So Saddam didn't want to go after the US? Is that why he attempted to assassinate a former president? Is that why his anti-aircraft batteries fired at US war planes patrolling the no-fly-zone several times a week? Is that why he refused to have weapons inspectors in the country because it contained U.S. citizens?
Maybe your history of the "McCarthy Era" has been scewed by liberal media. McCarthy only spent about 4 months "accusing people" of being Communists, and in these names he got from CIA investigations already in progress. This had nothing to do with invading anyone's privacy, and isn't even on the same plain.
And Nixon is another story, again, has nothing to do with the current "problem".
However, let's look at Bill & Hillary Clinton. Hillary used her power as first lady to send U.S. secret service officials to "harrass" Bill's sexual harrassment accusers (Paula Jones). Talk about brushing away the law to suit your own personal needs.
So when an Al Qaeda "representative" believed to be in Baghdad before the war removes the head of a US citizen and releases the video on the internet in "protest" of the U.S. occupation.... that isn't proof?
People said before the war, "oh Osama is religious and Saddam is secular so they wouldn't work with one another" yet why is Al Qaeda currently trying to subvert the peace in Iraq? Why is Al Qaeda representatives beheading american civilians in Iraq?
Finally... Saddam supported many terrorist organizations in the middle east, including Hezbola in Isreal. At one point, Saddam was dishing out large checks to families of suicide bombers in Isreal. With the fact of PROVEN support of many terrorist organizations, do you really believe that Al Qaeda is the only terrorist organization Saddam didn't have ties with? Are you really that ignorant?!
In NYC (being I live in the area I know a lot about this stuff), the local energy company wanted to build 6 new power plants in 2002, to be completed by 2005, in order to keep up with demand. With the help of the city and state, they were able to narrow down a list of nearly 30 sites to 10 sites which were considered suitable because of their location, land availability, etc etc. Once the "public" heard about the sites, the idea was scrapped. One particular site would have been across the street from where they film and produce the Sorpranos.
This has nothing to do with money, this was a case where the electric companies WANTED to build more power generation plants, but COULD NOT without a huge legal fees associated with getting rid of the enviro-nuts!
um... how is the solution to energy shortages to use more energy? this is simply illogical. if we are outstripping our resources (and i am including here a long term view), we need to rethink how we use them, etc. i would hardly classify myself as one of your 'enviro-nuts' yet i am slightly worried about large jump in co2 levels for the last three years in a row. building more plants to use more energy... well i dont really think thats a solution to the problem but rather to the symptom.
So let's do some sed action. Let's say we're talking about milk and not oil (milk, btw, being another product with shortages). Your response seems to indicate you think we should NOT produce more milk, but to just stop drinking less of it? C'mon now... this is just rediculous. Or is this your opinion only for oil?
Your talk about the "long term" but I was referring to the short term, two completely different things. Getting oil plants up and running is a 2-3 year operation, nuclear plants are a little longer due to safety concerns. The need is IMMEDIATE, not in 30-50 years when some scientists who really have no clue say that the earth will be dry of all oil. In 30-50 years we CAN put in nuclear plants, we CAN develop new ways to produce electricity, and we CAN change the culture of the nation to reduce energy usage. However, all of this will NOT happen in the next 2-3 years where the need is immediate. Not just for the economy, but for the elderly who need the air conditioning in order to breath right (my mom being one of them).
Enviro-nuts scream about this problem... from every side! We have blackouts in California and NYC that made world news over the last couple years, yet the local energy companies can't build new power producing plants to keep up with demand... whether it be coal, gas or nuclear. Why? Enviro-nuts!
It seems these groups have campaigned against ANY type of energy plants in the last few years, and in fact, are responsible for our high gas prices right now. The main factor in the $2.07 national average for unleaded gas is that we do not have enough refineries to turn crude into usable fuel. Our refineries are at 95% capacity.... all attempts to build additional plants in the last few years have been destroyed by these Enviro-nuts.
I know this is a rant, and will probably get modded down... but hey, life is all about risks. My point is that these people on the left, these Enviro-nuts, have hindered Americas ability to recover from the Clinton-Gore recession by limiting oil refinement and limiting the building of new power generation stations (of all kinds, including Nuclear) forcing the U.S. to take huge hits to the economy when the price of gas goes high or when we have blackouts that take out our nation's largest business sectors.
And the worse part about it, these same nuts will be the first people to complain when they couldn't have their morning latte's or moca's because there was no electricity to heat or cool up their drinks!
It's about time there was a cell phone directory. I can't remember how many times I've lost someone's cell phone number when I need it. It exists for landlines, why not cell phones?
I think the underlying excuse from the parent is the "right to privacy" which doesn't exist in the first place. This is just an example of privacy activism gone awry.
April home heating bills were 50% lower than March's making April the cheapest month to heat your home so far in 2004! Analysts believe May will be another record breaking month in low home heating costs!
My "anecdotal stories" are only a couple examples. As I stated, my father, who was a school teacher (and still is, although not actually teaching), has first hand knowledge of social promotion. He was even instructed by his boss (the principal) to use social promotion to "get rid of the bad kids". And I think I proved how social promotion is bad by stating that skills learned in one year are needed for the next year of learning, for example.. learning fractions are later needed for Algebra and Geometry. So... you're saying that this is not the case?
I mean, look.. if a kid is not getting the basic skills in one grade, how can you expect them to perform in the next grade. This doesn't even need "scientific proof"... it just "makes sense".
Also, regarding the NEA, I said they spend more money lobbying politicians than performing REAL functions like promoting the education of their own teachers. If Microsoft was doing this, you'd think there was a problem, no? Also, do you know how much the President of the NEA makes? Maybe you should look at up, because it's very interesting.
They said the contents of the test were racist. Yet, they could not quote a question which they believed was racist (because none of them saw the tests!) The point is, they didnt want their kids to take the tests because they were afraid of the results... and "racism" is the hot issue. You can claim anything is racism and get your way!
