Now, of the reasons you cited for why Obama is qualified, the first and third are legislative, not executive
He was the executive of the Harvard Law Review, the executive of his state senate office, the executive of his U.S. Senate office, and the executive of the campaign that has gotten more votes and more donations (most of which are small donations) than anyone else in history, with 50 times as many employees as the town of Wasilla and goes through three of Wasilla's annual budgets every month. Where is Palin's legislative, foreign policy and national security experience?
The Bush Doctrine has 4 definitions, Palin was right to ask which one.
Uh, no. Split hairs all you want, but Bush Doctrine means the right to wage preemptive wars, and it was completely obvious that Palin had as much idea of what it was as she did of Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac.
If by "has proven himself right on the Iraq war" you mean that he was right about the troop surge, then you are incorrect.
Completely false, Mr. Pot. The reduction in violence came primarily from the Sunni Awakening and making deals with Shiite militias like the Mahdi Army. And the whole purpose of the surge was to provide stability so there could be political reconciliation - which hasn't happened. The splurge did, however, get more of our troops killed while stretching our personal and deployments to the breaking point.
I have to tell you, with all the problems I have with Bush, I just can't see that Gore or Kerry would have done any better.
Ah, you must be one of those Miramax execs that still thinks passing up on Lord of the Rings was a smart move, after Peter Jackson brought Time Warner eleven Oscars and a few billion dollars.
Sure: They could have instituted more socialism and made hard work less profitable even more so than Bush has done.
Reality rears it's well known liberal bias once again. Under Democratic presidents, the rich do about as well as under Republicans, even if they have higher taxes. This is because Democrats grow the entire economy, as opposed to shunting it's benefits to the top few percent. The middle class, however, does twice as well under Democrats as Republicans, and the poor are 6 times as better off. You have more rights, more freedom, more security, and yes more money because of taxes and government spending. That's because those programs ensure a larger and more affluent middle class, which means more customers with more money for whatever business you are in, or are invested in.
Well, okay, I guess. If you think Jimmy Carter did better than Ronald Reagan, or that Clinton did better than Bush I, then we have a disagreement that can't be resolved here.
You have the right to your own opinion, but you don't have the right to your own set of facts. The negatives during Carter's administration - high inflation, high oil prices, and the Iranian hostage crisis, were either brought on by previous Republican presidents (Nixon's price controls, Eisenhower's Operation Ajax) or foreign oil sheiks. Reagan, however, not only invented the trillion dollar national debt, he left the country over $3 trillion in the red. The Iran-Contra scandal. Deregulation for the sake of deregulation that reaped what it sowed in the 87 stock market crash, the S&L crash, and the current credit swap crash. He slashed taxes on the rich and raised payroll taxes for the middle class. If the minimum wage had risen at the same rate as CEO compensation, it would be over $50 an hour now.
The fact is, Reagan was a horrible president and we would be far, far better off if Carter had gotten a second term instead. Deal with it.
I'd still call it tax(or theft) because I'm never going to see any SS or Medicare money.
No, you call it theft because you are a selfish, self-centered, and shortsighted elitist.
As one intelligent person to another, please read something interesting.
Summary: crap, drivel, nonsense.
Taxes, social programs and regulations aren't about giving out handouts, it's about the middle class, stupid. It's to bring those below it, up to it. It's so that if people fall out, they can get back in. It's about providing economic and social stability.
And the reason you should care about his, even if you continue to be a selfish, self-centered, shortsighted elitist is because it's in your own self-interest. A larger, more affluent middle class means more customers for whatever line of business you are in, or are invested in. This is why the rich do as well under Democratic governments as Republican governments, because Democrats grow the entire economy, as opposed to funneling all the benefits to the top like the Republicans do. But in addition to the rich doing well, the middle class does twice as well under Democrats and the lot of the poor improves six times as much as under Republicans.
Resorting to calling me a crackhead pretty much starts showing your level of maturity right there.
It's not an ad hominem when it's true.
As per a principal's job, if students simply had to step a foot off school property to do whatever they want, how well would a principal be able to do his job (keep school authority, and educate students)?
Because it's not his job, you incompetent boob. Jurisdiction. Google it.
There's been a HUGE movement among the Democratic circle to take a page from the Rove playbook this year
Huge push from whom? There's a big difference between dishonest, Rove style campaigning, and a fact-based aggressive campaign. I don't see any Democrats wanting to do the former.
A Rovian campaign from Democrats would do things like attack McCain for crashing five planes in Vietnam, or going after his wife for drug abuse. Aggressive, fact based campaigning would highlight McCain's warmongering, flip flops and lobbyist ties. That Democrats haven't turned this clip or this one into an ad with McCain's statements on Iraq, just goes to show how incompetent the Democrats continue to be at politics.
