated 650,000. Related, more money was spent in the US on liability lawsuits than on new technical research and development. Seems this country has taken it's eye off the ball, and I personally believe it has a lot more to do with loosing traditional values than it does due to the policies of any particular politician. I'm always leery of that "traditional values" thing. I'm never sure what values they mean. ;-) But you are right, we have lost something. Someone promised us a free lunch, and we believed them. Those lawsuits are a prime example. People get injured, and they think they have won the lottery. We want it all, and we want it now, like spoiled children. TANSTAAFL. There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch Where we've lost is in basic and middle education. We're much more interested in diversity and socialization than in rote learning of math and science skills. Just yesterday, in a school system in which I am intimately aware of, they eliminated a science period for the 7th graders so they could have a "social" event - namely a make believe 20th reunion so the kids could start thinking of where they are and where they are going. At eleven years old, it's a little over the top. Personally, I think the only thing they knew was (1) they got out of science and (2) there was ice cream and cake. As an observation, I have noticed that when I emergency substitute in high school advanced math classes, they are getting smaller and smaller because its' an elective and nobody believes it's important. Don't know what that proves - something. Amen. And, what percent of the students are Asian? Um....we have to import students for diversity sessions. We have one Turkish student and that's it. Here almost half the students in the Calculus classes are Asian, mostly Korean. -- John H "The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant: It's just that they know so much that isn't so." Ronald Reagan |
Here, lap this up, Harry!
"Eisboch" wrote in message ... Harry Krause wrote in message ... In the end, Bush will be done in by his incompetency. Your hero. Tough darts. In any event, Bush will be done in by the expiration of his term. Time to start thinking about a successor, from both sides or more. I heard an interesting statistic this afternoon. Paul Harvey, I think. Last year the US graduated 70,000 new engineers. Japan graduated 350,000 and China graduated 650,000. Related, more money was spent in the US on liability lawsuits than on new technical research and development. Seems this country has taken it's eye off the ball, and I personally believe it has a lot more to do with loosing traditional values than it does due to the policies of any particular politician. Eisboch I think it is due to outsourcing - why go through the grueling curriculum of engineering if there are no jobs for you in the US due to them being sent to India..... Which IS, by the way, due to a particular parties agenda.. |
Here, lap this up, Harry!
On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 19:37:40 +0000, Eisboch wrote:
That's the "Ka-Thunk" that went off somewhere in my (mostly empty) head as I listened to this. It's a social change taking place where the concept of earning something by working hard is being replaced with "It's owed to me". It's a change whereby if you feel you've been wronged by a merchant - you sue him, rather that accepting the fact that you learned a lesson and won't do business with him again. It's a change where paying your dues is not necessary, you are "entitled" simply because you exist. Its a change whereby "I" has become paramount rather than "we". That's what I meant by loosing traditional values. It may be inevitable as a evolutionary step of our society, but I think it will be the primary reason of our downfall as a nation if not corrected, rather than the actions of politics and politicians. I've been thinking on this. I realize there is no one root cause, but something occurred to me, and I just want to throw it out for any responses. We are talking about a fundamental societal change that seems to be concurrent with our becoming a mobile country, and it's resultant loss in "community". Think small town. Merchants couldn't wrong you if they wished to stay in business. The whole village, in effect, raised the children. Hell, even big cities had their neighborhoods, a virtual small town in a big city. Now, I've read, the average person lives less than 5 years in one house. Neighbors often change so frequently you never get to learn their names. There is an anonymity that allows us to think I, rather than we. I don't know, maybe interstates weren't such a good idea. ;-) |
Here, lap this up, Harry!
"thunder" wrote in message ... On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 19:37:40 +0000, Eisboch wrote: That's the "Ka-Thunk" that went off somewhere in my (mostly empty) head as I listened to this. It's a social change taking place where the concept of earning something by working hard is being replaced with "It's owed to me". It's a change whereby if you feel you've been wronged by a merchant - you sue him, rather that accepting the fact that you learned a lesson and won't do business with him again. It's a change where paying your dues is not necessary, you are "entitled" simply because you exist. Its a change whereby "I" has become paramount rather than "we". That's what I meant by loosing traditional values. It may be inevitable as a evolutionary step of our society, but I think it will be the primary reason of our downfall as a nation if not corrected, rather than the actions of politics and politicians. I've been thinking on this. I realize there is no one root cause, but something occurred to me, and I just want to throw it out for any responses. We are talking about a fundamental societal change that seems to be concurrent with our becoming a mobile country, and it's resultant loss in "community". Think small town. Merchants couldn't wrong you if they wished to stay in business. The whole village, in effect, raised the children. Hell, even big cities had their neighborhoods, a virtual small town in a big city. Now, I've read, the average person lives less than 5 years in one house. Neighbors often change so frequently you never get to learn their names. There is an anonymity that allows us to think I, rather than we. I don't know, maybe interstates weren't such a good idea. ;-) The root cause of this is the breakdown of the nuclear family brought on by no-fault divorce and the welfare state. The plethora of lawyers and their greed to make alot of bucks has also contributed to the problem. |
Here, lap this up, Harry!