Private schools do not have the same teachers as public schools. In fact, private schools tend to have teachers which are NOT CERTIFIED teachers. You may think "OMG THAT'S HORRIBLE" but not true! Private school teachers tend to teach, and yes for a lot less money than public schools, because they LOVE to teach... they LOVE to give knowledge to others... they LOVE to watch people grow intellectually. They are also very accountable for their ability to convey the information.
Unlike public schools, where the teacher is just doing it because it's a job... and they have no accountability because they are "tenured"... and where their only intent is to teach 25 years to get retirement benefits.
And yes, if the public education system was completely dismantled (which won't happen), then private schools would eventually be taken over by the "profiteers"... or at least SOME of them. My private HS was non-profit. It didn't profit anyone, it was run by alumni of the school and parents of children. It was a school more dedicated to maturing children and educating them, then public schools which are more interested in just getting them to the next grade.
BTW, profits also drive performance. If a private school was looking to be profitable, they would try to get the best results out of the children because their intent would be to build a reputation for high quality... attracting more students... and charging more (law of supply and demand). If schools performed poorly, parents wont want to send their kids there, and these schools would eventually go away. Not such a bad idea...
There are certain professions which use Geomtry regularly. Architects, for instance.... contractors... etc.
What angle do you put the beam at to get the best support for the roof? What length of beam to I need if I need it to be at this angle? What angle do I need to cut into the beam in order for it to sit flush with the side of the cross beam?
I build subwoofer boxes, as well. Questions I need to ask... what's the volume of the box? What degree angle do I need to cut? What diameter hole do I need for the subwoofer?
Not all private schools are CHRISTIAN. Some are JEWISH... some are MUSLIM... some aren't even associated with religion.
But nonetheless, shouldn't parents have a CHOICE of where to send their children? Nope! According to YOU, you should only have a choice if you're rich enough to afford it!
Well, from the way I look at it, why MUST a parent send their children to school at all?
If the family is poor, the family may benefit more from having the kid work. I know this sounds "evil" or at least poor in taste, but this is the way it's been done for thousands of years.
It's all about choice. Parents need to be given a choice and the government should not be regulating how parents raise their children. If, as a parent, I decide to not send my kid to school, is that the government's problem? What if my kid could get a better education at home, at least in my own mind? What if I would rather teach my kid the basics and then put him to work sweeping up floors for my little corner store?
I'm not advocating taking kids out of school and denying them an education. What I am talking about is giving people the FREEDOM to choose what's best for themselves and their children. People want to complain about the Patriot Act, but what about my fundamental right to live without the government interfering in how I raise my child?
This may sound radical, it's not my intent... however, I think we need to reconsider the entire spectrum of what we give up and what we can retain in the form of privacy (true privacy, not just some anti-RIAA bullshit that gets sputtered out on/. like explosive diahrea).
Anyway, I don't know if privitizing education is the way to go completely. Honestly, there are some parents who don't care about their children. My girlfriend, being a 6th grade teacher in a not-so-great district, feels that she is more of a babysitter than a teacher. Parent's seem to only view the school as a free child care service. In fact, one child's parent said this to her directly. So the question is, if she has to "dumb down" the curriculum for the group of students who are not getting support from home, then how is this affecting the child who does have ambitions and is getting the support? We're so concerned about not hurting a child's feelings by keeping them back a grade because they can't make the grade, but yet we have no concern with holding the smart kids who can and want to excel. THIS is why some people say socialism has gone too far. People ARE different and we need to understand that.
Some of our children will be doctors and some of them will be garbage men. Yet, all parents want all their children to be doctors, however, where would be really be without garbagemen?
The problem in the education system is dumbing down the smart students while artifically propping up the uninterested ones in order to create uniformity. We talk about diversity in culture, race, and religion... yet we cannot acknowledge diversity in intelligence or ambition. That's very sad.
Is this the same "new right" that passed the "No Child Left Behind" act in order to get states to meet their own standards for educating children? Or is this some other "new right" which invaded the bodies of our current elected officials?
As far as "subjective evaluations", it goes a little beyond what the teacher thinks. In most cases, there is standardized testing, teacher inputs, parent inputs, "education experts" and finally the principal. I know, because I went through this process in the 1st grade. (and although unrelated, I was deemed "gifted"). And even if it was a subjective evaluation, I'd rather have a few "false positives" than lots of "false negatives". Sure, you're pulling money out of the public schools for school vouchers, but if a district gets $7000 per kid (national average) and gives out a $3500 voucher for a kid to attend private school, that means the school district has an additional $3500 it can distribute to the other children while reducing the class size. What's the disadvantage?
Besides, what ever happened to "pro-choice" thought? I have the choice whether to abort my child, but I don't have a choice of what school to send them to unless I have lots of money and can afford a private education? That seems... wrong. But the liberals seem to think it's okay to keep the poor and underpriviledged under the rug.
The problem with the attempt to "improve public schools" is that the ONLY way people propose improving is by increasing funding. The problem is that the U.S. already spends more money per student than ANY OTHER COUNTRY yet our results are less than first. So obviously money isn't the issue.
And I will agree with your final statement. I mean, we need to throw the "you believe this so I believe that" under the rug and get shit done that benefits the country.
This has nothing to do with "who is running the country" today. The results we see today are a consequence of 30 years or more of problems. This kind of thing just doesn't creep in overnight. What we're seeing is a consequence of the actions of the past, not the present.
I agree with the poster that it's the education system. A couple weeks ago in NYC parents and students protested a 3rd grade proficiency test which they claimed was racist. Children needed to get a 40% on the test in order to matriculate to the 4th grade. Parents and some "public officials" claimed the test was racially biased, but never backed up their claims. This is just one example of where our education system is going. We can't even demand a 40% proficiency from a child before he's pushed ahead.
Social promotion is the KEY problem in our education system. My father was a teacher in Illinois in the 70s. He tells stories of parents complaining about the bad grades of their children, going to the administration, and then they letting the children pass onto the next grade. This kind of social promotion weakens the child's ability to grasp more complicated subjects. If a child can't understand fractions, how are they going to get Algebra or Geometry? It's a slipperty slope.