Or you could just say "socialized medicine provides better care for less money", but then you couldn't brag about your soup and knowledge of wines. I bet you even look French, too.
Given the fact that today's Democrats are to the right of Richard Nixon, you should gather up the people you know and take them to see a nice doctor in North Korea. Once he's done extracting their heads from their asses, they can take a look around and see what "far left" actually looks like.
Nah, the fact that conservatism is the rationalization of self-centered greed has a lot more to do with it. Republicans don't want health care, a social safety net or regulation if it might actually cost them some money - until they lose their job and the bank forecloses on their house. At which point they love their unemployment benefits and Medicare, but only because they are still self-centered and these programs are now in their self-interest.
For the ultimate example of this, just look at Wall Street fat cats like Paulson - can't get enough de-regulation and income tax breaks, yet when the going gets tough they demand to be bailed out by Joe Sixpack Taxpayer.
Apple only sells games that work on Apple hardware, and that's a small percentage of the market. So they accept returns, good on Apple. But that says nothing about GameStop, EB Games, Best Buy, Wal-Mart, etc etc.
But if the job was output based, would you really care? Say you pay coders $X per year to put out $X lines of good code, would you care if one guy can do it in 20 hours a week if it gets the same results as someone who comes in from 8 to 5 M-F?
Praising mediocrity and condemning truly exceptional people in the process is exactly how this country has gotten as fucked up as it is.
No, having our entire economic and regulatory system set up so the top 1% can make more money than Midas at the expense of the other 99% of the country is why are are screwed right now.
False, though you are not alone in thinking that throwing more money at the problem will make things better.
False. On what planet do you live on that you can expect well educated, motivated individuals to deliver results for $23,000 a year?
In the US, we pay a LOT more for teachers than other countries
And we could find a nice Vietnamese guy to do your job for a fraction of your current salary. I'm sure you've notified management of your desire to be paid equally.
A bigger reason is the teachers' unions.
False. Nothing issue is more political than one's children. Wingnuts complain about programs like this that push up failing students, but that's nothing compared to what would happen if teacher's didn't have the protection of unions. No child of a well connected busybody would ever fail a class, because the teacher would be afraid of getting fired. People like George W. Bush would have sailed through school with straight A's.
I don't want to pay teachers more because they haven't shown their worth to me.
You're putting the cart before the horse, my friend. The point of paying teachers more is so that you can expect more from them, as people aren't exactly breaking down the doors for high stress, demanding jobs that start out at $23,000.
Only in your crackhead imagination, as will be proved when the crackhead judge's ruling is smacked down on appeal. A principles job is to keep authority in a school, not outside it.
So did the media decide in 2000/2004 that it was Gore and Kerry's turn to lose as well?
As should have been obvious for anyone paying attention. The media spent the election smearing Gore as a serial liar and exaggerator, while giving Bush a free pass for taking credit for health care legislation in Texas that he actually vetoed as governor. In 2004, they uncritically passed on smears from anonymous Bush Administration officials that Kerry "looked french", and gave the Swift Boat liars free air time.
Forget all that. Here's a nice, tall glass of STFU to hand to anyone who still bleats about "the liberal media": the Chandra Levy case. There was a months long obsession with her disappearance and with Rep. Gary Condit (a Democrat). Meanwhile, at about the same time, Rep. Joe Scarborough (Republican) had an intern turn up dead in his office from blunt force trauma to the head. In his office. IN HIS FRIKKIN OFFICE. And not a word from the media.
When students call in a bomb scare, even though they're not at the school, does that mean that a suspension isn't warranted (as well as possible police/legal issues)?
The student didn't call in a bomb threat, she make a MySpace page. Get a damned sense of proportion. And if she had the first thing that would have happened is an arrest from the police, not a suspension.
It affects the school. The target is part of the structure of the school.
Even Gumby would dislocate his arm trying to reach that far. The principle had options here. He could have called the parents. He could have filed a lawsuit. Abusing his authority in the school to take retribution for comments made off school grounds is not one of those options.
Slashdot Mirror
Now, of the reasons you cited for why Obama is qualified, the first and third are legislative, not executive
He was the executive of the Harvard Law Review, the executive of his state senate office, the executive of his U.S. Senate office, and the executive of the campaign that has gotten more votes and more donations (most of which are small donations) than anyone else in history, with 50 times as many employees as the town of Wasilla and goes through three of Wasilla's annual budgets every month. Where is Palin's legislative, foreign policy and national security experience?