Harry Krause wrote in message ... thunder wrote: On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 19:37:40 +0000, Eisboch wrote: That's the "Ka-Thunk" that went off somewhere in my (mostly empty) head as I listened to this. It's a social change taking place where the concept of earning something by working hard is being replaced with "It's owed to me". It's a change whereby if you feel you've been wronged by a merchant - you sue him, rather that accepting the fact that you learned a lesson and won't do business with him again. It's a change where paying your dues is not necessary, you are "entitled" simply because you exist. Its a change whereby "I" has become paramount rather than "we". That's what I meant by loosing traditional values. It may be inevitable as a evolutionary step of our society, but I think it will be the primary reason of our downfall as a nation if not corrected, rather than the actions of politics and politicians. I've been thinking on this. I realize there is no one root cause, but something occurred to me, and I just want to throw it out for any responses. We are talking about a fundamental societal change that seems to be concurrent with our becoming a mobile country, and it's resultant loss in "community". Think small town. Merchants couldn't wrong you if they wished to stay in business. The whole village, in effect, raised the children. Hell, even big cities had their neighborhoods, a virtual small town in a big city. Now, I've read, the average person lives less than 5 years in one house. Neighbors often change so frequently you never get to learn their names. There is an anonymity that allows us to think I, rather than we. I don't know, maybe interstates weren't such a good idea. ;-) Let's not leave out of this argument the fact that millions of hard-working Americans have been screwed royally by their employers and left on the side of the side of the road after years of loyal service. That is not lost on the younger generation, that "the corporation" will "f*ck" you at every opportunity. True Harry, but think of why. Those doing the screwing are the large, publicly held corporations. Small, private companies don't have a reputation of screwing loyal employees. The reason the public companies screw the employees is a constant, never-ending motive to meet quarterly numbers and increase ROI to satisfy the demands and expectations of the stockholders. Who are these greedy stockholders? You, me and everyone else that holds stock in a company directly or through retirement plans. So, who is really to blame? Eisboch |
Here, lap this up, Harry!
"Eisboch" wrote in message ... Harry Krause wrote in message ... thunder wrote: On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 19:37:40 +0000, Eisboch wrote: That's the "Ka-Thunk" that went off somewhere in my (mostly empty) head as I listened to this. It's a social change taking place where the concept of earning something by working hard is being replaced with "It's owed to me". It's a change whereby if you feel you've been wronged by a merchant - you sue him, rather that accepting the fact that you learned a lesson and won't do business with him again. It's a change where paying your dues is not necessary, you are "entitled" simply because you exist. Its a change whereby "I" has become paramount rather than "we". That's what I meant by loosing traditional values. It may be inevitable as a evolutionary step of our society, but I think it will be the primary reason of our downfall as a nation if not corrected, rather than the actions of politics and politicians. I've been thinking on this. I realize there is no one root cause, but something occurred to me, and I just want to throw it out for any responses. We are talking about a fundamental societal change that seems to be concurrent with our becoming a mobile country, and it's resultant loss in "community". Think small town. Merchants couldn't wrong you if they wished to stay in business. The whole village, in effect, raised the children. Hell, even big cities had their neighborhoods, a virtual small town in a big city. Now, I've read, the average person lives less than 5 years in one house. Neighbors often change so frequently you never get to learn their names. There is an anonymity that allows us to think I, rather than we. I don't know, maybe interstates weren't such a good idea. ;-) Let's not leave out of this argument the fact that millions of hard-working Americans have been screwed royally by their employers and left on the side of the side of the road after years of loyal service. That is not lost on the younger generation, that "the corporation" will "f*ck" you at every opportunity. True Harry, but think of why. Those doing the screwing are the large, publicly held corporations. Small, private companies don't have a reputation of screwing loyal employees. The reason the public companies screw the employees is a constant, never-ending motive to meet quarterly numbers and increase ROI to satisfy the demands and expectations of the stockholders. Who are these greedy stockholders? You, me and everyone else that holds stock in a company directly or through retirement plans. So, who is really to blame? Eisboch The purpose of a corporation, whether public or private, is to provide a return on investment for its stock holders........its purpose is NOT to provide jobs. Once again, harry and ilk wish to remove personal responsibility from the equation. |
Here, lap this up, Harry!
Anyone else getting these "Krause Archiver " posts?
Eisboch |
Here, lap this up, Harry!
"Eisboch" wrote in message ... Anyone else getting these "Krause Archiver " posts? Eisboch Yep. |
Here, lap this up, Harry!
PocoLoco wrote: On 13 Oct 2005 11:01:35 -0700, wrote: wrote: Here, why don't you lap THIS up: http://tinyurl.com/9za2n Anally fixated? Is this prevalent among liberals, or is it primarily you and Harry? Have you discussed this with *any* adult in your life? Here, this may help: http://psychology.about.com/od/gloss...Fixation13.htm I hope everything works out OK for you. -- John H Another idiotic post from the lowest form of humanity known. You're a piece of ****, and I think you are realizing that. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:52 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com