On another instance, attempts by the "right wing dominancy" is provide a "way out" through school vouchers to inner city children has been beaten by the liberals to death. School vouchers' intentions are to move kids with potential out of the "slum schools" and into private schools that put more an emphasis on education than on checking children for knives as they walk in through the door in the morning.
And finally, the NEA is terribly corrupt. They spend more money from dues collected by teachers for lobbying Washington politicians than they spend on continuing the education of their own teachers or ANY OTHER activity. We have a union that's just as corrupt as any big company that lobbies the Congress for their own special interests, except you never hear about THIS special interest because it's one the liberals support.
King of the Hill (yes, cartoon) had an interesting commentary on cultural impacts of studies in our public schools. While, yes, it was maybe drawn out a little bit, it shows how historical facts (like in this case the story of the Alamo) are being drowned out for oblivious and unimportant facts like what the state cactus is. The point is, don't talk about the Alamo because it'll offend someone.
And I have to agree. As a freshman in high school, we used 30 year old ancient history books as opposed to the new ones because the teacher felt the new books were loaded down with crap and didn't have any real substance. He then would proceed to fill us in with the "latest discoveries" in Egypt, Greece, Italy, etc in order to bring us up to date.
In fact, I would argue that the rights of these people to make such statements are being infringed when leftists attack and make points like this.
It's like politically correct terms. That's a form of the violation of the first amendment when I use the 'N' word, but if I use African American, it's OK. But what we've learned from leftists is hypocracy, and this is what we have here.
I only glanced over the page, but what about the case where the a high school christian club was denied the right to post a pro-christian poster on the "clubs board" at the school because it deemed inflamatory. Or what about the kid who was wearing a t-shirt which was also pro-christian... he was told to leave school.
And of course was the Republican clubs at some universities who were selling cookies at lower prices to minorities in order to point out the injustices of affirmative action. Was this listed? Didn't see it, yet this is a very clear example of the first amendment violation from the leftists.
So is a Linux monopoly better than a Microsoft monopoly all of a sudden? Some may say yes, but no monopoly is good. What these countries are doing is basically giving Linux the advantage within their own borders. Some may say this is a good thing, but to me this is government intereferance in a sector they should not touch.
#1: My link disproves anything in your link as it already establishes that his partner, at the Alabama base, said he say Bush at ALL drills at Alabama. So, your point is moot.
#2: It matters what other presidents have done because it established a basic "approved behavior". If FDR didn't attend a single funderal of all 700,00 people who died during WWII, why would Bush be expected to attend 1 of the 500 that died in Iraq? This doesn't make sense. This is an attempt to discredit Bush for something that is not out of character for Presidents. Besides, if he did go to a funeral of a soldier, you'd be complaining about him politicizing the war!
#3: I said I know Marines who believe that it's worth the effort. I did not state, as you insinuate, that all of them feel the same. It was YOUR assumption that the troops disagreed, it was my retort that NOT ALL of them did disagree, so it's the burden of proof ON YOU to show how all the troops disagree. But nice try turning it around...
#4: You're right, Clinton did enforce the sanctions, but that wasn't my original point. My point was that the arguments that Bush going to Iraq was bullshit because Clinton had the same idea and just did not execute. This is regardless of the post-war problems that are occuring.
#5: So we're "speculating" about 1 of the 3 links I provided. The other two DO provide evidence that he is lying between his teeth. Of course, you ignore THIS fact and then instead of defending this (because you can't) you ATTACK ME for proving he's a liar!
#6: Ooops my bad. Google gone awry. To prove my point, however, here is an interview with Richard Clarke in which the interviewer asks if he is registered republican, and his response is:
Well, I vote in Virginia, and you can't register as a Republican or a Democrat in Virginia. The only way that anybody ever knows your party affiliation in Virginia is when you vote in a primary, because you have to ask for either a Republican or a Democratic ballot. And in the year 2000, I voted in the Republican presidential primary. That's the only record in the state of Virginia of my interest or allegiance.
#7: There is no evidnce to support YOUR claim that the government conspired to give the contracts to Halliburton over anyone else.
I don't need to believe in any of these things to be a Republican. I am a republican, but I am not "of the body" as you Demo'rats seem to need to be:
1) Name one republican who has criticized people addicted to drugs. Show me proof, too. Show me that they meant "addiction" and not "use of illegal drugs". Are you aware that 4 in 10 users of oxycontin will become addicted? Did you know that Limbaugh's 'witch hunt' is just that.... did you know a judge in the SAME COUNTY was bypassed for the same crime? Did you know that this is the THIRD charge to be "leaked" by the prosecutor's office after the other two were proven false?
2) I do believe the US should remove itself from the UN, however I also believe that we should enforce the resolutions set forth by that organization. Why? Because right now, the U.S. is part of that organization, and the U.S. agreed with and sometimes sponsored those resolutions. Therefore, the U.S. is agreeing to enforce the policies itself agreed with over the last 10 years. Oh yeah, that's hypocritical.
3) This is another common misconception of "the left". The republicans do not want to promote big business as they are more interested in promoting free enterprise. The goal of a company is to make money and when they make money, they become larger. Should companies decide "hey, we're big enough, let's stop expanding". No. Are you going to say, "hey, I make enough money, maybe I should stop looking for promotions?" No. Likewise, Republicans do not have an issue with marijuana as a "group". Sure, some individuals don't like it, but some others don't care, and in fact, want to remove restrictions on illegal drugs altogether.
4) Actually, NAFTA which Clinton signed, sent a lot of jobs to foreign countries. It has also brought a lot of jobs to the U.S. Bush has nothing to do with sending jobs overseas. Businesses do, however... but in your little world, you believe they are one of the same.
5) Another misconception. Republicans (not all, but some) believe that a fetus is a human being. Some others, like some Demo'rats do not. I look at it this way: in order to be human you need to have 46 chromosomes, this is unique to the animal kingdom). A fetus has 46 chromosomes, so scientifically, this makes it human. Do you support killing humans? Oh, and a hypocracy of "the left" is that they are OK with killing unborn babies, but don't kill those convicted murderers, because they have rights.