The Bush Doctrine has 4 definitions, Palin was right to ask which one.
Uh, no. Split hairs all you want, but Bush Doctrine means the right to wage preemptive wars, and it was completely obvious that Palin had as much idea of what it was as she did of Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac.
If by "has proven himself right on the Iraq war" you mean that he was right about the troop surge, then you are incorrect.
Completely false, Mr. Pot. The reduction in violence came primarily from the Sunni Awakening and making deals with Shiite militias like the Mahdi Army. And the whole purpose of the surge was to provide stability so there could be political reconciliation - which hasn't happened. The splurge did, however, get more of our troops killed while stretching our personal and deployments to the breaking point.
Dude, you're wasting your time. Sumdumass has the most appropriate screen name in the history of the internets.
Then I'd say you're a gigantic liar.
I have to tell you, with all the problems I have with Bush, I just can't see that Gore or Kerry would have done any better.
Ah, you must be one of those Miramax execs that still thinks passing up on Lord of the Rings was a smart move, after Peter Jackson brought Time Warner eleven Oscars and a few billion dollars.
Sure: They could have instituted more socialism and made hard work less profitable even more so than Bush has done.
Reality rears it's well known liberal bias once again. Under Democratic presidents, the rich do about as well as under Republicans, even if they have higher taxes. This is because Democrats grow the entire economy, as opposed to shunting it's benefits to the top few percent. The middle class, however, does twice as well under Democrats as Republicans, and the poor are 6 times as better off. You have more rights, more freedom, more security, and yes more money because of taxes and government spending. That's because those programs ensure a larger and more affluent middle class, which means more customers with more money for whatever business you are in, or are invested in.
Well, okay, I guess. If you think Jimmy Carter did better than Ronald Reagan, or that Clinton did better than Bush I, then we have a disagreement that can't be resolved here.
You have the right to your own opinion, but you don't have the right to your own set of facts. The negatives during Carter's administration - high inflation, high oil prices, and the Iranian hostage crisis, were either brought on by previous Republican presidents (Nixon's price controls, Eisenhower's Operation Ajax) or foreign oil sheiks. Reagan, however, not only invented the trillion dollar national debt, he left the country over $3 trillion in the red. The Iran-Contra scandal. Deregulation for the sake of deregulation that reaped what it sowed in the 87 stock market crash, the S&L crash, and the current credit swap crash. He slashed taxes on the rich and raised payroll taxes for the middle class. If the minimum wage had risen at the same rate as CEO compensation, it would be over $50 an hour now.
The fact is, Reagan was a horrible president and we would be far, far better off if Carter had gotten a second term instead. Deal with it.
Ah, so you're an egalitarian and spout simplistic garbage all around. At least you believe in equality.
A quick google search yields stuff like this
Not too hard when you use a tri-state area as a local area.
I'd still call it tax(or theft) because I'm never going to see any SS or Medicare money.
No, you call it theft because you are a selfish, self-centered, and shortsighted elitist.
As one intelligent person to another, please read something interesting.
Summary: crap, drivel, nonsense.
Taxes, social programs and regulations aren't about giving out handouts, it's about the middle class, stupid. It's to bring those below it, up to it. It's so that if people fall out, they can get back in. It's about providing economic and social stability.
And the reason you should care about his, even if you continue to be a selfish, self-centered, shortsighted elitist is because it's in your own self-interest. A larger, more affluent middle class means more customers for whatever line of business you are in, or are invested in. This is why the rich do as well under Democratic governments as Republican governments, because Democrats grow the entire economy, as opposed to funneling all the benefits to the top like the Republicans do. But in addition to the rich doing well, the middle class does twice as well under Democrats and the lot of the poor improves six times as much as under Republicans.
Resorting to calling me a crackhead pretty much starts showing your level of maturity right there.
It's not an ad hominem when it's true.
As per a principal's job, if students simply had to step a foot off school property to do whatever they want, how well would a principal be able to do his job (keep school authority, and educate students)?
Because it's not his job, you incompetent boob. Jurisdiction. Google it.
There's been a HUGE movement among the Democratic circle to take a page from the Rove playbook this year
Huge push from whom? There's a big difference between dishonest, Rove style campaigning, and a fact-based aggressive campaign. I don't see any Democrats wanting to do the former.
A Rovian campaign from Democrats would do things like attack McCain for crashing five planes in Vietnam, or going after his wife for drug abuse. Aggressive, fact based campaigning would highlight McCain's warmongering, flip flops and lobbyist ties. That Democrats haven't turned this clip or this one into an ad with McCain's statements on Iraq, just goes to show how incompetent the Democrats continue to be at politics.