6) Yet ANOTHER misconception of "the left". Republicans do not "hate" homosexuals or Hillary Clinton. They also do not say that jesus says this, and your insinuation is rediculous. However, the belief comes from the Bible. I will, however, mention that homosexuality is, by the defintion of "evolution", a way for mother nature to cleanse the gene pool. So hey, be gay as much as you want.
7) Bush has actually proposed to raise pay for both veterans and troops. However, I know what you are referring to. A law which covered troops through Sept. 2003 was not renewed in time to continue them beyond that point (mostly due to Demo'rat stalling in the House).
8) Everyone makes mistakes. Bill Clinton did it too, but that's OK. That's "youthful discretion" as Mr. Clinton claimed.
9) Yet another misconception. Republicans believe in teaching abstinance in schools to prevent children from having sex and not only providing condoms.
10) We did not "belittle" our allies, we had disagreements with them. We've had disagreements with them before, and that's just part of the game. However, Mr. Chirac did undermine his alliance with the US when he called Bush in late 2002 and said he's support him in his war in Iraq and provide troops as well, and at the same time conspiring with other nations to oppose him.
11) I don't know where you get this at all... it's just rediculous. HMOs have an interest in making money, but they are insurance companies, and they make their money by collecting fees and hoping people won
#1: This link quotes two men as stating they saw Bush when he was based in Alabama, the time that the Demo'rats (and you) claim he was AWOL. One mentions that he was his drill partner, and that Bush was present at all drills.
#2: While I cannot find proof that Bush has not attended any funerals of fallen soldiers (although there is plenty of rhetoric about him not attending), I did find this link which mentions several war time presidents, some of which and some of which did not attend troops funerals. Some who did, only attended those of children of family members or of men they personally met. Criticizing Bush for not going to these funerals is silly as he is not the only president to not do this.
#3: However, people are more likely to commit suicide today than ever before, too. Suicide, as any psychologist will tell you, is about depression, not about disagreement with a war. While, yes, there have been soldiers who filed "consciensious objector" status so they do not have to fight (but only 3 that I know of so far). It's possible that troops are depressed in Iraq due to a number of factors (heck, they are being shot at), but this does not mean they do not agree with the efforts.
#4: You're taking what I said out of context, which is what you Demo'rats like to do. The full statement was, "... the troops love hearing how Bill Clinton and Dick Clarke failed to deal with Iraq in 1997 as Clinton had planned." That statement is factually accurate. Clinton HAD planned to deal with Iraq in 1997 and FAILED to do so. This means, he did NOT do it, therefore he failed. I did not say that the situation in Iraq was Clinton's fault, it was Saddam's fault and the inability of the U.N. to uphold their own laws.
#5: However, in previous testimony, recordinds, and emails Clarke says the COMPLETE OPPOSITE. The GOP believes he lied under oath", and Clark praises Bush at a seperate point, and in his resignation letter, also praises Bush on how he handled 9/11. So what is it? Is he lying now... or was he lying then? Either way, he cannot be trusted... yet you believe him. Curious...
#6: Which you conveniently left out, this page says that Clarke is not a registered Democrat, but wants to be. And you can be registered "independant" as I am, so just because you're not registered demo'rat doesn't mean you need to be registered republican. So, of course, if he wants to be a registered Demo'rat, that re-enforces my assertion that he is doing this for political purposes.
#7: I don't have to respond to this one since You have stopped arguing this point.
#1: Bush was not AWOL. He was given "leave" in order to campaign for his father. He them reported, as required, to Alabama of which there is proof.
#2: What kind of proof is a petition?
#3: Yes, sadly, there have been many suicides by US troops in Iraq. However, this is still only a small number. There have been less than 1000 of 150,000 dead. So even if you assume that all 1000 died by suicide (which is not the case), we're still talking a fraction of 1%. That's a minority , in my version of math anyway.
#4: I didn't say Clinton had faulted at all. What I said was that he did not do anything about Iraq in 1997 and therefore Bush needed to do it in 2003. My real point is that Clinton felt regime change was the proper stance the U.S. should have for Iraq and made this public. However, it was Bush who executed that policy. Clinton did attempt to keep up the sanctions and did a relatively good job, however even he admitted that they thought there were WMD in Iraq following the bombing in 1998, and that they could never be sure because Iraq would not allow inspectors in.
#5: Your statement doesn't make sense. Yes, everyone is failable, even Clarke, and he failed 5 times as counter-terrorism czar under Clinton.
#6: Clarke is not a registered republican, and yes, he has worked for Reagon, Bush Sr and Clinton as well. Clarke voted for Al Gore in 2000 as he stated in on "Meet the Press" this morning.
#7: Halliburton has many resources that extend beyond the middle east. Hallibuton uses a lot of local companies to get it's job done too, however (those ARAB countries). However, saying that Hallibuton was only chosen because the criteria was chosen for them is without evidence.
NEWS FLASH! Gaddafi is no longer a threat! Gaddafi has given up his weapons of mass destruction (yes, he did have them!) He is no longer a threat to the United States or any other nation. Why? Because of Bush's actions in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The Iraq war was not about weapons of mass destruction. It was about a lot of things, and in the real world (not the one fabricated by liberal media and the Demo'rats), the war in Iraq was a continuation of the 1991 conflict of which Saddam surrendered and agreed to certain stipulations. Those stipulations were not met, which led to 17 U.N. resolutions. Resolution 1441 stated that Iraq had not met it's obligations under the previous resolutions. This was the real cause of the second conflict in Iraq. This resolution was agreed to and signed by all members of the UN Security Council.
Iraq had not met the terms of the cease fire and therefore was responsible. This was one point of the war. The second point of the war was his actions towards his own people. He was very cruel , tortured men and raped women.
The other countries you mention have other difficulties, politica, financial, whatever.. they are irrelevant. We cannot treat every nation the same, as we are not treating North Korea the same.
The third reason was the attempt of Saddam to assassinate a former president of the U.S. Yes, it was Bush's father, but he was still a former president. Saddam also had ties with multiple terrorist organizations. While we can not prove, yet, that Saddam had ties with Al Qaeda, there is plenty of interesting evidence. Saddam also supported many other terrorist organizations, of interest is Hamas, as they bombed Isreal. Because of Iraq's relation with these terrorist organizations, it's hard to believe that Saddam excluded Al Qaeda.... it just doesn't make sense.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,58871,00.html 4 . html
http://www.factsofisrael.com/blog/archives/00064
Just a couple... do a google search
So Saddam didn't want to go after the US? Is that why he attempted to assassinate a former president? Is that why his anti-aircraft batteries fired at US war planes patrolling the no-fly-zone several times a week? Is that why he refused to have weapons inspectors in the country because it contained U.S. citizens?
Ahhh you silly person. Put on your tin foil cap... you're going to need it.
Did you ever hear about the dihydrogen-oxide conspiracy?
Uhmmm.....
Maybe your history of the "McCarthy Era" has been scewed by liberal media. McCarthy only spent about 4 months "accusing people" of being Communists, and in these names he got from CIA investigations already in progress. This had nothing to do with invading anyone's privacy, and isn't even on the same plain.
And Nixon is another story, again, has nothing to do with the current "problem".
However, let's look at Bill & Hillary Clinton. Hillary used her power as first lady to send U.S. secret service officials to "harrass" Bill's sexual harrassment accusers (Paula Jones). Talk about brushing away the law to suit your own personal needs.
So when an Al Qaeda "representative" believed to be in Baghdad before the war removes the head of a US citizen and releases the video on the internet in "protest" of the U.S. occupation.... that isn't proof?
People said before the war, "oh Osama is religious and Saddam is secular so they wouldn't work with one another" yet why is Al Qaeda currently trying to subvert the peace in Iraq? Why is Al Qaeda representatives beheading american civilians in Iraq?
Finally... Saddam supported many terrorist organizations in the middle east, including Hezbola in Isreal. At one point, Saddam was dishing out large checks to families of suicide bombers in Isreal. With the fact of PROVEN support of many terrorist organizations, do you really believe that Al Qaeda is the only terrorist organization Saddam didn't have ties with? Are you really that ignorant?!
In NYC (being I live in the area I know a lot about this stuff), the local energy company wanted to build 6 new power plants in 2002, to be completed by 2005, in order to keep up with demand. With the help of the city and state, they were able to narrow down a list of nearly 30 sites to 10 sites which were considered suitable because of their location, land availability, etc etc. Once the "public" heard about the sites, the idea was scrapped. One particular site would have been across the street from where they film and produce the Sorpranos.
This has nothing to do with money, this was a case where the electric companies WANTED to build more power generation plants, but COULD NOT without a huge legal fees associated with getting rid of the enviro-nuts!
So let's do some sed action. Let's say we're talking about milk and not oil (milk, btw, being another product with shortages). Your response seems to indicate you think we should NOT produce more milk, but to just stop drinking less of it? C'mon now... this is just rediculous. Or is this your opinion only for oil?
Your talk about the "long term" but I was referring to the short term, two completely different things. Getting oil plants up and running is a 2-3 year operation, nuclear plants are a little longer due to safety concerns. The need is IMMEDIATE, not in 30-50 years when some scientists who really have no clue say that the earth will be dry of all oil. In 30-50 years we CAN put in nuclear plants, we CAN develop new ways to produce electricity, and we CAN change the culture of the nation to reduce energy usage. However, all of this will NOT happen in the next 2-3 years where the need is immediate. Not just for the economy, but for the elderly who need the air conditioning in order to breath right (my mom being one of them).
Enviro-nuts scream about this problem... from every side! We have blackouts in California and NYC that made world news over the last couple years, yet the local energy companies can't build new power producing plants to keep up with demand... whether it be coal, gas or nuclear. Why? Enviro-nuts!
It seems these groups have campaigned against ANY type of energy plants in the last few years, and in fact, are responsible for our high gas prices right now. The main factor in the $2.07 national average for unleaded gas is that we do not have enough refineries to turn crude into usable fuel. Our refineries are at 95% capacity.... all attempts to build additional plants in the last few years have been destroyed by these Enviro-nuts.
I know this is a rant, and will probably get modded down... but hey, life is all about risks. My point is that these people on the left, these Enviro-nuts, have hindered Americas ability to recover from the Clinton-Gore recession by limiting oil refinement and limiting the building of new power generation stations (of all kinds, including Nuclear) forcing the U.S. to take huge hits to the economy when the price of gas goes high or when we have blackouts that take out our nation's largest business sectors.
And the worse part about it, these same nuts will be the first people to complain when they couldn't have their morning latte's or moca's because there was no electricity to heat or cool up their drinks!
It's about time there was a cell phone directory. I can't remember how many times I've lost someone's cell phone number when I need it. It exists for landlines, why not cell phones?
I think the underlying excuse from the parent is the "right to privacy" which doesn't exist in the first place. This is just an example of privacy activism gone awry.
April home heating bills were 50% lower than March's making April the cheapest month to heat your home so far in 2004! Analysts believe May will be another record breaking month in low home heating costs!
My "anecdotal stories" are only a couple examples. As I stated, my father, who was a school teacher (and still is, although not actually teaching), has first hand knowledge of social promotion. He was even instructed by his boss (the principal) to use social promotion to "get rid of the bad kids". And I think I proved how social promotion is bad by stating that skills learned in one year are needed for the next year of learning, for example.. learning fractions are later needed for Algebra and Geometry. So... you're saying that this is not the case?
I mean, look.. if a kid is not getting the basic skills in one grade, how can you expect them to perform in the next grade. This doesn't even need "scientific proof"... it just "makes sense".
Also, regarding the NEA, I said they spend more money lobbying politicians than performing REAL functions like promoting the education of their own teachers. If Microsoft was doing this, you'd think there was a problem, no? Also, do you know how much the President of the NEA makes? Maybe you should look at up, because it's very interesting.
They said the contents of the test were racist. Yet, they could not quote a question which they believed was racist (because none of them saw the tests!) The point is, they didnt want their kids to take the tests because they were afraid of the results... and "racism" is the hot issue. You can claim anything is racism and get your way!