Or you could just say "socialized medicine provides better care for less money", but then you couldn't brag about your soup and knowledge of wines. I bet you even look French, too.
Given the fact that today's Democrats are to the right of Richard Nixon, you should gather up the people you know and take them to see a nice doctor in North Korea. Once he's done extracting their heads from their asses, they can take a look around and see what "far left" actually looks like.
Nah, the fact that conservatism is the rationalization of self-centered greed has a lot more to do with it. Republicans don't want health care, a social safety net or regulation if it might actually cost them some money - until they lose their job and the bank forecloses on their house. At which point they love their unemployment benefits and Medicare, but only because they are still self-centered and these programs are now in their self-interest.
For the ultimate example of this, just look at Wall Street fat cats like Paulson - can't get enough de-regulation and income tax breaks, yet when the going gets tough they demand to be bailed out by Joe Sixpack Taxpayer.
Apple only sells games that work on Apple hardware, and that's a small percentage of the market. So they accept returns, good on Apple. But that says nothing about GameStop, EB Games, Best Buy, Wal-Mart, etc etc.
The case law that EULA's are worthless has been around for years now
Fixed that for you. You can't try to enforce a contract after money has changed hands on a non-returnable product.
But if the job was output based, would you really care? Say you pay coders $X per year to put out $X lines of good code, would you care if one guy can do it in 20 hours a week if it gets the same results as someone who comes in from 8 to 5 M-F?
Praising mediocrity and condemning truly exceptional people in the process is exactly how this country has gotten as fucked up as it is.
No, having our entire economic and regulatory system set up so the top 1% can make more money than Midas at the expense of the other 99% of the country is why are are screwed right now.
False, though you are not alone in thinking that throwing more money at the problem will make things better.
False. On what planet do you live on that you can expect well educated, motivated individuals to deliver results for $23,000 a year?
In the US, we pay a LOT more for teachers than other countries
And we could find a nice Vietnamese guy to do your job for a fraction of your current salary. I'm sure you've notified management of your desire to be paid equally.
A bigger reason is the teachers' unions.
False. Nothing issue is more political than one's children. Wingnuts complain about programs like this that push up failing students, but that's nothing compared to what would happen if teacher's didn't have the protection of unions. No child of a well connected busybody would ever fail a class, because the teacher would be afraid of getting fired. People like George W. Bush would have sailed through school with straight A's.
IAA Former Teacher
Thank god for that.
How's that race to the bottom working out for you?
I don't want to pay teachers more because they haven't shown their worth to me.
You're putting the cart before the horse, my friend. The point of paying teachers more is so that you can expect more from them, as people aren't exactly breaking down the doors for high stress, demanding jobs that start out at $23,000.
Only in your crackhead imagination, as will be proved when the crackhead judge's ruling is smacked down on appeal. A principles job is to keep authority in a school, not outside it.
So did the media decide in 2000/2004 that it was Gore and Kerry's turn to lose as well?
As should have been obvious for anyone paying attention. The media spent the election smearing Gore as a serial liar and exaggerator, while giving Bush a free pass for taking credit for health care legislation in Texas that he actually vetoed as governor. In 2004, they uncritically passed on smears from anonymous Bush Administration officials that Kerry "looked french", and gave the Swift Boat liars free air time.
Forget all that. Here's a nice, tall glass of STFU to hand to anyone who still bleats about "the liberal media": the Chandra Levy case. There was a months long obsession with her disappearance and with Rep. Gary Condit (a Democrat). Meanwhile, at about the same time, Rep. Joe Scarborough (Republican) had an intern turn up dead in his office from blunt force trauma to the head. In his office. IN HIS FRIKKIN OFFICE. And not a word from the media.
You're asking me to get a sense of proportion, but then suggest that filing a lawsuit is a better solution that a suspension?
Because one is legal, the other is a gross abuse of authority. Duh.
You do that. Of course, that will work much better in a court of law than when your face is getting pounded.
When students call in a bomb scare, even though they're not at the school, does that mean that a suspension isn't warranted (as well as possible police/legal issues)?
The student didn't call in a bomb threat, she make a MySpace page. Get a damned sense of proportion. And if she had the first thing that would have happened is an arrest from the police, not a suspension.
It affects the school. The target is part of the structure of the school.
Even Gumby would dislocate his arm trying to reach that far. The principle had options here. He could have called the parents. He could have filed a lawsuit. Abusing his authority in the school to take retribution for comments made off school grounds is not one of those options.