Private schools do not have the same teachers as public schools. In fact, private schools tend to have teachers which are NOT CERTIFIED teachers. You may think "OMG THAT'S HORRIBLE" but not true! Private school teachers tend to teach, and yes for a lot less money than public schools, because they LOVE to teach... they LOVE to give knowledge to others... they LOVE to watch people grow intellectually. They are also very accountable for their ability to convey the information.
Unlike public schools, where the teacher is just doing it because it's a job... and they have no accountability because they are "tenured"... and where their only intent is to teach 25 years to get retirement benefits.
And yes, if the public education system was completely dismantled (which won't happen), then private schools would eventually be taken over by the "profiteers"... or at least SOME of them. My private HS was non-profit. It didn't profit anyone, it was run by alumni of the school and parents of children. It was a school more dedicated to maturing children and educating them, then public schools which are more interested in just getting them to the next grade.
BTW, profits also drive performance. If a private school was looking to be profitable, they would try to get the best results out of the children because their intent would be to build a reputation for high quality... attracting more students... and charging more (law of supply and demand). If schools performed poorly, parents wont want to send their kids there, and these schools would eventually go away. Not such a bad idea...
There are certain professions which use Geomtry regularly. Architects, for instance.... contractors... etc.
What angle do you put the beam at to get the best support for the roof? What length of beam to I need if I need it to be at this angle? What angle do I need to cut into the beam in order for it to sit flush with the side of the cross beam?
I build subwoofer boxes, as well. Questions I need to ask... what's the volume of the box? What degree angle do I need to cut? What diameter hole do I need for the subwoofer?
Not all private schools are CHRISTIAN. Some are JEWISH... some are MUSLIM... some aren't even associated with religion.
But nonetheless, shouldn't parents have a CHOICE of where to send their children? Nope! According to YOU, you should only have a choice if you're rich enough to afford it!
Well, from the way I look at it, why MUST a parent send their children to school at all?
/. like explosive diahrea).
If the family is poor, the family may benefit more from having the kid work. I know this sounds "evil" or at least poor in taste, but this is the way it's been done for thousands of years.
It's all about choice. Parents need to be given a choice and the government should not be regulating how parents raise their children. If, as a parent, I decide to not send my kid to school, is that the government's problem? What if my kid could get a better education at home, at least in my own mind? What if I would rather teach my kid the basics and then put him to work sweeping up floors for my little corner store?
I'm not advocating taking kids out of school and denying them an education. What I am talking about is giving people the FREEDOM to choose what's best for themselves and their children. People want to complain about the Patriot Act, but what about my fundamental right to live without the government interfering in how I raise my child?
This may sound radical, it's not my intent... however, I think we need to reconsider the entire spectrum of what we give up and what we can retain in the form of privacy (true privacy, not just some anti-RIAA bullshit that gets sputtered out on
Anyway, I don't know if privitizing education is the way to go completely. Honestly, there are some parents who don't care about their children. My girlfriend, being a 6th grade teacher in a not-so-great district, feels that she is more of a babysitter than a teacher. Parent's seem to only view the school as a free child care service. In fact, one child's parent said this to her directly. So the question is, if she has to "dumb down" the curriculum for the group of students who are not getting support from home, then how is this affecting the child who does have ambitions and is getting the support? We're so concerned about not hurting a child's feelings by keeping them back a grade because they can't make the grade, but yet we have no concern with holding the smart kids who can and want to excel. THIS is why some people say socialism has gone too far. People ARE different and we need to understand that.
Some of our children will be doctors and some of them will be garbage men. Yet, all parents want all their children to be doctors, however, where would be really be without garbagemen?
The problem in the education system is dumbing down the smart students while artifically propping up the uninterested ones in order to create uniformity. We talk about diversity in culture, race, and religion... yet we cannot acknowledge diversity in intelligence or ambition. That's very sad.
Is this the same "new right" that passed the "No Child Left Behind" act in order to get states to meet their own standards for educating children? Or is this some other "new right" which invaded the bodies of our current elected officials?
As far as "subjective evaluations", it goes a little beyond what the teacher thinks. In most cases, there is standardized testing, teacher inputs, parent inputs, "education experts" and finally the principal. I know, because I went through this process in the 1st grade. (and although unrelated, I was deemed "gifted"). And even if it was a subjective evaluation, I'd rather have a few "false positives" than lots of "false negatives". Sure, you're pulling money out of the public schools for school vouchers, but if a district gets $7000 per kid (national average) and gives out a $3500 voucher for a kid to attend private school, that means the school district has an additional $3500 it can distribute to the other children while reducing the class size. What's the disadvantage?
Besides, what ever happened to "pro-choice" thought? I have the choice whether to abort my child, but I don't have a choice of what school to send them to unless I have lots of money and can afford a private education? That seems... wrong. But the liberals seem to think it's okay to keep the poor and underpriviledged under the rug.
The problem with the attempt to "improve public schools" is that the ONLY way people propose improving is by increasing funding. The problem is that the U.S. already spends more money per student than ANY OTHER COUNTRY yet our results are less than first. So obviously money isn't the issue.
And I will agree with your final statement. I mean, we need to throw the "you believe this so I believe that" under the rug and get shit done that benefits the country.
Parent is flamebait.
This has nothing to do with "who is running the country" today. The results we see today are a consequence of 30 years or more of problems. This kind of thing just doesn't creep in overnight. What we're seeing is a consequence of the actions of the past, not the present.
I agree with the poster that it's the education system. A couple weeks ago in NYC parents and students protested a 3rd grade proficiency test which they claimed was racist. Children needed to get a 40% on the test in order to matriculate to the 4th grade. Parents and some "public officials" claimed the test was racially biased, but never backed up their claims. This is just one example of where our education system is going. We can't even demand a 40% proficiency from a child before he's pushed ahead.
Social promotion is the KEY problem in our education system. My father was a teacher in Illinois in the 70s. He tells stories of parents complaining about the bad grades of their children, going to the administration, and then they letting the children pass onto the next grade. This kind of social promotion weakens the child's ability to grasp more complicated subjects. If a child can't understand fractions, how are they going to get Algebra or Geometry? It's a slipperty slope.
On another instance, attempts by the "right wing dominancy" is provide a "way out" through school vouchers to inner city children has been beaten by the liberals to death. School vouchers' intentions are to move kids with potential out of the "slum schools" and into private schools that put more an emphasis on education than on checking children for knives as they walk in through the door in the morning.
And finally, the NEA is terribly corrupt. They spend more money from dues collected by teachers for lobbying Washington politicians than they spend on continuing the education of their own teachers or ANY OTHER activity. We have a union that's just as corrupt as any big company that lobbies the Congress for their own special interests, except you never hear about THIS special interest because it's one the liberals support.
King of the Hill (yes, cartoon) had an interesting commentary on cultural impacts of studies in our public schools. While, yes, it was maybe drawn out a little bit, it shows how historical facts (like in this case the story of the Alamo) are being drowned out for oblivious and unimportant facts like what the state cactus is. The point is, don't talk about the Alamo because it'll offend someone.
And I have to agree. As a freshman in high school, we used 30 year old ancient history books as opposed to the new ones because the teacher felt the new books were loaded down with crap and didn't have any real substance. He then would proceed to fill us in with the "latest discoveries" in Egypt, Greece, Italy, etc in order to bring us up to date.
In fact, I would argue that the rights of these people to make such statements are being infringed when leftists attack and make points like this.
It's like politically correct terms. That's a form of the violation of the first amendment when I use the 'N' word, but if I use African American, it's OK. But what we've learned from leftists is hypocracy, and this is what we have here.
I only glanced over the page, but what about the case where the a high school christian club was denied the right to post a pro-christian poster on the "clubs board" at the school because it deemed inflamatory. Or what about the kid who was wearing a t-shirt which was also pro-christian... he was told to leave school.
And of course was the Republican clubs at some universities who were selling cookies at lower prices to minorities in order to point out the injustices of affirmative action. Was this listed? Didn't see it, yet this is a very clear example of the first amendment violation from the leftists.
So is a Linux monopoly better than a Microsoft monopoly all of a sudden? Some may say yes, but no monopoly is good. What these countries are doing is basically giving Linux the advantage within their own borders. Some may say this is a good thing, but to me this is government intereferance in a sector they should not touch.
#2: It matters what other presidents have done because it established a basic "approved behavior". If FDR didn't attend a single funderal of all 700,00 people who died during WWII, why would Bush be expected to attend 1 of the 500 that died in Iraq? This doesn't make sense. This is an attempt to discredit Bush for something that is not out of character for Presidents. Besides, if he did go to a funeral of a soldier, you'd be complaining about him politicizing the war!
#3: I said I know Marines who believe that it's worth the effort. I did not state, as you insinuate, that all of them feel the same. It was YOUR assumption that the troops disagreed, it was my retort that NOT ALL of them did disagree, so it's the burden of proof ON YOU to show how all the troops disagree. But nice try turning it around...
#4: You're right, Clinton did enforce the sanctions, but that wasn't my original point. My point was that the arguments that Bush going to Iraq was bullshit because Clinton had the same idea and just did not execute. This is regardless of the post-war problems that are occuring.
#5: So we're "speculating" about 1 of the 3 links I provided. The other two DO provide evidence that he is lying between his teeth. Of course, you ignore THIS fact and then instead of defending this (because you can't) you ATTACK ME for proving he's a liar!
#6: Ooops my bad. Google gone awry. To prove my point, however, here is an interview with Richard Clarke in which the interviewer asks if he is registered republican, and his response is:
#7: There is no evidnce to support YOUR claim that the government conspired to give the contracts to Halliburton over anyone else.
None. Like I said, it's all politics!
I don't need to believe in any of these things to be a Republican. I am a republican, but I am not "of the body" as you Demo'rats seem to need to be:
1) Name one republican who has criticized people addicted to drugs. Show me proof, too. Show me that they meant "addiction" and not "use of illegal drugs". Are you aware that 4 in 10 users of oxycontin will become addicted? Did you know that Limbaugh's 'witch hunt' is just that.... did you know a judge in the SAME COUNTY was bypassed for the same crime? Did you know that this is the THIRD charge to be "leaked" by the prosecutor's office after the other two were proven false?
2) I do believe the US should remove itself from the UN, however I also believe that we should enforce the resolutions set forth by that organization. Why? Because right now, the U.S. is part of that organization, and the U.S. agreed with and sometimes sponsored those resolutions. Therefore, the U.S. is agreeing to enforce the policies itself agreed with over the last 10 years. Oh yeah, that's hypocritical.
3) This is another common misconception of "the left". The republicans do not want to promote big business as they are more interested in promoting free enterprise. The goal of a company is to make money and when they make money, they become larger. Should companies decide "hey, we're big enough, let's stop expanding". No. Are you going to say, "hey, I make enough money, maybe I should stop looking for promotions?" No. Likewise, Republicans do not have an issue with marijuana as a "group". Sure, some individuals don't like it, but some others don't care, and in fact, want to remove restrictions on illegal drugs altogether.
4) Actually, NAFTA which Clinton signed, sent a lot of jobs to foreign countries. It has also brought a lot of jobs to the U.S. Bush has nothing to do with sending jobs overseas. Businesses do, however... but in your little world, you believe they are one of the same.
5) Another misconception. Republicans (not all, but some) believe that a fetus is a human being. Some others, like some Demo'rats do not. I look at it this way: in order to be human you need to have 46 chromosomes, this is unique to the animal kingdom). A fetus has 46 chromosomes, so scientifically, this makes it human. Do you support killing humans? Oh, and a hypocracy of "the left" is that they are OK with killing unborn babies, but don't kill those convicted murderers, because they have rights.
6) Yet ANOTHER misconception of "the left". Republicans do not "hate" homosexuals or Hillary Clinton. They also do not say that jesus says this, and your insinuation is rediculous. However, the belief comes from the Bible. I will, however, mention that homosexuality is, by the defintion of "evolution", a way for mother nature to cleanse the gene pool. So hey, be gay as much as you want.
7) Bush has actually proposed to raise pay for both veterans and troops. However, I know what you are referring to. A law which covered troops through Sept. 2003 was not renewed in time to continue them beyond that point (mostly due to Demo'rat stalling in the House).
8) Everyone makes mistakes. Bill Clinton did it too, but that's OK. That's "youthful discretion" as Mr. Clinton claimed.
9) Yet another misconception. Republicans believe in teaching abstinance in schools to prevent children from having sex and not only providing condoms.
10) We did not "belittle" our allies, we had disagreements with them. We've had disagreements with them before, and that's just part of the game. However, Mr. Chirac did undermine his alliance with the US when he called Bush in late 2002 and said he's support him in his war in Iraq and provide troops as well, and at the same time conspiring with other nations to oppose him.
11) I don't know where you get this at all... it's just rediculous. HMOs have an interest in making money, but they are insurance companies, and they make their money by collecting fees and hoping people won
#1: This link quotes two men as stating they saw Bush when he was based in Alabama, the time that the Demo'rats (and you) claim he was AWOL. One mentions that he was his drill partner, and that Bush was present at all drills.
#2: While I cannot find proof that Bush has not attended any funerals of fallen soldiers (although there is plenty of rhetoric about him not attending), I did find this link which mentions several war time presidents, some of which and some of which did not attend troops funerals. Some who did, only attended those of children of family members or of men they personally met. Criticizing Bush for not going to these funerals is silly as he is not the only president to not do this.
#3: However, people are more likely to commit suicide today than ever before, too. Suicide, as any psychologist will tell you, is about depression, not about disagreement with a war. While, yes, there have been soldiers who filed "consciensious objector" status so they do not have to fight (but only 3 that I know of so far). It's possible that troops are depressed in Iraq due to a number of factors (heck, they are being shot at), but this does not mean they do not agree with the efforts.
#4: You're taking what I said out of context, which is what you Demo'rats like to do. The full statement was, "... the troops love hearing how Bill Clinton and Dick Clarke failed to deal with Iraq in 1997 as Clinton had planned." That statement is factually accurate. Clinton HAD planned to deal with Iraq in 1997 and FAILED to do so. This means, he did NOT do it, therefore he failed. I did not say that the situation in Iraq was Clinton's fault, it was Saddam's fault and the inability of the U.N. to uphold their own laws.
#5: However, in previous testimony, recordinds, and emails Clarke says the COMPLETE OPPOSITE. The GOP believes he lied under oath", and Clark praises Bush at a seperate point, and in his resignation letter, also praises Bush on how he handled 9/11. So what is it? Is he lying now... or was he lying then? Either way, he cannot be trusted... yet you believe him. Curious...
#6: Which you conveniently left out, this page says that Clarke is not a registered Democrat, but wants to be. And you can be registered "independant" as I am, so just because you're not registered demo'rat doesn't mean you need to be registered republican. So, of course, if he wants to be a registered Demo'rat, that re-enforces my assertion that he is doing this for political purposes.
#7: I don't have to respond to this one since You have stopped arguing this point.
There's your proof... have a good day!
#1: Bush was not AWOL. He was given "leave" in order to campaign for his father. He them reported, as required, to Alabama of which there is proof.
#2: What kind of proof is a petition?
#3: Yes, sadly, there have been many suicides by US troops in Iraq. However, this is still only a small number. There have been less than 1000 of 150,000 dead. So even if you assume that all 1000 died by suicide (which is not the case), we're still talking a fraction of 1%. That's a minority , in my version of math anyway.
#4: I didn't say Clinton had faulted at all. What I said was that he did not do anything about Iraq in 1997 and therefore Bush needed to do it in 2003. My real point is that Clinton felt regime change was the proper stance the U.S. should have for Iraq and made this public. However, it was Bush who executed that policy. Clinton did attempt to keep up the sanctions and did a relatively good job, however even he admitted that they thought there were WMD in Iraq following the bombing in 1998, and that they could never be sure because Iraq would not allow inspectors in.
#5: Your statement doesn't make sense. Yes, everyone is failable, even Clarke, and he failed 5 times as counter-terrorism czar under Clinton.
#6: Clarke is not a registered republican, and yes, he has worked for Reagon, Bush Sr and Clinton as well. Clarke voted for Al Gore in 2000 as he stated in on "Meet the Press" this morning.
#7: Halliburton has many resources that extend beyond the middle east. Hallibuton uses a lot of local companies to get it's job done too, however (those ARAB countries). However, saying that Hallibuton was only chosen because the criteria was chosen for them is without evidence.
Now I ask, where is YOUR support?
NEWS FLASH! Gaddafi is no longer a threat! Gaddafi has given up his weapons of mass destruction (yes, he did have them!) He is no longer a threat to the United States or any other nation. Why? Because of Bush's actions in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The Iraq war was not about weapons of mass destruction. It was about a lot of things, and in the real world (not the one fabricated by liberal media and the Demo'rats), the war in Iraq was a continuation of the 1991 conflict of which Saddam surrendered and agreed to certain stipulations. Those stipulations were not met, which led to 17 U.N. resolutions. Resolution 1441 stated that Iraq had not met it's obligations under the previous resolutions. This was the real cause of the second conflict in Iraq. This resolution was agreed to and signed by all members of the UN Security Council.
Iraq had not met the terms of the cease fire and therefore was responsible. This was one point of the war. The second point of the war was his actions towards his own people. He was very cruel , tortured men and raped women.
The other countries you mention have other difficulties, politica, financial, whatever.. they are irrelevant. We cannot treat every nation the same, as we are not treating North Korea the same.
The third reason was the attempt of Saddam to assassinate a former president of the U.S. Yes, it was Bush's father, but he was still a former president. Saddam also had ties with multiple terrorist organizations. While we can not prove, yet, that Saddam had ties with Al Qaeda, there is plenty of interesting evidence. Saddam also supported many other terrorist organizations, of interest is Hamas, as they bombed Isreal. Because of Iraq's relation with these terrorist organizations, it's hard to believe that Saddam excluded Al Qaeda.... it just doesn't make sense.